Lets talk Vice Presidential picks - Page 2

Libertaire · 07-04-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by lew

This is why I like Webb

Webb of Deception

I agree with Webb on history, but he's just a pro-union guy. He would be just right for the Obama ticket.

Then again, so will Clark. The media loves him. It would almost guarantee a win.

The perfect match for McCain would be Graham, but that's not likely since he needs Graham in the Senate. Romney or Huckabee would be the most likely choices.

I won't be voting for either of them, so it doesn't really matter that much to me. I would call it entertainment if it weren't so serious.

SoFlaJDM · 07-04-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

Then again, so will Clark. The media loves him.

how can you say that after they repeatedly misrepresent and feign outrage over his completely truthful comment?

Scrum · 07-04-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

Then again, so will Clark. The media loves him. It would almost guarantee a win.

YouTube Video

SoFlaJDM · 07-04-2008, 03:41 PM

they have to keep going... they are calling FACTS swiftboating... this obviously struck a nerve and the dems need to jump all over these FACTS.

Libertaire · 07-04-2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

how can you say that after they repeatedly misrepresent and feign outrage over his completely truthful comment?

Right. He's controversial.

SoFlaJDM · 07-04-2008, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

Right. He's controversial.

i'll take controversial any day over a blatant liar and flip flopper like mccain

everything clark said in that interview was factual. anyone would be hard pressed to refute that.

that's why the right makes a distraction by saying he was calling mccain unpatriotic, or by saying he was "blasting mccain's service" because he was doing neither

Libertaire · 07-05-2008, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

that's why the right makes a distraction by saying he was calling mccain unpatriotic, or by saying he was "blasting mccain's service" because he was doing neither

I don't know. He seemed to be "blasting McCain's service" to me. Clark focused on what McCain didn't do while in the service with the intent of discrediting him. That's blasting.
I'll give you this, however. If he really wanted to blast McCain on military issues, he should have focused on his record in the Senate. There is where he is most vulnerable. He does a lot of grand standing, but has done little in the way of veterans' benefits and military pay. Even libertarian Ron Paul recognizes the need for that.

DosEquis · 07-06-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

I don't know. He seemed to be "blasting McCain's service" to me. Clark focused on what McCain didn't do while in the service with the intent of discrediting him. That's blasting.
I'll give you this, however. If he really wanted to blast McCain on military issues, he should have focused on his record in the Senate. There is where he is most vulnerable. He does a lot of grand standing, but has done little in the way of veterans' benefits and military pay. Even libertarian Ron Paul recognizes the need for that.

How, exactly, was his comments "blasting" his service? Listen to his entire statement and tell me what about it was "blasting".

Libertaire · 07-06-2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

How, exactly, was his comments "blasting" his service? Listen to his entire statement and tell me what about it was "blasting".

I stand by my original statement, "Clark focused on what McCain didn't do while in the service with the intent of discrediting him."

Clark:
"He hasn't held executive responsiblilty"
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall"
"He hasn't made those calls"
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Those are criticisms, a.k.a. "blasts".

SoFlaJDM · 07-07-2008, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

I stand by my original statement, "Clark focused on what McCain didn't do while in the service with the intent of discrediting him."

Clark:
"He hasn't held executive responsiblilty"
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall"
"He hasn't made those calls"
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Those are criticisms, a.k.a. "blasts".

those are simple facts... he shouldn't be made to apologize just because some people don't like those facts

he also prefaced everything with a statement of how much he honored mccain's service to his country, did he not?

Libertaire · 07-07-2008, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

those are simple facts... he shouldn't be made to apologize just because some people don't like those facts

he also prefaced everything with a statement of how much he honored mccain's service to his country, did he not?

We're going to go in circles here. I'm not denying their truthiness, I was calling attention to the method and reason. They were criticisms designed to discredit him. I have no stake in defending McCain. I think he's wrong on just about everything. Clark was a flag officer and no dum-dum. He knows how to cordially insult someone. They do it all the time.

JaJae · 07-07-2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

We're going to go in circles here. I'm not denying their truthiness, I was calling attention to the method and reason. They were criticisms designed to discredit him. I have no stake in defending McCain. I think he's wrong on just about everything. Clark was a flag officer and no dum-dum. He knows how to cordially insult someone. They do it all the time.

I agree. I think you have to take the intent and context of what he was saying into the whole picture. The entire purpose of his interview was to discredit McCain's military experience through marginalizing his service. He usually gets away with his political shots because he sets it off with a polite demeanor, but this time he was called on it. As I've said either in this thread or others, Clark is a better politician than he ever was a military man. He knows what he was doing. He was attacking McCain's military service as insignificant and minuscule so that he could prop himself into Obama's VP slot. I think most conservatives and media pundits realized that.

motivez · 07-07-2008, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Libertaire

I stand by my original statement, "Clark focused on what McCain didn't do while in the service with the intent of discrediting him."

Clark:
"He hasn't held executive responsiblilty"
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall"
"He hasn't made those calls"
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Those are criticisms, a.k.a. "blasts".

What's wrong with analyzing McCain's military service and whether it's something that's a qualification to be President?

Using the term 'blast' has some negative connotation that it doesn't belong in civil discussion of an issue, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate issue to bring up since McCain is actively using his military career as a method for bolstering his campaign

motivez · 07-07-2008, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree. I think you have to take the intent and context of what he was saying into the whole picture. The entire purpose of his interview was to discredit McCain's military experience through marginalizing his service. He usually gets away with his political shots because he sets it off with a polite demeanor, but this time he was called on it. As I've said either in this thread or others, Clark is a better politician than he ever was a military man. He knows what he was doing. He was attacking McCain's military service as insignificant and minuscule so that he could prop himself into Obama's VP slot. I think most conservatives and media pundits realized that.

You say he was trying to make it 'insignificant and minuscule' .. I say he was trying to put it in perspective.

Of course, now I have to say that yes, McCain's service was honorable, and blah blah blah, because that's what you do, but the reality is that McCain is using his service to make the case that he's ready to be the Commander of our Armed Forces.. and so it's important we look at whether or not the time he served actually provides him with a qualification for a military leadership role

Clark has the experience to say that no, it really doesn't.

Libertaire · 07-07-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What's wrong with analyzing McCain's military service and whether it's something that's a qualification to be President?

Using the term 'blast' has some negative connotation that it doesn't belong in civil discussion of an issue, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate issue to bring up since McCain is actively using his military career as a method for bolstering his campaign

I don't disagree that it's politics as usual. I'm not sure if McCain, himself, is saying that his military service automatically qualifies him for the presidency.
Any criticism, however, could rightly be considered "blasting" in the political arena. It's the silly game of politics, and Clark, being a former flag officer, is quite proficient at it.
Most who have been in the military would agree that the officer class is very similar to the shady world of politics. Advancements aren't completely performance based, but are generally based on who you impress and when.
A general would say things like, "Oh impressive group of soldiers, there, Colonel, very good exercise. They could really use some help on their test scores though."
Do you see what just happened? He began with a complement, then what would seem like a mild criticism is actually "blasting" his soldiers' test scores. The Colonel would then begin cracking down on his men's test taking abilities.
I saw that sort of thing all the time in the Navy. An admiral would lean over to the captain and quietly suggest, "Don't you think you should . . .?" That was understood by the captain and others to be harsh criticism, even blasting.
I am in no way suggesting that McCain's military service shouldn't be questioned or discussed, but we need to be honest and admit it was "blasting".

C4Casey · 07-07-2008, 12:15 PM

Personally, whoever's on the VP ticket won't affect my decision at all, this being because the VP really has virtually no power and not much say in affairs when compared to the President, unless of course the President dies in office. But as for the two's VP canidates... I agree that Obama picking ex-military would probably help him out alot. As for McCain, I think he needs someone younger and more conservative. McCain already paints himself as a moderate, so bringing in another moderate or cenrtist won't help him out at all. Picking a woman or African American could also help him out. Personally I'd like to see him pick Condi Rice as his running mate, but I doubt that will happen. Still she has the best of all worlds. African American, woman, and fiscal conservative. Can't get much better than that in a VP this election year, at least if you're a republican.

Libertaire · 07-07-2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Personally, whoever's on the VP ticket won't affect my decision at all, this being because the VP really has virtually no power and not much say in affairs when compared to the President, unless of course the President dies in office. But as for the two's VP canidates... I agree that Obama picking ex-military would probably help him out alot. As for McCain, I think he needs someone younger and more conservative. McCain already paints himself as a moderate, so bringing in another moderate or cenrtist won't help him out at all. Picking a woman or African American could also help him out. Personally I'd like to see him pick Condi Rice as his running mate, but I doubt that will happen. Still she has the best of all worlds. African American, woman, and fiscal conservative. Can't get much better than that in a VP this election year, at least if you're a republican.

If McCain were to pick Walter Williams, it might boost my opinion of him a bit. I mean if we're going to pick people based on their race,

then I'd prefer it be a real conservative.

C4Casey · 07-07-2008, 12:42 PM

Good point, he would make a good pick too.

DosEquis · 07-07-2008, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Personally, whoever's on the VP ticket won't affect my decision at all, this being because the VP really has virtually no power and not much say in affairs when compared to the President, unless of course the President dies in office. But as for the two's VP canidates... I agree that Obama picking ex-military would probably help him out alot. As for McCain, I think he needs someone younger and more conservative. McCain already paints himself as a moderate, so bringing in another moderate or cenrtist won't help him out at all. Picking a woman or African American could also help him out. Personally I'd like to see him pick Condi Rice as his running mate, but I doubt that will happen. Still she has the best of all worlds. African American, woman, and fiscal conservative. Can't get much better than that in a VP this election year, at least if you're a republican.

Other than Condi Rice sucks and provides more ammo for the "McCain is just like Bush" argument. Her record as national security advisor and secretary of state has been less than stellar. She had memos like "OBL determined to attack the US", just as one example.

I would not pick anyone related to the current administration if I was him. If I were him I would pick someone conservative, particularly one that is focused on economics. The war and economy are going to be the major issues going in to the election. He has said himself that he is no expert when it comes to the economy so he has pigeon holed himself to picking an economically savvy conservative for VP.