OT - Who will Romney Pick as VP Candidate?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by briansd1 on July 2, 2012 - 8:22pm

It's getting close to the Republican convention.
http://www.gopconvention2012.com/

I'm thinking that Romney will pick a conservative like Ryan to prove his conservatism and energize the base.

A Rubio pick would win over some Latino vote but the Latino vote is so much on the side of Obama that Romney has no chance this election.

Submitted by flu on July 2, 2012 - 8:27pm.

Well it's obvious.

First choice... Me

Second choice... AN

Third choice. Markmax33

Submitted by ocrenter on July 3, 2012 - 12:26am.

flu wrote:
Well it's obvious.

First choice... Me

Second choice... AN

Third choice. Markmax33

I don't know flu. Markmax33 seem to be the obvious choice to keep the patriots in line.

Submitted by AN on July 3, 2012 - 12:40am.

flu wrote:
Well it's obvious.

First choice... Me

Second choice... AN

Third choice. Markmax33


I have enough gray hair as is. My remaining black hairs can't deal with the stress of political office. What if the reporters ask me what magazine I read.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 19, 2012 - 11:19am.

It's getting pretty close to the convention.

Condi Rice as VP? I doubt that would happen. Romney would lose any lukewarm support that he has with the Tea Party and White working-class Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 19, 2012 - 12:28pm.

Romney should really shake things up and nominate Bill Clinton. It would be completely unexpected, and it would change the voting calculus overnight.

You know Bubba would go for it: He just wants to be back in the public eye and relevant again, and Romney could claim he's totally committed to "bi-partisan" and "post-partisan" solutions.

I probably picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue...

Submitted by poorgradstudent on July 19, 2012 - 1:45pm.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are reported to be the short list. My money is on Portman. Ohio is must win for Romney, and his team is not going to risk another Palin. Portman is a nice safe choice from an important swing state.

Submitted by Hatfield on July 19, 2012 - 5:45pm.

I don't know if he can win without energizing the evangelical vote somehow. They hate Obama but I don't think they love Romney. To win he probably needs some evangelical street cred on his ticket. Somebody like a Palin but obviously not Palin. And it probably needs to be a Southerner. Huckabee maybe?

I'm not a fan of the modern GOP or of Romney. But his candidacy is like a train wreck that I can't not watch unfold.

Submitted by Hobie on July 19, 2012 - 5:52pm.

Allan: Absolutely perfect!!!! Now that would be a fun campaign.

Submitted by AN on July 19, 2012 - 5:52pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Romney should really shake things up and nominate Bill Clinton. It would be completely unexpected, and it would change the voting calculus overnight.

You know Bubba would go for it: He just wants to be back in the public eye and relevant again, and Romney could claim he's totally committed to "bi-partisan" and "post-partisan" solutions.

I probably picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue...


I totally agree. That would definitely shake things up. I would totally be voting for him and try to get everybody I know to vote for him if he does that.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 19, 2012 - 6:23pm.

Hobie wrote:
Allan: Absolutely perfect!!!! Now that would be a fun campaign.

Can you imagine it?!? That would be an awesome campaign! Plus, the GOP would totally short-circuit Hillary's planned 2016 run.

Clinton would humanize Romney (and probably turn him on to hookers, blow and booze) and they could develop a total "Odd Couple" kinda vibe.

Clinton as Veep would probably backfire, because I can't imagine Bubba would be all too happy relegated to second fiddle. He's already tried to screw Obama over a couple of times and they're (supposedly) on the same damn side.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 19, 2012 - 6:24pm.

AN wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Romney should really shake things up and nominate Bill Clinton. It would be completely unexpected, and it would change the voting calculus overnight.

You know Bubba would go for it: He just wants to be back in the public eye and relevant again, and Romney could claim he's totally committed to "bi-partisan" and "post-partisan" solutions.

I probably picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue...


I totally agree. That would definitely shake things up. I would totally be voting for him and try to get everybody I know to vote for him if he does that.

AN: We could set up a local SD chapter for that purpose. We'd need a catchy name and slogan, though. "Tricky Mittens and Slick Willie" US Tour, 2012.

"Hide your income and your women!"

Submitted by Hobie on July 19, 2012 - 7:44pm.

It would work Allen. Hillery would continue as Sof State thus out of town and Bill would have lots of inten possibilities. Pit that against Mormon Mitt and lets party.

Who cares about politics then!!!! Love it...

'in the box thinking' :)

Bill would be, 'been there done that' attitude and would be in for the fun. Media would not know what to do with it.

Thanks for the laughs. ..

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 19, 2012 - 9:56pm.

Hobie wrote:
It would work Allen. Hillery would continue as Sof State thus out of town and Bill would have lots of inten possibilities. Pit that against Mormon Mitt and lets party.

Who cares about politics then!!!! Love it...

'in the box thinking' :)

Bill would be, 'been there done that' attitude and would be in for the fun. Media would not know what to do with it.

Thanks for the laughs. ..

Hobie: Dude! "In the box thinking"! That one had me howling!

Poor Slick Willie... Boy never got the love he deserved.

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 19, 2012 - 9:58pm.

Make it a war.

Scott Walker, Wisconsin's collective bargaining terminator.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 20, 2012 - 9:38am.

Why do you think Bill Clinton was so loved? People see themselves in him.

As far a Monica being ugly, as I recall you said before, Allan, people should just look at who they sleep next to every night.

And the Mormons are more wicked than we think. What happens behind the scenes....

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 10:25am.

briansd1 wrote:
Why do you think Bill Clinton was so loved? People see themselves in him.

As far a Monica being ugly, as I recall you said before, Allan, people should just look at who they sleep next to every night.

And the Mormons are more wicked than we think. What happens behind the scenes....

Brian: Diatribe much? I do enjoy the Monica Lewinsky line, though. It doesn't change Monica's looks, nor does it change the fact that she wasn't, uh, Bill's wife. I would think your inner Frenchman would demand someone a little more toothsome (and less zaftig) for the most Powerful Man on Earth.

As to the Mormons being more wicked than we think: This is new to me. The Mormons are wicked? How, exactly? Being Catholic, I don't hold Mormons in any special esteem, but wicked? To me, that's like saying Presbyterians are wicked. Or Methodists. The Mormons seem rather benign, no? I guess not.

What sort of perfidy are they up to, in their special Underoos?

Bill Clinton remains an undeniably adept pol, which is like saying Bill Clinton remains an undeniably adept con man. He is a politician, ergo, he is a lying shitbag, like all politicians. I'd love to get plastered with the dude, as I think he'd be a hoot to hang out with, but I'd make sure to check that I had my watch and wallet when we parted company. Careful to whom you give your virginity, Brian, you can't ever get it back.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 20, 2012 - 12:51pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
. . . The Mormons seem rather benign, no? I guess not.

What sort of perfidy are they up to, in their special Underoos? . . .

Alan, you've got even me now frequently perusing my "Merriam Webster" bookmark!

The few "Mormons" I have met throughout life were NOT "benign," by any stretch of the imagination. All were men who had problems with perfidy, among other indiscretions ... in varying degrees. One was so perfidious, he could no longer tell truth from fiction and believed his own tall tales.

No offense to any Piggs out there but this has been my personal experience.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 20, 2012 - 1:56pm.

Allan, to your "they are all the same" theme, they all cheat. I admire the French in that they do it, and they freely admit to it.

I don't see what the big deal is with Bill and Monica. For all we know, Romney is doing the nasty with someone else.

Submitted by Hobie on July 20, 2012 - 2:06pm.

Integrity. Something I expect for the highest office of the land.

It is not just the bj, but the lying afterward and even bigger is explaining to your daughter that indeed it is sex.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 2:13pm.

Hobie wrote:
Integrity. Something I expect for the highest office of the land.

It is not just the bj, but the lying afterward and even bigger is explaining to your daughter that indeed it is sex.

Hobie: Expecting integrity from politicians is like expecting sobriety from a drunk.

In Clinton's case, it was NOT the blowjob that got him into trouble, it was suborning perjury. Most people don't realize that Clinton was disbarred for five years following L'affaire de Lewinsky.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 2:16pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
. . . The Mormons seem rather benign, no? I guess not.

What sort of perfidy are they up to, in their special Underoos? . . .

Alan, you've got even me now frequently perusing my "Merriam Webster" bookmark!

The few "Mormons" I have met throughout life were NOT "benign," by any stretch of the imagination. All were men who had problems with perfidy, among other indiscretions ... in varying degrees. One was so perfidious, he could no longer tell truth from fiction and believed his own tall tales.

No offense to any Piggs out there but this has been my personal experience.

BG: Like I said, I don't know much about Mormonism personally, other than the holy underwear, getting your own planet and the golden plates stuff. Being Catholic, I generally avoid casting aspersions on another's beliefs, since the Mother Church has her own sordid history in this respect.

Perfidy is a good one, isn't it? Nefarious is good, too, but didn't seem right, especially in conjunction with the Underoos.

Submitted by Hobie on July 20, 2012 - 2:30pm.

Disbarred, big whoop. Being an ex-Pres trumps a bar license for lifestyle and earning potential.

Realistically, not much more they could have done to him.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 20, 2012 - 3:11pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
. . . Being Catholic, I generally avoid casting aspersions on another's beliefs, since the Mother Church has her own sordid history in this respect...

Yes, being raised a Catholic myself, I, too, am mindful of the Mother Church's "sordid history..."

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 3:16pm.

Hobie wrote:
Disbarred, big whoop. Being an ex-Pres trumps a bar license for lifestyle and earning potential.

Realistically, not much more they could have done to him.

Hobie: I agree re: the disbarment. I was simply making the point that the blowjob wasn't the big deal: It was the subornation of perjury that was.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 3:19pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
. . . Being Catholic, I generally avoid casting aspersions on another's beliefs, since the Mother Church has her own sordid history in this respect...

Yes, being raised a Catholic myself, I, too, am mindful of the Mother Church's "sordid history..."

BG: I was Jesuit educated (12 years), including my first eight in a seminary school. You want to talk about a fun bunch, the Jesuits are the only priestly order that was actually excommunicated for a time.

Plus, you add in that whole Spanish Inquisition thing (which the Dominicans, in fairness, were also part of), and you have a whole bunch of that sordid history sitting in yer lap.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 20, 2012 - 4:11pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Hobie: I agree re: the disbarment. I was simply making the point that the blowjob wasn't the big deal: It was the subornation of perjury that was.

What about Romney's filing with the SEC that the was CEO of Bain when he wasn't? Or was he?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2012 - 4:47pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Hobie: I agree re: the disbarment. I was simply making the point that the blowjob wasn't the big deal: It was the subornation of perjury that was.

What about Romney's filing with the SEC that the was CEO of Bain when he wasn't? Or was he?

Brian: While I think the whole Bain and tax return(s) thing is overblown and a distraction, I also think Romney needs to get everything out in the open.

I'd imagine that he probably: A) Made good money during the downturn and is apprehensive about showing that (especially given the number of people out of work/struggling), or B) He engaged in a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme, like a Loss Carryover/Carryforward, that the average Joe/Jane won't understand (making him look more elitist and out-of-touch).

On Bain, he was either directing traffic there (post-1999) or he wasn't. Simple as that. If he wasn't, divulge those documents/filings that prove it. If he was... Well, that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

If I'm Obama, I keep hammering away at this (because it keeps attention away from the economy); If I'm Romney, I get this behind me and keep hammering Obama on the economy (which may ultimately prove to be a HUGE factor, if things don't improve soon).

Submitted by briansd1 on July 20, 2012 - 6:55pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
On Bain, he was either directing traffic there (post-1999) or he wasn't. Simple as that. If he wasn't, divulge those documents/filings that prove it. If he was... Well, that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

Romey is not claimig that his SEC filings were false. So if the SEC filings were correct, then he's lying to the public.

Romney is not now claiming his 13D filings were inaccurate or false, but he is claiming that although he was chief executive officer, managing director, chairman and president of Bain Capital, he was not really there, but in Utah managing the Winter Olympics. Nevertheless, he was earning more than $100,000 in salary from Bain. Since he will not release his income tax returns for 1999-2002, we have no idea how high this salary really was.

If Romney was not "involved" in the operations of Bain Capital, why was he being paid? As sole shareholder, why did he keep himself on as CEO? Also, at least with respect to the Stericycle deal, he invested as an individual along with the Bain entities. Why is Romney's story about his relationship to Bain and its investment activities at odds with the documents his firm filed?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/ka...

SEC filing that Romney signed:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Now, I would agree that this is a petty way of going after Romney. But if prosecutors went after Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica, then we ought to investigate Romney's SEC and Massachusetts filings more closely. After all, lying is lying, right? As you would argue, Allan, it's not the context that matters, but the act of lying itself.

Submitted by svelte on July 20, 2012 - 7:30pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan, to your "they are all the same" theme, they all cheat. I admire the French in that they do it, and they freely admit to it.

whoa there. "Cheating" is doing something against the agreement between the couple. I look to the wife's reaction. If Hillary is OK with Billy Boy having some fun, it's OK with me too. She didn't seem to mind, so I am presuming he didn't "cheat".

Now, Mrs. Schwarzenegger on the other hand, she DID mind. Therefore, I'm much more critical of Arnold's side trips...

Submitted by briansd1 on July 20, 2012 - 8:04pm.

Exactly, svelte. That's why I believe that context is important.

Clinton was backed in a corner and he lied to protect his reputation and his family, because of our ridiculous puritan values.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.