Well, if she a) wanted to prosecute someone for “running while Democrat,” or b) complained to the administration & got Iglesias fired, then yes, she is guilty of corruption. But I wonder if she really did any more than the typical self-important entitled pol, or if she’s been named where others have not because she went against the government over FISA a year earlier.
Anyway, it’s a problem electorally: Is she insufficiently loyal for the Bushies, too soft on terror for the McCainiacs, & too much a regular entitled pol for the independents? Does any of this matter in the year of Obama? Does any of it matter more than McCain nominating a woman who’s sort of a junior version of him in the year when Obama can steal great numbers of votes by his apparent “historicity”?
I have heard that position expressed in these parts many times, but please defend it. Other than you personal distaste, do have any evidence that his current negatives outweigh his positives? Yes, I know that he was not a popular person by the end of his Speaker of the House days. But his subsequent career as an author and lecturer has won him some respect even outside of his very solid conservative base. He actually speaks well and come across as an intelligent individual committed to doing something about global warming and energy independence. He recognizes the need for the GOP to reposition how it delivers its conservative message with new ideas. And he can raise money quite well.
I don’t think that it’ll happen but McCain is clearly following Gingrich’s playbook, really trying to refashion himself in Gingrich’s image almost, and I am not as sure as you are that he would be a stupid choice. Convince me please.
Time for a bump. Obviously Romney and Pawlenty, maybe Thune or Sanford, are the top tier, but this one featured on CNN’s ticker, Eric Cantor is interesting.
Helps deliver Virginia, helps make Florida more likely to go for McCain, brings in terrorism and economics understanding … no bad baggage from an election POV.
After McCain’s questions about having a non-Republican as his running mate (here’s one article about a possible Lieberman selection), and McCain’s recent commercial targeting Hillary supporters after the Biden selection as Obama’s VP (here’s another link for that) I actually came up with a McCain/Clinton scenario.
Hillary Clinton does her speech at the Democratic Convention, but isn’t conciliatory. The next day Bill gets up and announces he and Hillary are changing their party affiliation due to (whatever reason they claim Hillary was robbed). Minutes later McCain announces Hillary as his running mate. Democratic Convention collapses in a shambles, and the Republican Convention the following week is a McCain/Clinton lovefest.
Actually, when I did a search on this earlier, and saw mswas predicted McCain/Clinton in a thread back in February (facetiously, I’m sure), so while I can’t say I came up with this first, I can claim coming to it independently.
No, I don’t seriously expect this to happen, for about a thousand reasons. But when the thought sprang to mind after seeing reportage of the new Hillary-backer targetted McCain commercial, and after hearing about the non-Republican VP feelers McCain was putting out, it was just there.
When I suggested this to my sweetie, her reaction was that it would certainly make the election exciting. She has a gift for understatement.
Good heavens. I think there’s a better chance of Elvis running as McCain’s veep. “Republican Convention” and “Clinton lovefest” aren’t typically used in the same sentence, for good reason.
#2 is that it would be career suicide for both Bill and Hillary. #3 is that McCain would have the same issues reminding them that he’s in charge as anybody else would.
I’m fairly confident it will be Romney, partly because he’s a money-making machine and partly on the widely held view (which I don’t share) that he would put Michigan in play. He also would bring some comfort to the big business segment of the party, nervous about the fiction that McCain is some sort of maverick. If not him, then Pawlenty. I hope that doesn’t pan out, if only because Chris Matthews would call the ticket “Good and Pawlenty”, which for some strange reason he thinks is hilarious.
I think it will be Romney because McCain lacks imagination and thinks it will get him street cred with the conservitive wing of the party. It may cost him with the evangelicals because they have such serious Morman issues but I doubt he or his selection team are really in tune with that thing. Plus, Mitt has such wonderful hair!
Did she really screw up HP. It seems like the Compaq merger has actually worked out fairly well. If I recall it correctly, the son of the former founder, Hewlett, did not care for personal computers as a business line. Fiorina’s planned merger was the exact opposite approach. After a couple years she was forced out. HP has done well since and much of the credit results from the merger with Compaq.
I think Fiorina would be a great choice. She is extremely smart, has an impressive resume, and is very well spoken.
The CEO of eBay? I don’t see it. She’s too much of an unknown and has no political experience at all. He wouldn’t be able to continue to cut Obama on the experience card while choosing a running mate who’s never held any elected office at all.
Whitman was one of the “three people” that McCain said he’d tap for wisdom when questioned at Saddleback. She’s one of his top aides as well as the CEO for eBay (which was said).
If he picks her, that’s plain old stupid. He’s not going to do that.
Sadly, it seems to me that McCain is going to have to choose someone who is two or more of female, not white, and on the young side rather than the best person in their own right. Condi Rice has too many connections to Bush, and has never won elected office in her own right. A Black would upset many right-wingers anyway, but how about someone with considerable Native American blood? Are there any [del]possible[/del]probable candidates there?
Of course, he could always nominate his mate Fred Thomson…
