<p>It should be important in any election who the veep is. You are always an eyelash away from that person being the POTUS. If McCain picks a weak veep then I am more open to the alternative. I’m concerned about his age so that makes it important. I already know I’m not a fan of Obama so McCain will have to screw up to lose my vote. One of the ways to do that is to choose poorly for his running mate.</p>
<p>just genuinely curious pmrlcomm - in your mind, what would make a weak veep candidate for McCain? Would these traits be more or less acceptable if the nominee was other than McCain? I know this is an almost impossible question to answer since any nominee other than McCain would bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table, leading to different needs in the veep.</p>
<p>First off it would be not someone who, as a sitting veep in 4 years, would not be desireable or electable as the next POTUS. I truly view McCain as a stop-gap to the next generation of candidates…of which, if he doesn’t win this time, Obama will be part of. I think McCain will be the last Vietnam era vet aged candidate we will see so the next slate of candidates will be someone from the post-nam, pre-Desert Storm generation. I am hopeful he will choose someone from that generation as a running mate…but I digress. </p>
<p>I do not want to see a neo-conservative but more of a moderate with more liberal, i.e. realistic, social leanings and conservative economic policies. Someone who has their own beliefs and is not willing to compromise them personally but doesn’t feel the need to shove their beliefs down the throat of others. I do not want someone who is so jaded that they can’t reach across the aisle to try to solve tough issues. I don’t want someone that will be the normal “politiciany” type. I would like someone with economic experience and that understands the importance of international relations.</p>
<p>I am very hopeful his choice will be Rob Portman of Ohio. For two reasons… 1. He has a vast and varied amount of experience that would allow him to be an excellent economic advisor to McCain as well as a knowledgeable POTUS and 2. I know him, not well, and know many people that know him very well and he has an unbelievable amount of integrity. He doesn’t live but a couple of miles from my house and there isn’t anyone I know, on either side of the political aisle, that has anything but respect for him. This is one of those times that the Party needs to look to the next election while running this campaign. If they choose well it could be a big help for McCain.</p>
<p>teriwtt:
</p>
<p>My point was that you cannot make assumptions about people based on their age, or any other factor that is used to discriminate. McCain is as sharp as a tack (as is his mother), and as others have posted has made no more campaign blunders than Obama. To attribute his to “age” is a clear form of bigotry. He has no “health problems” (and his physicians have said as much), and if the left starts pushing that envelope they may just find that a lot of our aging demographic backlashes against the discrimination (as they should).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, what we would criticize him for is coming closer to the right specifically to garner favor with moderates, only to slip right back to the left after he’s secured the votes.</p>
<p>Typical politician…</p>
<p>They are both typical politicians. That’s why, in the end, people align primarily with the parties, not the individual.</p>
<p>I agree, Spideygirl. One can’t just assume that, just because someone is “older”, s/he is compromised mentally. To do so would be blatant “ageism” and is akin to any other form of prejudice like racism or sexism.</p>
<p>I’ve seen McCain in person several times & he has always been extremely sharp when speaking and spry when walking (even in one of our local parades where the route is lengthy & can get rather muggy he walked the whole way!). There was NOTHING to suggest that he is compromised in any way - or would be deficient mentally or physically any time soon.</p>
<p>I still suggest that it is REMARKABLE that more mistakes haven’t been made by either candidate, especially given the length & demands of this campaign season & the amount of info these candidates have to keep straight.</p>
<p>Now, why is it that Obama hasn’t accepted McCain’s challenges to some Town Hall type debates? I thought Obama said, “anytime, anywhere”. Perhaps he doesn’t feel “up to it”! :)</p>
<p>I also agree. McCain occasionally stumbles and/or misspeaks during speeches, but most of us mere mortals do, to a greater or lesser extent. (If I had a nickel for every misspeak or bumble I’ve made over the years, I’d be a millionaire!) My problem with McCain is not his mental sharpness, but his policies. He’s a good man who I disagree with on important issues, and thus, will not vote for him.</p>
<p>^A voice of reason. I will be voting for McCain, but can certainly respect a sane and well-thought out different choice.</p>
<p>Hindoo, I also appreciate your “voice of reason” as spideygirl calls it. I know all presidential races get cut throat and get “off track” but this year takes the cake. Obama is black, McCain is old, the rhetoric goes on and on. </p>
<p>Here’s to voting on “policy”.</p>
<h1>48. What is spoken or what is subsequently in the printed record do we go by for our fearless Leader?</h1>
<p>^huh? </p>
<p>I’m not sure what this means.</p>
<p>McCain is learning how to use a computer. He said in an interview, “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.” </p>
<p>So there he is - learning a new trick.</p>
<p>spidey, my apologies for the Yoda talk. </p>
<p>In reference to Hindoo comment (48) about “McCains occassional stumbles and/or mispeaks”; we currently have a fearless Leader in GWB who stumbles and mispeaks regularly, with the public text version corrected but different. I find it ironic that we criticise the POTUS candidates for stumbling and/or mispeaks on topics that our current POTUS has had a lot of time and advice to get correct. Why are we putting greater emphasis on speaking ability for these outstanding candidates when we put none on our current POTUS?</p>
<p>Policy positions are great for selecting a POTUS but I also want a leader that says what he means and means what he says, And say in a manner that I can follow.</p>
<p>LongPrime: GW has my vote as the worst public speaker among American presidents, at least of those I’ve had the pleasure (or displeasure) to hear. (Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton were the best.) … Whereas McCain and, yes, Obama(!) make the occasional gaffe, Bush’s speaking talent, or lack of, has been an absolute embarrassment from Day One. I couldn’t tell you if he really is or isn’t a moron, but he can certainly come across that way. … Apparently, the ability to articulate a message in a reasonable, clear manner, was not important to the voters who elected and re-elected Bush. But plenty of us never gave him a pass on this.</p>
<p>“Bush’s speaking talent, or lack of, has been an absolute embarrassment from Day One.”</p>
<p>No more embarrassing than having a well -spoken president look straight into a camera and lie his *** off, and carry on under his wife and child’s nose in their own home with an intern. Oh boy but could he give an articulate speech.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more, RatedPG! Clinton was a great public speaker, but a total jackass in other ways. I’ve never forgiven him for his inability to keep his pants zipped up around inappropriate women, then bald-faced lying about it. He was a popular president, the country was doing well under his leadership, then he shot himself in the foot over something so stupid and unnecessary–taking the Democratic party down with him. His misbehavior in office opened the door wide for Republicans to piously proclaim themselves the “party of family values,” which is, of course, ridiculous. As we all know, there are liars, philanderers, sex addicts, drug addicts, and criminals of every stripe in BOTH parties. I still maintain that Clinton was a magnificent, inspiring speaker. His moment of lying and finger-wagging was disgraceful, but from a global viewpoint, Bush’s eight years of mangling the English language and, many would say, lying about things far more important than messing with an intern, was an even more significant embarrassment to America. Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>“lying about things far more important than messing with an intern, was an even more significant embarrassment to America.”</p>
<p>Clinton was under oath.</p>
<p>^^^ Exactly, I don’t think it was about the affair, it was more about the finger pointing to the camera and him saying I did not have sex with that woman.</p>
<p>If a military officer did what he did they would be court martialed and sent to prison. Clinton as the Chief Commander should have abided by the same rules as officers. It is also against regulation to have a relationship, even if you are single with a suboordinate. Clinton broke 3 military rules…1. Adultery…2. Sex with a suboordinate…3. Perjury
Right now if he was a military member he would still be making little rocks out of big rocks in Leavenworth and would never collect a penny in retirement pay</p>
<p>You’re right. Clinton was under oath. What he did was inexcusable and disgusting. But at least his lying didn’t get us into an unnecessary war that has (so far) killed more than 4,000 American soldiers along with countless Iraqi citizens. I’m revolted by Clinton, but I loathe Bush.</p>