CenterBHSFan;593650 wrote:Justuncredible

crickets.....

Changed my mind about Thune, guy is an idiot on New START.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254858/don-t-force-new-start-john-thune
1. Does not missile defense as we will continue our planned missile defense systems under the treaty. Any future missile defenses plans in the pipeline won;t be past the drawing board until after the treaty expires.
2. The Russians have said they will cooperate with NATO and the US on missile defense as long as there is a treaty. No treaty, no cooperation or discussions on missile defense.
3. There is still an offensive and defensive relationship between the US and Russia. Always was and as long as both sides have nukes always will be. It is the very nature of the world we live in. Can't change it.
4. Russia does not hold 10-1 advantage over tactical nukes.
5. Verification is actually stronger, we can verify actual warheads for the first time.
6. Reagan didn't budge on missile defense in 86, but he did budge in 88 when discussing the START Treaty.

Thune, just like Romney with his awful op-eds, lost my support.
Even HW Bush now supports New Start.

I just hope that neither Palin nor Huckabee ends up on the ticket. Those two are dealbreakers for me (and I assume many moderate Rs).

^+1

I was leaning toward McCain until they put that idiot on the ticket.

ptown_trojans_1;593767 wrote:crickets.....

As there should be. He should be in Mexico right about now, or at least getting bent at customs.

fan_from_texas;593779 wrote:I just hope that neither Palin nor Huckabee ends up on the ticket. Those two are dealbreakers for me (and I assume many moderate Rs).

I'm pretty middle of the road, and I have no problem whatsoever with Palin. Huckabee is way more of a social conservative than she is.

fish82;593916 wrote:I'm pretty middle of the road, and I have no problem whatsoever with Palin. Huckabee is way more of a social conservative than she is.

My concern with Palin is more that she doesn't strike me as particularly bright. My general way to approach elections is to do a first cut based on a combination of intellectual ability/achievement and moral standing, then do a second cut based on the issues. Palin fails the first cut--while having a sterling educational or work experience resume is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate aptitude, failure to meet some general baseline along those lines, in my opinion, invalidates someone from holding the most powerful position in the world. Palin doesn't make that cut, despite her other good qualities. What bothers me is that she embraces the fact that she isn't very bright and touts it as a strong positive (as in, we don't need those smart people with all them there da-grees n all).

This isn't an attack on her personally, because frankly I like her and think she's unfairly attacked by the media. But at the end of the day, people holding powerful positions need to be vetted by many years of education and work experience. FWIW, this is the same reason I opposed Harriet Miers--she just wasn't smart enough or qualified enough to have a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

My dream team ticket would be

For Prez.....Ronald Reagan


For Vice Prez.... Jesus H Christ

Jesus at #2 only because of a weak foreign policy agenda....

Jesus at #2 only because of a weak foreign policy agenda....

lol, nice

Thread Bomber;593982 wrote:My dream team ticket would be


Jesus at #2 only because of a weak foreign policy agenda....

lol, awesome.

fan_from_texas;593962 wrote:My concern with Palin is more that she doesn't strike me as particularly bright. My general way to approach elections is to do a first cut based on a combination of intellectual ability/achievement and moral standing, then do a second cut based on the issues. Palin fails the first cut--while having a sterling educational or work experience resume is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate aptitude, failure to meet some general baseline along those lines, in my opinion, invalidates someone from holding the most powerful position in the world. Palin doesn't make that cut, despite her other good qualities. What bothers me is that she embraces the fact that she isn't very bright and touts it as a strong positive (as in, we don't need those smart people with all them there da-grees n all).

This isn't an attack on her personally, because frankly I like her and think she's unfairly attacked by the media. But at the end of the day, people holding powerful positions need to be vetted by many years of education and work experience. FWIW, this is the same reason I opposed Harriet Miers--she just wasn't smart enough or qualified enough to have a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

I certainly see where she gives off that vibe. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty however, that while she plays the role of the "anti-intellectual" (since that's what plays in Peoria these days) she's far from unintelligent. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Yeah, Palin is definitely coming around in the political world. She will never be elected though because of the past interviews and people thinking she is too religious. I never thought she was dumb. I get tired of people saying it. Just because she doesn't like Obama doesn't mean she is dumb.

fish82;594253 wrote:I certainly see where she gives off that vibe. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty however, that while she plays the role of the "anti-intellectual" (since that's what plays in Peoria these days) she's far from unintelligent. Quite the contrary, in fact.

bigdaddy2003;594290 wrote:I never thought she was dumb. I get tired of people saying it. Just because she doesn't like Obama doesn't mean she is dumb.

I'm not saying she's dumb. What I'm saying is this: the President is the most powerful position in the world. To be President, I think a person should be really smart, among other things. Smart people have all different types of resumes, primarily because they can be dealt good or bad hands in life. Really smart people tend to rise to the top, no matter their initial starting point. Because I want a really smart President, I insist that s/he have stellar credentials. I realize that the credentials are not by themselves sufficient to make someone a good President, and I don't think there is value in the credentials as credentials--it's more of a signaling that the person is, indeed, actually very smart.

From wikipedia:

After graduating from high school, Palin enrolled at the University of Hawaii in Hilo. Shortly after arriving in Hawaii, Palin switched to Hawaii Pacific University for a semester in the fall of 1982 and then North Idaho College in the spring and fall of 1983. In June 2008, the Alumni Association of North Idaho College gave her its Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award. She attended the University of Idaho in the fall of 1984 and spring of 1985, and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in the fall of 1985. Palin returned to the University of Idaho in the spring of 1986, receiving her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism in 1987.

Call me an elitist, but I don't think that's the resume of someone qualified to lead the free world.

I'd be willing to give her a pass if she, you know, sounded smart in interviews or handled herself well. But I don't think that's the case--from what I've seen, she repeats talking points/mantras and doesn't do well off-script. It almost feels like she could've been much better without handlers trying to "train her" and dictate what she should do, and it's more her reaction against that that bothers me.

But I digress. Basically, she's "real life smart" but not "leader of the free world smart." And I'm not willing to vote for someone like that, period.

Give me Romney. Give me Jindal. Give me Newt. Give me Condi. Give me someone who is legitimately smart and at the top of their game. Don't make us settle for some weak-sauce anti-intellectual who just repeats talking points. Doing that will only drive moderates to the left.

fan_from_texas;594305 wrote:I'm not saying she's dumb. What I'm saying is this: the President is the most powerful position in the world. To be President, I think a person should be really smart, among other things. Smart people have all different types of resumes, primarily because they can be dealt good or bad hands in life. Really smart people tend to rise to the top, no matter their initial starting point (see, e.g., Condi). Because I want a really smart President, I insist that s/he have stellar credentials. I realize that the credentials are not by themselves sufficient to make someone a good President, and I don't think there is value in the credentials as credentials--it's more of a signaling that the person is, indeed, actually very smart.

From wikipedia:


Call me an elitist, but I don't think that's the resume of someone qualified to lead the free world.

I'd be willing to give her a pass if she, you know, sounded smart in interviews or handled herself well. But I don't think that's the case--from what I've seen, she repeats talking points/mantras and doesn't do well off-script. It almost feels like she could've been much better without handlers trying to "train her" and dictate what she should do, and it's more her reaction against that that bothers me.

But I digress. Basically, she's "real life smart" but not "leader of the free world smart." And I'm not willing to vote for someone like that, period.

Give me Romney. Give me Jindal. Give me Newt. Give me Condi. Give me someone who is legitimately smart and at the top of their game. Don't make us settle for some weak-sauce anti-intellectual who just repeats talking points. Doing that will only drive moderates to the left.

Yeah, I agree. I've made the same argument on here before.

FFT made some good points about the president needing to be very smart. We have a guy in there now who people say is very smart, but in his case it seems to be more in the scholarly and to a point, Chicago politics street smart.

One major thing that seems to be missing with BHO is that he doesn't have the "CEO smarts" in his resume. For me, if you want to be president, your stock rises and my vote is more likely if you could also be a CEO of a major corporation or the governor of a state.

That said, I'm not convinced that the former governor of Alaska is necessarily the best choice to be president of the USA.

Not that I'm sticking up for Palin at all, but what would be the best choice for president? Bush was the former governor of Texas, whose economy on its own is comparable to India or Canada and people didn't think he was qualified to be the POTUS. I don't see how a CEO of any large corporation would have any more useful experience than a governor of a state the size of Alaska, etc.

believer;592155 wrote:Palin - Too caustic and unelectable. Will NOT be the Repub nominee.
Romney - Yesterday's news.
Huckabee - Not enough "sex appeal".
Gingrich - Intelligent but past his prime.
Petraeus - Respected but inexperienced politically. Too much "general" to be electable at a time when Americans are growing tired of war.
Giuliani - Hangs his hat too much on his 9/11 leadership.
Jindal - Intriguing possibility.
Jeb Bush - Bush Fatigue will not allow it to happen.
Crist - Might appeal to the independents and moderate Dems/Repubs.
Graham - Has pissed off conservatives too often but is a possibility.
Christie - A strong possibility.
Bolton - Tied too closely to "W"
Cain - The Republican anti-Obama
Thune - My kind of Republican. He won't get the nomination but if I was the one making the call.....
Daniels - Another strong possibility

My ideal ticket:

Christie Prez
Thune Veep

I definitely like Christie and would like to see him run for President one day. The guy is not afraid to do the unpopular thing as long as it fiscally benefits his state.

What happened to gibby? Another hiatus?

I got it - Demint: Pres
Gingrich: VP
Patraeus: Sec State
Palin: Dept of Energy.

We'd get somewhere with that ticket.

etak;595025 wrote:I got it - Demint: Pres
Gingrich: VP
Patraeus: Sec State
Palin: Dept of Energy.

We'd get somewhere with that ticket.

Worst. ticket. ever.

Demint is a fool, a clown and has no clue about anything related to foreign policy. Hell, I'd take Palin over his ass, well....maybe not, but still.

ptown_trojans_1;595053 wrote:Worst. ticket. ever.

Demint is a fool, a clown and has no clue about anything related to foreign policy. Hell, I'd take Palin over his ass, well....maybe not, but still.

His VP and Sec/State do. So I haven't seen your picks.........

Right here, page 1 chief.

ptown_trojans_1;592566 wrote:Right now, I'm not sure anyone has the ideas or policies that would defeat the President.
If I had to chose it would probably be Portman, Christie or Thune. All are silent on all issues except spending and taxes.

I'll add three I wish would run.
1. Lugar, but too old as Boatshoes said.
2. Chuck Hagel-foreign policy guy and gets things done. But, not in spotlight.
3. Colin Powell-But ,would never do it and has lost a of R support with his support of Obama.

etak;595093 wrote:His VP and Sec/State do. So I haven't seen your picks.........

Besides Petraeus at State makes no sense. He would be SECDEF probably if he even wanted the position, which I doubt.
Gingrich, ehhh his views on Iran and North Korea are way too hawkish.

Palin as SEC. Energy is scary as she would be in charge of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. (shudder)

Newt wouldn't be the veep. He is more likely pres material.

ptown_trojans_1;595095 wrote:Right here, page 1 chief.




Besides Petraeus at State makes no sense. He would be SECDEF probably if he even wanted the position, which I doubt.
Gingrich, ehhh his views on Iran and North Korea are way too hawkish.

Palin as SEC. Energy is scary as she would be in charge of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. (shudder)

lol - funny - but she knows energy, - I'll take my chances there. Colin Powell???? - the all-time flip-flopper - lost ALL my respect...no way, no way.

bigdaddy2003;595104 wrote:Newt wouldn't be the veep. He is more likely pres material.

True - but has heavy baggage to get past in order to be pres.