I am not sure what you mean by the Big Dig. Did you mean his markedly successful stint as CEO of the Olympics in 2002? When he took over, the budget was over a third of a billion short. He brought the project in on time and on or under budget. So yes, I do know how successful he was at that.
If you meant something else, you will need to explain yourself better, or at all. Make sure you cite it so we know whether or not it was meant seriously.
That the accusations against him were false, that he won the recall election by a wider margin than the original election, that the accusations against him before the recent election were also false, that there was never any evidence of wrong-doing on his part, that he was never in any danger of being indicted - things like that. Basically that he is right and the teachers’ unions are wrong.
I would be incorrect if that was what I said. :rolleyes: I called it his key achievement, which it is.
What is interesting to me is that … well, you … recognize that the policy advance you have hated the most for the last eight years, on a strictly partisan basis, is a “major success”.
Google is your friend.
Except you were referring to successes* as governor*. So, even if that was what I meant, which I didn’t, you’d be wrong about that too.
The fact that you don’t know what the Big Dig was means you know nothing about Romney’s single term (half, actually, he spent the other half campaigning for President on the basis of how horrible a place the state that was still paying him is).
You wish.
Now go inform yourself. I have no interest in spoonfeeding you.
Why assume that someone with a Spanish surname will get “the Hispanic vote”? Isn’t that as condescending as it is ignorant of the wide range of Hispanic cultures and policy interests?
If the party’s overall stance is hostile to you, you’re not likely to vote for its candidates even if some of them have a name like yours, and especially not if the reason they nominated those candidates is to blatantly pander to get your vote. The party that recognizes and respects you as a fellow human is going to be much more attractive, don’t you think? It always has been.
I don’t think anyone is saying you get “The Hispanic Vote” by being Hispanic. But the reality is you’ll probably get MORE of it than your non-Hispanic counterpart will get. I think that true for most racial groups, and maybe a bit more for minorities.
But I would say that it takes more than a Spanish surname. Some real connection to the community, and the ability to speak Spanish are important. Without that, maybe the name doesn’t get you very far.
Quartz: Sure… and if they had split the vote equally, maybe they would have won.
Rubio has the dubious honor of being Cuban which, according to my Mexican-American acquaintances in CA is, well a dubious honor. Cubans are often seen as the snobs of the group* (which encompasses a variety of cultures), and may not bring as much electoral help to the ticket as someone with roots elsewhere. Rubio has good name recognition, though, and he seems to have done well in the last debate, so I’m sticking with him for VP.
*Vying with Argentinians for the top snob position.
Kudos for out of the box thinking, but I should have asked folks to restrict their choices to declared candidates. Romney may or may not be the best candidate, but he isn’t running, so it doesn’t really matter. Of those actually running, who do you think make the best team?
I dunno. I think we just have to get used to the GOP going thru the “clown car” phase every 4 years. Things were like this last time, and then the more establishment front runner consolidated things and got the nomination. This is the silly season. Enjoy the laughs, but I don’t think it’s going to play out any differently this time.
Bloomberg / Romney. Two businessmen who made money hand over fist for themselves and their investors. Both with political experience: highly qualified. Bloomberg isn’t shackled by the Iraq War dead-enders and he could appeal to the independent vote. He’s economically literate and hasn’t drunk the supply side koolaid. He could put together a plausible economic plan for America and say why he wants to run for President: Jeb Bush is incapable of both. Neither are empty suits. Romney wouldn’t have to convince anybody he’s crazy this time: as VP he would just have to attack the opposition.
Unfortunately, Bloomberg is far too neuro-typical to be nominated by the GOP.
If Bloomberg ever ran for president, it wouldn’t be as a republican. Because he never was a republican. He used the GOP as a means for his ends. I really doubt they would fall for it again.
Maybe not Germanic enough for the base, but I nominate Pataki/Martinez.
Like, apparently they’re not quite as much insane trolls as the other guys. I’m not saying they’re actually sane, just that they can probably pass for such. It would be useful for the GOP to look like it has a non-extreme wing again.
We should be used to the fact that residency rules for politicians are extremely lax. Dick Lugar pretty much straight out said that he had an address “for voting purposes” that he didn’t live at. That’s an admission to a few types of fraud right there.
Rubio/Paul. It would’ve united both the religious conservative side of the party and the libertarian wing, and got some Latino votes. However, they would only win if Rubio were for life of mother/rape/incest abortion exceptions. Rubio’s position on abortion as it stands would do to him what Dukakis’ stand on the death penalty did to him in 1988.
You mean successful in getting the federal government to pay for it? He didn’t manage costs; he just dumped them onto the taxpayer. Is that your idea of success?