If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   First round of RNC speakers announced: The Joker, Two Face, The Penguin, The Riddler and (in black Ferragamo boots) Catwoman   (politico.com) divider line 125
    More: Fail, RNC, John McCain, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez, brightest stars, Nikki Haley  
•       •       •

4898 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2012 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 10:41:47 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?


I still say Rand Paul.
 
2012-08-06 10:43:01 AM
Tea-Party not getting a presence?
 
2012-08-06 10:43:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.


So Palin is the VP pick!?!

/I can dream can't I
 
2012-08-06 10:46:57 AM

GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?

I still say Rand Paul.


You really think Rand Paul is going to sign onto working with a guy who has basically said he wants to bomb Iran and turn up the Drug War to 11? The cognitive dissonance would be absolutely deafening.
 
2012-08-06 10:49:12 AM

killro: Dear god is there a juicy, wombat catapult, jerk-off session for Palin going on in the comments.


But remember - it's the Democrates, and ONLY the Democrates, who masturbate over their party luminaries!
 
2012-08-06 10:49:53 AM

Cletus C.: Uh,
New Mexico unemployment rate 6.5 percent.
South Carolina unemployment rate 9.4 percent.

What was the point?



What were their respective unemployment rates before they took office, and how does that compare with the national trend? Would you say that each person is doing a good job as governor of their state, why would you say that? I responded to the initial case that you were making - namely that these women are not "token" speakers as a reaction to the poor showing the GOP is having with women voters lately, and are rather speaking because of their accomplished records as governor. I'm asking you to make the case for why you believe this.

Now, I do this full well knowing that last time I tried to engage you in honest discussion, you pretty much admitted "I'm not here to have honest discussion I'm just here to troll." So, I'm giving you another chance here but not holding my breath.
 
2012-08-06 10:50:47 AM

Serious Black: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?

I still say Rand Paul.

You really think Rand Paul is going to sign onto working with a guy who has basically said he wants to bomb Iran and turn up the Drug War to 11? The cognitive dissonance would be absolutely deafening.


They republicans are already on board with an ivory tower, east coast, out-of-touch rich Massachusetts governor, who doesn't get NASCAR, owns a dancing horse, with a foreigner for a parent, from a minority religion, and a history of signing weapons bans and the blueprint for 'socialist medicine'.

It can't really get much higher.
 
2012-08-06 10:51:53 AM

Serious Black: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?

I still say Rand Paul.

You really think Rand Paul is going to sign onto working with a guy who has basically said he wants to bomb Iran and turn up the Drug War to 11? The cognitive dissonance would be absolutely deafening.


You really think something like cognitive dissonance will stop the GOP from doing something? This is the same party that called Obama a pantywaisted hippy peacenik for not killing those Somali pirates who kidnapped that American ship captain and then called him a blood-thirsty warmonger for killing those Somali pirates who kidnapped that American ship captain. They also want to cut total government spending and increase military spending at the same time.
 
2012-08-06 10:52:16 AM

GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?

I still say Rand Paul.


Sen Kelly Ayotte.

It just makes sense. Mitt's biggest weakness is women. Rob Portman does NOTHING to help there. Ayotte is NOT like Palin, so those comparisons would drop off rather quickly.

My alternate guesses are Paul Ryan and then Bobby Jindal.
 
2012-08-06 10:52:39 AM

Serious Black: You really think Rand Paul is going to sign onto working with a guy who has basically said he wants to bomb Iran and turn up the Drug War to 11? The cognitive dissonance would be absolutely deafening.


You're confusing Rand and Ron. Rand is perfectly down with all of that.
 
2012-08-06 10:53:26 AM
Two words: Hologram Reagan

/that's me in the comments
 
2012-08-06 10:53:29 AM

The Homer Tax: Cletus C.: Uh,
New Mexico unemployment rate 6.5 percent.
South Carolina unemployment rate 9.4 percent.

What was the point?


What were their respective unemployment rates before they took office, and how does that compare with the national trend? Would you say that each person is doing a good job as governor of their state, why would you say that? I responded to the initial case that you were making - namely that these women are not "token" speakers as a reaction to the poor showing the GOP is having with women voters lately, and are rather speaking because of their accomplished records as governor. I'm asking you to make the case for why you believe this.

Now, I do this full well knowing that last time I tried to engage you in honest discussion, you pretty much admitted "I'm not here to have honest discussion I'm just here to troll." So, I'm giving you another chance here but not holding my breath.


Are you saying the only reason they're letting Obama speak at the DNC is because he's their token black? Bit harsh there, pal.
 
2012-08-06 10:53:34 AM

DamnYankees: Love the comments.


Came here to say THAT. ^^^
 
2012-08-06 10:59:15 AM

unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal


this is the quickest google result i found about just how god awful the new education "reform" is in LA. there are more articles with similar info, lots of them. if Jindal had to defend that reform nationally it would kill him and romney both.
 
2012-08-06 11:00:51 AM

King Something: Serious Black: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?

I still say Rand Paul.

You really think Rand Paul is going to sign onto working with a guy who has basically said he wants to bomb Iran and turn up the Drug War to 11? The cognitive dissonance would be absolutely deafening.

You really think something like cognitive dissonance will stop the GOP from doing something? This is the same party that called Obama a pantywaisted hippy peacenik for not killing those Somali pirates who kidnapped that American ship captain and then called him a blood-thirsty warmonger for killing those Somali pirates who kidnapped that American ship captain. They also want to cut total government spending and increase military spending at the same time.


Deneb81: They republicans are already on board with an ivory tower, east coast, out-of-touch rich Massachusetts governor, who doesn't get NASCAR, owns a dancing horse, with a foreigner for a parent, from a minority religion, and a history of signing weapons bans and the blueprint for 'socialist medicine'.

It can't really get much higher.


Good points. I sometimes forget that the GOP doesn't act like normal human beings do very often when it comes to politics. Anything is kosher when it comes to getting the blah man out of the White House.
 
2012-08-06 11:06:22 AM

the opposite of charity is justice: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, the first female governors of their states, are among party leaders slated to address the gathering that begins Aug. 27. Martinez has the additional distinction of being the first female Hispanic governor in the country. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the first black female to hold that job, is also scheduled to speak

War on Women: Our Token Rebuttal lineup.


Bingo.
 
2012-08-06 11:06:41 AM
Giving Florida Gov Lex Luther a slot behind a podium must be awkward for them. Maybe they are concerned about frightening the children?

/just thought of a new nickname for him: "Teapot Dome"
 
2012-08-06 11:09:55 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: GAT_00: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

That's a given. Possible for VP won't have planned slots.

So who does that leave?

Newt? Crazy eyes? Santorum?


please be bachmann please be bachmann please be bachmann please be bachmann please be bachmann ...
 
2012-08-06 11:13:34 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.


I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?
 
2012-08-06 11:14:37 AM

Cletus C.: Now, I do this full well knowing that last time I tried to engage you in honest discussion, you pretty much admitted "I'm not here to have honest discussion I'm just here to troll." So, I'm giving you another chance here but not holding my breath.

Are you saying the only reason they're letting Obama speak at the DNC is because he's their token black? Bit harsh there, pal.



So you went with "trolling." Got it.

Way to not disappoint there, tiger. You get a "Participation" ribbon.
 
2012-08-06 11:15:14 AM

rudemix: Quite a think tank they've assembled their. Love the inclusion of the female governors strictly because they're female. The party against giving any thing to anyone based on race or gender via affirmative action certainly don't mind picking what may not be the best candidate (Palin) based on gender. This party is so hypocritical, so lacking in morals, so devoid of any good that it is hard to not want to slap any of their sissified, self loathing, closeted, hateful constituents in their constantly tear stained, rat like faces.


I was already with you, but that final line really gave me a laugh.
 
2012-08-06 11:16:08 AM

Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?


I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.
 
2012-08-06 11:18:08 AM
From the comments:

Lib's seem to think the country should be more concerned about what Romney did with his money, then with what Obama does with ours ?? Romney should show his tax forms when Obama releases his sealed college transcripts, sealed Indonesian adoption papers, and the fast and furious documents, otherwise you guys can pound sand !!

I really hope this is one of you farkers with a troll facebook account, and not what some living breathing person actually thinks.
 
2012-08-06 11:24:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?

I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.


Does the vice presidential candidate automatically become the presidential candidate if the presidential candidate withdrawals/gets injured falling off his dancing horse/gets indicted for tax fraud etc? Just curious what would theoretically happen if Mitt withdrawals after it is too late for someone to declare for president.
 
2012-08-06 11:25:49 AM
I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.
 
2012-08-06 11:29:47 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.


I vote Portman. He has experience, but isn't powerful enough to suffer a negative from losing, and is bland enough not to offend anyone. Ryan, Pawlenty, and some others commonly mentioned would have to believe they could win or else it is a huge negative to join this campaign. Portman just gets some national attention he doesn't yet have.
 
2012-08-06 11:30:20 AM

DamnYankees: Love the comments.


I really hope Carolyn Dixon represents a good-sized minority of the Republican base. It would be hilarious if Palin lost not one but two presidential elections for the GOP.
 
2012-08-06 11:30:34 AM

FlashHarry: no bush? no palin? is the GOP embarrassed by its stars?


George H.W. Bush is too sick to go.

George W. Bush is not interested in doing ANY politics.

And neither is Cheney... who doesn't like the fact that Romney is the candidate ("presumptive" my butt).

And no one (including Fox News) has a desire to have Sarah Palin in the GOPs that is Convention that is strong enough to pay for her to be there.

I insist that this is Sarah Palin's plan: she wants someone else to pay for her (and her family's and/or entourage's) expenses.. think:

"Oh, I wanna go to the dance... and I can pay for it and stuff.. but I want someone else to pay for me to go because I'm a girl and boys are supposed to pay for me... it's not a date, by the way, I just don't want to use MY money to pay for it..."
 
2012-08-06 11:31:00 AM

The Homer Tax: Cletus C.: Now, I do this full well knowing that last time I tried to engage you in honest discussion, you pretty much admitted "I'm not here to have honest discussion I'm just here to troll." So, I'm giving you another chance here but not holding my breath.

Are you saying the only reason they're letting Obama speak at the DNC is because he's their token black? Bit harsh there, pal.


So you went with "trolling." Got it.

Way to not disappoint there, tiger. You get a "Participation" ribbon.


This is not meant as criticism. Just some constructive thoughts.

When engaging in a discussion/debate attempting to get your opposite to prove your own point is intellectually lazy.
If you would care to respond to a comment you will come across as better able if you avoid personal attacks and present your own well-reasoned opinions.
My original post saying they seemed like a solid lineup of speakers but will probably be derided here as token gestures not only remains unmolested, but also verified.
Honest discussion does not involve being willfully sucked into the world of a Socrates wannabe.
Again, none of this is meant as criticism or a personal attack.
 
2012-08-06 11:31:03 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?

I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.


I would agree. There's no way the GOP won't nominate somebody. Even if the nominee somehow ended up being someone other than Mitt Romney, they will pick somebody. They have to; there's a blah man in the White House!
 
2012-08-06 11:31:13 AM
The only GOP POTUS at the RNC is going to be the warmed over corpse of Reagan.
i219.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-06 11:32:11 AM

espiaboricua: George W. Bush is not interested in doing ANY politics.

And neither is Cheney... who doesn't like the fact that Romney is the candidate ("presumptive" my butt).


If that's the case, then Cheney should keep his torture loving mouth shut.
 
2012-08-06 11:34:02 AM

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?

I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.

I would agree. There's no way the GOP won't nominate somebody. Even if the nominee somehow ended up being someone other than Mitt Romney, they will pick somebody. They have to; there's a blah man in the White House!


In theory, they could nominate Romney, he could wait until all the ballot deadlines have passed, and then drop out. It would be too late to get anyone else on the ballot, and I don't think there's enough states who allow write-ins to accumulate enough electoral votes.
 
2012-08-06 11:38:44 AM

NickelP: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.

I vote Portman. He has experience, but isn't powerful enough to suffer a negative from losing, and is bland enough not to offend anyone. Ryan, Pawlenty, and some others commonly mentioned would have to believe they could win or else it is a huge negative to join this campaign. Portman just gets some national attention he doesn't yet have.


Portman is a sitting Senator, in a state that could easily end up electing a Democrat to take his place. You don't want to take a chance at losing both. Pawlenty doesn't hold a government job, so he makes more sense. They're both boring white middle aged men who are moderate Republicans. I tried to find differences in their politics but I fell asleep.
 
2012-08-06 11:39:23 AM

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?

I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.

I would agree. There's no way the GOP won't nominate somebody. Even if the nominee somehow ended up being someone other than Mitt Romney, they will pick somebody. They have to; there's a blah man in the White House!

In theory, they could nominate Romney, he could wait until all the ballot deadlines have passed, and then drop out. It would be too late to get anyone else on the ballot, and I don't think there's enough states who allow write-ins to accumulate enough electoral votes.


The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.
 
2012-08-06 11:40:56 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: NickelP: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.

I vote Portman. He has experience, but isn't powerful enough to suffer a negative from losing, and is bland enough not to offend anyone. Ryan, Pawlenty, and some others commonly mentioned would have to believe they could win or else it is a huge negative to join this campaign. Portman just gets some national attention he doesn't yet have.

Portman is a sitting Senator, in a state that could easily end up electing a Democrat to take his place. You don't want to take a chance at losing both. Pawlenty doesn't hold a government job, so he makes more sense. They're both boring white middle aged men who are moderate Republicans. I tried to find differences in their politics but I fell asleep.


That's the entire problem with Pawlenty. The GOP is suffering from a severe case of voter apathy; no one is excited about voting for Romney. Their only hope of countering this is to nominate someone "electrifying" as VP (with the understanding, of course, that they're the nominee in eight years).
 
2012-08-06 11:42:12 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: espiaboricua: George W. Bush is not interested in doing ANY politics.

And neither is Cheney... who doesn't like the fact that Romney is the candidate ("presumptive" my butt).

If that's the case, then Cheney should keep his torture loving mouth shut.


Don't Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all have books out, right now? They are still, by writing their books and giving interviews about them, doing politics. They are still fighting to preserve their "legacy," a legacy that the Republican party has conceded, by refusing to allow them to share the stage with Romney, is not worthy of being preserved. By this action, the Republicans have conceded that the Democrats' critique of the Bush years is essentially correct.

The same is true for Palin. The Democrats and Republican leadership know Palin for the mental light-weight she is. It's only the Republican rank and file, as exemplified by the comments in that article, that still cling to the Republican spin of Palin as the second coming of Jesus Christ Reagan. The leadership do not want to remind independents of that fail storm.
 
2012-08-06 11:44:04 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.


A bowl of three-day-old gruel mixed with poi possesses more excitement than Tim Pawlenty.
 
2012-08-06 11:44:54 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.


Or you can look at what happened when Mel Carnahan died three weeks before the election in 2002. He received the most votes, and the governor of Missouri nominated his wife in his place. The question is, if this happened, who would pick the replacement?
 
2012-08-06 11:47:03 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus Farking Christ: Philip Francis Queeg: unlikely: Philip Francis Queeg: There's a theory that the announced speakers are out of consideration for the VP slot. Think about what the remaining short list must look like.

1. Jindal
2. Jindal
3. Jindal

A Jindal/Biden debate would be awesomely entertaining.

I agree, however, I am beginning to believe that the high level folks in the GOP are shooing away consideration for the VP slot with Romney. It's three weeks before the convention, and the list for candidates is so nebulous with substantial drawbacks for each and every one of them. And the nature in which these people say "no thanks," is troublesome at best. Jindal's last denial of VP slot and pushing it towards Paul Ryan read like, "No. No no, no no no no no no no. No."

I think Romney is having a hard time finding someone. Plus with the fact that his taxes are becoming more and more of a hot topic, I would not surprised to see a fight on the floor. And that's when the clusterfark really begins.

Have we ever had a non-contested Presidential election since Washington?

I think there is zero chance of it happening, but the answer is the Election of 1820.

I would agree. There's no way the GOP won't nominate somebody. Even if the nominee somehow ended up being someone other than Mitt Romney, they will pick somebody. They have to; there's a blah man in the White House!

In theory, they could nominate Romney, he could wait until all the ballot deadlines have passed, and then drop out. It would be too late to get anyone else on the ballot, and I don't think there's enough states who allow write-ins to accumulate enough electoral votes.

The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.


Bonus trivia: Frank Lautenberg is the only person to have been both junior senator and senior senator from New Jersey twice each.
 
2012-08-06 11:47:45 AM

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.

Or you can look at what happened when Mel Carnahan died three weeks before the election in 2002. He received the most votes, and the governor of Missouri nominated his wife in his place. The question is, if this happened, who would pick the replacement?


The RNC.
 
2012-08-06 11:50:21 AM

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.

Or you can look at what happened when Mel Carnahan died three weeks before the election in 2002. He received the most votes, and the governor of Missouri nominated his wife in his place. The question is, if this happened, who would pick the replacement?


Yeah, you're probably right. In this case, the electors of states that Mitt Romney wins would simply cast their ballots for whoever the party picks. Imagine the shenanigans that would ensue if this happened, and then electors in states like Wisconsin or Michigan bucked the popular vote.
 
2012-08-06 11:54:58 AM

qorkfiend: That's the entire problem with Pawlenty. The GOP is suffering from a severe case of voter apathy; no one is excited about voting for Romney. Their only hope of countering this is to nominate someone "electrifying" as VP (with the understanding, of course, that they're the nominee in eight years).


I think this assessment seriously underestimates Republican voters' hatred for Obama. Mark my word, no matter what Romney does between now and November, or who he picks for VP, turnout for the GOP base will be very close to 100 percent, because they really do believe that Obama is actively seeking to destroy the US.

Not to mention that talking this way about Romney's chances also has the opposite effect of depressing turnout on the Democratic side. It's hard enough to get Dems off their asses to vote every four (much less two) years; the last thing they need to be told is that their guy is a shoo-in.
 
2012-08-06 11:57:28 AM

killro: Dear god is there a juicy, wombat catapult, jerk-off session for Palin going on in the comments.


It's very different than the liberal circle-jerks that go on here...
 
2012-08-06 11:58:57 AM

The Name: Not to mention that talking this way about Romney's chances also has the opposite effect of depressing turnout on the Democratic side. It's hard enough to get Dems off their asses to vote every four (much less two) years; the last thing they need to be told is that their guy is a shoo-in.


Which is all the PROOF you need that the liberal LAMESTREAM MSM is in the sack for n0bama, because they trying to make it look like a horserace so the socialist demoncRats will still turn out to vote.
 
2012-08-06 11:59:31 AM

The Name: I think this assessment seriously underestimates Republican voters' hatred for Obama. Mark my word, no matter what Romney does between now and November, or who he picks for VP, turnout for the GOP base will be very close to 100 percent, because they really do believe that Obama is actively seeking to destroy the US.


Eh, the fanatics' hatred for Obama is just a hair bigger than their hatred of RINOs. Cruz winning in Texas has reinvigorated them to push for Romney to either go full retard or get out of the way.

It's going to be a total clusterfark, especially once Romney's out of the primaries and shifts towards the center.
 
2012-08-06 12:04:57 PM

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: The courts would almost certainly allow a substitution on the ballot for Romney at that point. There is precedent in a number of cases at the state level. Lautenberg in 2002 comes to mind.

Or you can look at what happened when Mel Carnahan died three weeks before the election in 2002. He received the most votes, and the governor of Missouri nominated his wife in his place. The question is, if this happened, who would pick the replacement?

Yeah, you're probably right. In this case, the electors of states that Mitt Romney wins would simply cast their ballots for whoever the party picks. Imagine the shenanigans that would ensue if this happened, and then electors in states like Wisconsin or Michigan bucked the popular vote.


"it's a farking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing"
 
2012-08-06 12:06:27 PM

The Name: qorkfiend: That's the entire problem with Pawlenty. The GOP is suffering from a severe case of voter apathy; no one is excited about voting for Romney. Their only hope of countering this is to nominate someone "electrifying" as VP (with the understanding, of course, that they're the nominee in eight years).

I think this assessment seriously underestimates Republican voters' hatred for Obama. Mark my word, no matter what Romney does between now and November, or who he picks for VP, turnout for the GOP base will be very close to 100 percent, because they really do believe that Obama is actively seeking to destroy the US.

Not to mention that talking this way about Romney's chances also has the opposite effect of depressing turnout on the Democratic side. It's hard enough to get Dems off their asses to vote every four (much less two) years; the last thing they need to be told is that their guy is a shoo-in.


I think this statement seriously underestimates Republican voters' disdain for a moderate, northeast liberal governor who's also a Mormon.
 
2012-08-06 12:07:09 PM

NickelP: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I think it'll be Pawlenty. For one simple reason- he'll say yes.

Actually, if you believe that the VP candidate can hurt the ticket but not help it, he's perfect. He could talk for two hours, and when he was done there wouldn't be a single person in the audience who could pick him out of a lineup, let alone remember anything he said. Dude would make the perfect spy.

I vote Portman. He has experience, but isn't powerful enough to suffer a negative from losing, and is bland enough not to offend anyone. Ryan, Pawlenty, and some others commonly mentioned would have to believe they could win or else it is a huge negative to join this campaign. Portman just gets some national attention he doesn't yet have.


Paul Ryan MAY actually be a decent choice - the media laps up his complete fairy-tale budget without actually looking at anything. From there he's young, relatively decent looking, and the press loves calling him a policy 'wonk' despite the fact that his numbers don't even add up right.

Could be a good choice to pull low info voters worried abou the economy.

/terrible choice FOR those same voters, however...
 
2012-08-06 12:07:31 PM

qorkfiend: The Name: qorkfiend: That's the entire problem with Pawlenty. The GOP is suffering from a severe case of voter apathy; no one is excited about voting for Romney. Their only hope of countering this is to nominate someone "electrifying" as VP (with the understanding, of course, that they're the nominee in eight years).

I think this assessment seriously underestimates Republican voters' hatred for Obama. Mark my word, no matter what Romney does between now and November, or who he picks for VP, turnout for the GOP base will be very close to 100 percent, because they really do believe that Obama is actively seeking to destroy the US.

Not to mention that talking this way about Romney's chances also has the opposite effect of depressing turnout on the Democratic side. It's hard enough to get Dems off their asses to vote every four (much less two) years; the last thing they need to be told is that their guy is a shoo-in.

I think this statement seriously underestimates Republican voters' disdain for a moderate, northeast liberal governor who's also a Mormon.


About the only thing they disdain more than a liberal Mormon governor is a Communist blah President.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report