This, I think, is a real possibility. It might ring votes to the Republican ticket from Democrats who cannot stand Hillary.

It will probally be McCain / Romney.



that is my prediction.

That's a good point. He really is in trouble with the Conservative base. The problem I have is that since people like Ann Coulter and even Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would rather vote for Hillary than McCain, it may be that even with a conservative on the ticket, they still may bolt. Many fel that the VP really doesn't have much say in policy matters (of course, this doesn't seem to apply for Cheney, who I think is REALLY running the government right now).

I agree Donwhite we do not need another warmonger in the white house catering to corporate interest.

Now if McCain gets the nomination the Republican party stands no change in hell to win the elections . . . but we know how that goes right?

Lieberman is fairly widely despised by Democrats and "the left wing". I have never voted republican but McCain and Paul are a couple of the select few I would even consider. Lieberman would turn me off from that ticket. He was a terrible selection for Gore in 2000. He is completely bought off and needs to exit politics. I would probably consider Bloomberg as long as he didn't pick a crappy politico like Lieberman. This could turn out to be a third party election. Stay tuned.

Oh I suspect that that might be a possibility, but I expect that McCain's vice-presidential candidate will be:

Elizabeth Dole.

As an outside observer, I am more interested in who Ron Paul will pick as his vice-president when he runs as an Independent.

[edit on 8/2/08 by Pellevoisin]

posted by ProfEmeritus
Good points. I don't think Lieberman is a turncoat either. That was the quote from the original article that I cited. In fact, it was the Democratic party in CT that did the turn coating . . First of all, I'm not sure if McCain didn't run turncoat in Vietnam. Not only did the Vietnamese ambassador, who was his captor state that McCain was never tortured, but there are former POW's that just this week swear that McCain was given special treatment while a captive.

There are some very serious anomalies about the Vietnam War I have never heard discussed. We know about the US airmen who were kept in the prison in Hanoi we called “Hanoi Hilton.” I believe when the War ended there were about 635-650 US personnel released from Hanoi. As I have posted elsewhere, I also believe 5-10 of the prisoners died in prison. The Vietnamese say they died due to wounds or injuries received PRIOR to their incarceration at Hanoi. I believe them.

At one time the US had 550,000 men in South Vietnam. It would come as no surprise to learn that 10,000 to 25,000 had been captured in action. After all, we lost 59,000 KIA and about 150,000 wounded. But I never hear about any prisoners of ours taken on the ground. We had about 30,000 POWs in the Korean War. How could we have NONE in Vietnam? It makes no sense to me. What it does do is make me think we had a TAKE NO PRISONERS POLICY which the NVA would have reciprocated on us.

I do not for one minute mean to imply those US airmen taken prisoner “had it made.” I was in the USAF in Korea in 1953-54. I was a ground crewman and was never in any danger of being captured by the enemy. OTOH, the pictures show the release of the prisoners from Hanoi of our men in good condition, waving, smiling, considering how anyone would come out of five or six years living in a 6 X 9 cell. Those ex-POWs who have been in the public eye seem to be OK as far as I can tell. Picturers seem to indicate they all have their own teeth, a very crucial indicator of the diet and care given and received.

As for McCain and special treatment as a POW. Yes, I believe he had special treatment. No, I do not believe he “turned coat” to get that. His father was a Navy admiral. That made McCain a high value prisoner. It was in the best interest of the NVA to keep him in especially good condition in case he was to be exchanged for a NVA prisoner. My point in the other post was that HERO status was more deserved by Marine Corps privates who laid in muddy rice paddies day in and day out. Full of leaches, mosquitoes and other vermin I care not to mention. Those guys gave all they had to a failed cause. Being a successful prisoner of war means following orders, keeping quiet and minding your own business.

Many American airmen were killed or injured severely when they parachuted into an area where the local people could get to them before the NVA army could. But that was another story.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by donwhite]

Don,
First of all, thank you for your service to the country. I truly mean that.
McCain may not have been a turncoat, I don't know one way or the other. I do know that there are some POW's that are claiming that, but again, I don't know. What concerns me about him, is his statement about being in Iraq for 100 years. I know he was using hyperbole, but the point is, we as a country cannot afford a long term engagement in a war with a country that is really no threat to us. Will all of the violence stop, if we leave? Probably not, but the violence against us will. It's a guerilla war, and just as Vietnam was un-winable, because we didn't wish to do what was needed to win, we are not willing (and I might say, justifiably unwilling) to press the war to the full extent, which would result in millions more casualties.
I think that the bigger war that we are in today, is economic. We are losing that one, and no one seems to care. If you ever played monopoly, you know that when one person starts winning all the properties, puts up hotels and houses, they eventually end up with all the money. We used to be that person. No, more and more it's China and the EC, and if we don't do something, we'll end up with Baltic Place, and not much more.

posted by ProfEmeritus
Now Elizabeth Dole is someone I COULD support.

I call her Mrs ADM, Archer Daniels Midland. People are dying in Africa and we pay price supports to corn growers so ADM can make ethanol and we force the gasoline companies to buy their product, which has FEWER btu in it than it takes to produce. We taxpayers get to pay for the ethanol 3 times. To farmers, to ADM and to our local ExxonMobil station. WOW!

Thank you Mrs Dole!

posted by ProfEmeritus
I guess all politicians are connected to some corporation or other. After all, if they weren't, they probably wouldn't be where they are today. Ethanol IS a loser, not only in the cost it takes to produce it, but as the latest studies indicate, it is not a positive factor for the environment, and may even be worse than gasoline: The problem is that all of the major candidates are connected to some corporation or other, so what do we do, realistically? I don't have the answer, but until someone does, I guess I'll just settle for the lesser of several evils.

I did not mean to pick on Elizabeth Dole. Her husband Robert is a genuine war hero, losing the use of his right arm in the Italian campaign in 1943. He was hospitalized nearly 2 years and often was given up to die. I don’t know if Elizabeth is his only wife or his second one. Regardless, she performed well in the Reagan administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I believe.

Campaign Finance Reform. Real CFR. All private money must be banned from our electoral process. All expenses must be paid out of the US Treasury if we are at all serious about wanting to TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT. Anything less is ONE more bad joke on the electorate.

It must be made a crime for any corporation to be involved in elections, with the CEO, COO , CLO and CFO automatically responsible.

It must be unlawful for any person to hire another person to inveigle the Congress or the Government on his behalf. Lobbyists are a no no.

If we don’t want this, then I question whether we are really being forthcoming about taking back our government.