McCain, Please Pick Romney….Please!
As of typing this, you have chosen your vice-presidential candidate. If the person you chose is not Mitt Romney, you made a mistake.
Before I go any further, it must be said that vice presidential candidates don’t really tend to make all that much of a difference. But, with a maverick candidate like you who has appealed to both sides of the aisle on various occasions, the vice presidential candidate will be much more important than for someone who is an ideologue (Obama’s tendency to vote with his party was about 96 percent last year, whereas yours has been as low as 67 percent). We will learn a lot more about what you hope to achieve by your pick than Obama’s and because of this, your choice will be much more indicative of the kind of support you are going to get.
Right now, two contenders are getting the most buzz: Romney and Pawlenty. Pawlenty would probably help you in Minnesota. But Romney would help you in Ohio and Michigan. This is nothing that hasn’t been said before, but if either of you wins Ohio and Michigan, you will surely win it all. Contrary to many, I believe both states, even Michigan, are in play for both you and Obama. Being that there are a lot more electoral votes from those states than from Minnesota, I think its a no-brainer to pick Romney over Pawlenty. Especially given that Romney won Michigan in the primary and that there is a sizeable number of Mormons in Colorado and Nevada, two states that will be much closer than in past years.
McCain, do not pick Lieberman. As much as I hate partisanship, you will surely lose with him. Your campaign contributions, already behind Obama, will fizz out. Sure a few independents will like the move. But they will not outnumber the people who will refuse to support you.
I will be biting my nails (figuratively, I don’t actually bite my nails) for the next few hours as the destruction of our economy potentially hinges on this pick.
He is definitely not who I would like to see, and he definitely carries some political baggage with him (much like Sen. Biden), but I do agree that he is the best out of the possible front-runners in he Republican VP nomination spot. He will definitely help Sen. McCain on the issue of the economy (much like Biden is supposed to help Obama among the middle and working classes and foreign policy), and he will help to bring in votes to hopefully put him over Sen. Obama in quite a few state (and bring him closer in Massachusetts, though I doubt over Obama), but I would rather have someone there that could help with those things and not carry the same baggage. However, I again admit that it would be the best political maneuver at this point to select Romney as the VP candidate.
I couldn’t disagree more. I want Obama to win, and I dont think anything could put him closer to that goal that McCain picking Romney. On paper, Romney is an astonishingly good candidate. He has been very successful in the private sector, was a pretty damn good governor (even from this moderate Democrats perspective, but perhaps thats because he basically governed as a slightly more conservative version of a Clinton-era moderate Dem), he is a great fundraiser, and he and his family are aesthetically perfect. Despite all of this, he has a unique ability to repel voters who ought to favorably inclined toward him. He (much like John Edwards) oozes inauthenticity, and I don’t think that is entirely due to his ostentatious flip-flopping in preparation for his presidential run. His Mormonism may help in Nevada and Colorado, but I think it could be a problem in other swing states (Virginia, Missouri, Ohio). I think Pawlenty is a much better pick, and I’ve heard from a friend who works for McCain that it is indeed Pawlenty. Thats just a rumor and he could just be screwing with me, but I’ll just throw that out there.
On another note, who exactly is disputing the fact that Michigan and Ohio are in play? Perhaps its these phantom people who declared the race over last spring. It seems to be CW that Ohio and Michigan are the ur-swing states of this cycle.
Also, new polls today suggest that Lieberman would actually be an enormous disaster for McCain, with twice as many voters stating that they would be less likely to vote for that ticket than would be more likely to do so.
…as the destruction of our economy potentially hinges on this pick.
FAIL
“I will be biting my nails (figuratively, I don’t actually bite my nails) for the next few hours as the destruction of our economy potentially hinges on this pick.”
Where you been the last eight years? Mars. The economy is in the toilet W style. When it comes out that Mitt made his money by throwing hard working Americans out of work Ace Mccain will be toast.
BTW you know why they call him Ace? Actually “reverse ace ” is his navy nickname. Seems Ace crashed FIVE planes and only had 20 hours of combat flight before being shot down. Now that’s executive experience Repug style. If it wasn’t for his daddy Ace would have been grounded.
“The economy is in the toilet W style.”
Classic.
Ken, you wouldn’t be one of those people that thinks we should tax “windfall profits” to solve our energy problems do you? You know that tax that will stifle any investment into additional supplies of oil that could lower the price of oil for those hard working Americans.
Or one of those people who thinks we should double the capital gains tax to get back at those rich people who own stocks, you know, like 50 percent of America?
Those are fabulous ideas that will pull us right out of the “toilet.”
Ken, please explain how the economy is in the toilet? You sound like a profound economic mind.
If your going to attack someone’s military record, at least be accurate. Vietnam veterans of america against McCain is a discredited website, in case that’s where you got your info. As far as the crashes…
1. During a practice run in Texas, his engine quit while landing, and his aircraft crashed into Corpus Christi Bay, though he escaped without major injuries. So the first crash was due to a mechanical fault in the aircraft.
2.He had another close call when he and his plane emerged intact from a collision with power lines after flying too low over Spain. So, no actual crash.
3.In December 1965, he had his third close call when a flameout over Norfolk, Virginia led to his ejecting safely, and his plane crashed. Another mechanical problem.
4. While stationed on the USS Forrestal, a Zuni rocket from an F-4 Phantom was accidentally fired across the carrier’s deck. The rocket struck McCain’s A-4E Skyhawk as the jet was preparing for launch. Again, not his fault. The impact ruptured the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, which ignited the fuel and knocked two bombs loose. His flight suit caught on fire as he rolled through the flames, but he was able to put it out. He went to help another pilot trying to escape the fire when the first bomb exploded; McCain was thrown backwards ten feet and struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire on board killed 134 sailors, injured scores of others, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and took 24 hours to control.
5. On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his twenty-third mission. As he neared the target, warning systems in McCain’s A-4E Skyhawk alerted him that he was being tracked by enemy fire-control radar. He held his dive until he released his bombs (he was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for this day). As he started to pull up, the Skyhawk’s wing was blown off by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile fired by the North Vietnamese. He was then captured by the North Vietnamese and held as a POW for nearly 6 years.
His father, Jack McCain, was Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, which means he was commander of the entire US forces in the Pacific theater. Because of his father’s position, he was offered early release, but McCain refused, because of the “first in, first out” code of conduct. Because he refused, he was severely beaten and his arm re-broken.
And I believe his call sign was “Playboy,” which is quite a compliment if you’re familiar with the Navy. Clearly Ken, you are jealous of him because you lack his dignity, courage and pride – in your country and in yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have posted your comment.
Chris,
1) Your faith in oil companies to look out for keeping prices low is precious. It is interesting that you continue to believe that they are concerned about keeping prices low when high prices are leading to their greatest profits in history.
2) Nobody is talking about doubling the capital gains tax. At most, some Democrats, like Obama, propose an increase that brings them up, but still keeps them below where they were during the economic boom of the 90s when investors did all right for themselves.
3) Perhaps it is a valid statistic to say that half of American households own at least one stock, but you aren’t fooling anybody. Stock ownership (and other investments that fall under cap gains taxes) are not spread equally among half of the good honest regular people in America.
4) The whole ideological bias against taxing capital gains (or dividends for that matter) reflects skewed thinking. A single person earning $250,000 in regular income would owe $66,000 in income tax. If that single person made $250,000 in qualified dividends or long-term capital gains, it would be less than half of that at $31,000. We know who the people are who are making money on investments like those and it is not half of America.
…and those numbers are generous because using a quarter of a million dollars makes it seem like the two numbers are closer (even though one is still twice the other) because of the graduated bracket system. Try re-running the numbers with a smaller number like $50,000, and the difference is more like $8,000 in taxes vs. $1,800.
Yes David. I just love oil companies. I think they are the most altruistic entities on the planet and are just dying to lower oil prices for the common man.
My goodness, I just love the way you argue.
As for capital gains, I’m still waiting for an explanation from somebody as to why severely raising that tax would not be terrible for our overall economy. I guess if we’re just trying to punish the rich or something, then sure, that’s a good way to do it. But if we’re trying to form economic policies that will actually work, this idea is bunk.
Karen:
If what you’re saying is true, then McCain may be just very unlucky and I don’t think we can afford a tragically unlucky man at the helm of the ship that is the ol’ US of A.
Chris, is it your impression that someone who makes $50,000 a year in qualified dividends works harder for that income than someone who makes $50,000 in wages, salary, or tips? If so, then I could understand your desire to tax them on completely different levels. I do not agree with that, and that is why I think taxes on “rich people income” like capital gains and dividends should be at least equal to (if not more than) the taxes on “normal people income” like wages, salary, and tips.
This is just my general impression, but someone who makes $50,000 a year in wages, salary, or tips is probably working a lot harder for that than the person making that much in qualified dividends or capital gains. The first individual is also likely to need more of that income for basic family needs than someone who makes that much on investments, so I am sympathetic to those needs. Also, that real job contributes more to the overall economy.
But I thought the easiest “explanation… why… [it] would not be terrible for our overall economy,” I thought the Clinton example worked pretty well for that. Under Clinton and almost every other president we have had, that rate has been 20%, but it has been lowered to 15%. I say, raise it back to where it traditionally has been while this country has done very well economically, rather than leave it where it has been during the past 5 years while our economy has declined.
(I’m not saying those two are directly linked, but I am trying to disprove your theory that low cap gains = good and high cap gains = bad for the overall economy)
My goodness. Too jump on it or not to jump in…
…maybe next time.