• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain/Rumsfeld In November?

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
So, in watching some Frontline specials and seeing how Cheney and Rumsfeld have been in The Whitehouse for over 50 years, would it stand to reason that Rumsfeld would be the logical VP running mate for McCain? If that's the case, do we get a "copy cat" administration of Bush Jr. if McCain gets the nod in November? Just thinking out loud to hear some discussion on the likelihood of such a ticket.
 
Not in this lifetime. Besides. It doesnt matter which of the three candidates gets elected its going to be another 4 years of Bush-esque policy and economics. Count on it.
 
Originally posted by: event8horizon
im betting joe lieberman. he will be the new scooter libby of the whitehouse.

lieberman's already said that he has absolutely no desire to run for VP again.

my money is on mark stanford or crist.

I'd put a hundred euro on it not being Rumsfeld, though.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
are you HIGH?!

I wish!

But, as to the topic, why is it so far out to think about? I'm not saying I'm for it, but that particular "center of power" has been festering for years. Considering the average voter who's uninformed and tends to vote out of name recognition, is it really that poor a choice?
 
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: palehorse74
are you HIGH?!

I wish!

But, as to the topic, why is it so far out to think about? I'm not saying I'm for it, but that particular "center of power" has been festering for years. Considering the average voter who's uninformed and tends to vote out of name recognition, is it really that poor a choice?

I can't think of a set of people who hate eachother more than McCain and Rumsfeld... he was one of the first in the GOP to call for Rumsfeld's resignation and was pretty critical of his overall performance as Sec. Def.
 
more on the mccain lieberman ticket-

ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16530615/

There?s an affinity of personnel, as well as of ideology, between the Arizona Republican and the Connecticut Democrat: McCain?s spokesman in 2004, Marshall Wittmann, now works as Lieberman?s spokesman.

The McCain-Lieberman duo has worked closely in the past on several issues:

In 2003, they co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act to limit emissions of global warming gases by electric utilities, industrial firms, and refineries.
They were leading members of the ?Gang of 14,? the bipartisan group of senators who devised a way to avert a fight over judicial filibusters that would have shut down the Senate in 2005.
They have been two of the prime movers in Senate efforts to restrict donations to political campaigns.
The duo led the push for military intervention by the United State in Kosovo in 1998.


 
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: palehorse74
are you HIGH?!

I wish!

But, as to the topic, why is it so far out to think about? I'm not saying I'm for it, but that particular "center of power" has been festering for years. Considering the average voter who's uninformed and tends to vote out of name recognition, is it really that poor a choice?

No seriously, are you high?

The reason I ask is because Rumsfeld would be the absolute WORST choice for McCain's running mate. McCain would do better with McCain/Kerry bumper sticks than McCain/Rumsfeld. McCain is seen as a moderate Republican who is a good choice for those who didn't like the Bush administration. Duct taping himself to someone who is arguably the worst offender when it comes to stupid Bush administration actions would be the DUMBEST thing McCain could possibly do. Not to mention that a big strength of McCain's is that people view him as strong on defense, and there is nothing like having a resigned Secretary of Defense as his VP to kill that image.
 
haha. Not as silly as that douche on Time who said he thinks the dems should ignore hillary/obama and give it to gore with obama as a VP, but certainly this is hysterical.
 
The secretary of defense who invented the use of our soldiers in Iraq as policemen? There is nary a more disgusting thought. The man may be popular as a personality in front of the cameras, but his policy which continues in Iraq to this day is abhorrent to the lives of our men.
 
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: palehorse74
are you HIGH?!

I wish!

But, as to the topic, why is it so far out to think about? I'm not saying I'm for it, but that particular "center of power" has been festering for years. Considering the average voter who's uninformed and tends to vote out of name recognition, is it really that poor a choice?

If you're going off of name recognition I doubt that Rumsfeld would be a very good choice, I can't remember the last time I heard anything positive about him in the news, not to mention the field day the dems would he was selected as the VP candidate.
 
well, just for the fact that mccain is buying into rummy's program for creating and prolonging the hell on earth named iraq lock, stock and barrel, i don't see why he'd not make a good runing mate. surely, if they agree on this there must be other areas of foreign policy that they could see eye to eye on. stranger bedfellows have existed in the name of political foreplay.

just get rummy to be as good as cheney has been for bush and all's well for the repubs. please do. by all means, please please do.
 
Rumsfeld being the VP would be the gift of the new millennium for the dems.

Kinda like how Hitlery is the gift of the millennium for the reps right now.
 
Back
Top