Why?

Go ahead, Ahmadinejad... make my day.

Ya, um...pretty sure he would have been better than Quayle

ramblinwreck: Ya, um...pretty sure he would have been better than Quayle

That's unpossible

Until George H.W. saw Firefox and thought that Clint Eastwood really knew how to think in Russian.

ramblinwreck: Ya, um...pretty sure he would have been better than Quayle

How terrifying that Quayle's stupidity seems so quaint now. Oh, how we laughed when he couldn't spell potato. I recall thinking that surely this was the stupidest politician that we would ever see rise so high in office. Then I look at the 2011 GOP.

"When Chuck Norris jumped into the ocean, he didn't get wet, the water got Chuck Norris'ed. "

But I bet he could spell "potatoe."

I bet he would have declined. If he did that crap, he never would've gotten the Oscar.

What kind of a STUPID name is that?

quick, someone write a "Biden to be replaced by Clint Eastwood" article

He would have made sure all the "punks" would get their heads blown clean off..

Subby seems to have forgotten that Chuck Norris already holds all the power. Being VP would be a major downgrade.

I think he's a bit liberal for Bush.
And no, I'm not joking. Eastwood really has some liberal outlooks, which I figure happens to most people who spend 50 or so years in Holywierd.
/would have voted for them regardless.

I'd vote for Robert Duvall, he's more "grizzled".

Michael Caine, I dunno, old, sure, but lower on the grizzled scale.

I'd say a Duvall-Caine ticket would be an IDEAL balance.

Carmel-by-the-sea neighbor here. We had so much fun in the Mayor Clint era. The hawkers had a windfall with "Clint Eastwood for President" schwag too.

Local band (named after the insects that brought Governor Moonbeam down the the first time) caught fame with a video on that new cable channel that showed performers singing songs all day. . .

Link (new window)

Clint Eastwood & Chuck Norris Sam Elliott 2012!

/There is a Republican ticket I might consider voting for.

I always loved this picture so much

C. Hines: I think he's a bit liberal for Bush.
And no, I'm not joking. Eastwood really has some liberal outlooks, which I figure happens to most people who spend 50 or so years in Holywierd.
/would have voted for them regardless.

George HW Bush is closer to Obama than any of the current Republican nomination crop save Huntsman.

Considering that Bush Sr. was considered a "wuss", having Clint Eastwood as a VP could only be an asset. He certainly would have been better than a VP who fried his brain with too many drugs until he couldn't even spell potato anymore. As for Clint Eastwood's liberal views, it wouldn't matter. Conservatives would still vote for Eastwood just because he was perceived as an alpha male, which is often more important to conservative voters than where a politician actually stands on the issues.

Gwyrddu:

George Bush Sr. was not considered a wuss by anyone who knew even a little about the man. He is kinda a big guy - I saw him up close in 2000 and he was big. WWII veteran with some cool experiences. CIA etc. The life he lived was not that of a wuss. I think of a wuss as someone who shys away from responsibilities and conflicts.

I'm perturbed by people like you who would call him a wuss in the same way I get upset when people say stupid things about President Obama.

/I vote republican and democrat
/socially liberal, fiscal conservative

Watched Unforgiven the other day. First time in years. It's an amazing film.

"See you in hell..."

"Yeah."

Bad_Monkey_abc: George Bush Sr. was not considered a wuss by anyone who knew even a little about the man. He is kinda a big guy - I saw him up close in 2000 and he was big. WWII veteran with some cool experiences. CIA etc. The life he lived was not that of a wuss. I think of a wuss as someone who shys away from responsibilities and conflicts.

I'm perturbed by people like you who would call him a wuss in the same way I get upset when people say stupid things about President Obama.

I didn't call him a wuss, that was just how he was branded in the press during the elections. Having Clint Eastwood as a VP would have countered some of that, even if in reality Bush Sr. was a lot of things in real life that Eastwood only pretended to be in the movies.

Bad_Monkey_abc: Gwyrddu: stuff


One more thing, if you don't believe me about how George H Bush was perceived by the public, here's an old Bloom County cartoon that summed up the election

Shrimp or Wimp? (new window)

/skeptical

He'd lose in a debate with Jack Nicholson...

"How can you debate me when you haven't opened your eyes in forty god damned years?"

/Live at the Met, right?

Except that Clint is a democrat.

I'd vote for Clint because it would be better than all of the other political dicks that are around at the moment. If he ignored or banned lobbiers I'd fork out for his handguns or security.

dericwater: Except that Clint is a democrat.

No. He is not. He is a Republican. But like many 70+ year old Republicans, he remembers a time when Republicans were on par with Eisenhower, unlike the Grand Old Limbaugh Fellators of today.

Kevin72: dericwater: Except that Clint is a democrat.

No. He is not. He is a Republican. But like many 70+ year old Republicans, he remembers a time when Republicans were on par with Eisenhower, unlike the Grand Old Limbaugh Fellators of today.

Similarly, don't forget that while his positions on things stayed consistent over the decades, Charleton Heston was at one time considered a liberal (he really did march with civil rights in the 60s) and a conservative (look at his NRA Presidency) at different points throughout his career. Sometimes worlds change around people.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: ramblinwreck: Ya, um...pretty sure he would have been better than Quayle

How terrifying that Quayle's stupidity seems so quaint now. Oh, how we laughed when he couldn't spell potato. I recall thinking that surely this was the stupidest politician that we would ever see rise so high in office. Then I look at the 2011 GOP 2008 DNC.

FTFY.

/2011 at least has -some- decent candidates.
//I think an underdog will come out on top.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: ramblinwreck: Ya, um...pretty sure he would have been better than Quayle

How terrifying that Quayle's stupidity seems so quaint now. Oh, how we laughed when he couldn't spell potato. I recall thinking that surely this was the stupidest politician that we would ever see rise so high in office.


Quayle would have been a better president than Bush Jr. That is what's scary.

People_are_Idiots: Then I look at the 2011 GOP 2008 DNC.

FTFY.

/2011 at least has -some- decent candidates.
//I think an underdog will come out on top.

Such as? The only decent candidate from the Republican side I can think of is Huntsman, and he isn't going to come out on top. I'd take just about any of the 2008 DNC presidential candidates except maybe Edwards over who the Republicans have this year. There is a reason why people were begging for Christie to run for president, because the current crop they have are losers.

Gwyrddu: stuff

One more thing, if you don't believe me about how George H Bush was perceived by the public, here's an old Bloom County cartoon that summed up the election

I agree with you that *some* people perceived him wrongly to be wuss. (I'm in my 40's and I remember all the pop culture well from that time - SNL, Bloom County etc). After re-reading your original wording, I understand that you did not explicitly give your opinion. You have plausible deniability. That being said, if I were to write that "Considering President Obama is a very ineffectual in office, he should be more assertive blah blah blah" then most reasonable people would think that I have that opinion in the first clause.

/Didn't vote for Obama but I think he is doing well, as Presidents go, considering economy, wars etc.

Gwyrddu: People_are_Idiots: Then I look at the 2011 GOP 2008 DNC.

FTFY.

/2011 at least has -some- decent candidates.
//I think an underdog will come out on top.

Such as? The only decent candidate from the Republican side I can think of is Huntsman, and he isn't going to come out on top. I'd take just about any of the 2008 DNC presidential candidates except maybe Edwards over who the Republicans have this year. There is a reason why people were begging for Christie to run for president, because the current crop they have are losers.

I agree the GOP has a bunch of losers, but I thought all the 2008 were definite losers, which is why Obama won the nom. Only way to change the status quo is everyone, con and pro, to vote together for another party. Aside from his abortion stance, Ron Paul is the better. The craziest is Perry, and the flim-flam is Romney.