• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cheney to Romney: "Choosing Palin was a mistake, don't repeat it"

i pray you are right. I really do.

cause it would mean he will pick a nutty right-wing extremist, which will hand the election to Obama.


Mitt Romney does not excite the GOP base. Romney has a liberal track record, especially during his years as governor.


To counter that, Romney must pick a VP candidate who is viewed as a strong conservative.


If he picks a moderate for the VP slot, many conservative voters will stay home or vote third party and Romney will lose.
 
Really? You don't see that it was an appeal to populism within the state AND went against nearly everything she and her sector of the party represents?

It is not as if it is a talking point she continues to use.

uh, I was highlighting the irony of her being introduced to the national stage by a liberal media outlet, and actually coming off relatively well in the beginning.

what are you talking about?
 
She brought some energy to the campaign, but after some time, she became a liability instead of an asset to the campaign.

Why folks refuse to see that isi confounding!

Yes, there were some media "gotcha" moments here or there, but Sarah Palin put her own foot in her mouth most of the time because she's just not VP material. Fact of the matter was, John McCain picked Sarah Palin to counter the "Rock Star-like appeal" Obama had at the time. And as Fiddytree makes clear, she did energize the base for a brief moment but after folks started hearing from her and saw how uninformed and unprepared she truly was to take on the VP role, people lost there appeal with her. She still has clout among grass roots Conservatives, but that appeal has waned.
 
that is a good point. Johnny wants Obama to win so his advice is trying to cause Romney to lose

Rebson is one of the most avid Obama supporters on this thread

he wants to be able to whine about the GOP not picking a social fascist like Santorum who thinks women should cherish a pregnancy induced by rape



Were you living under a rock when Romney was governor? When Mitt signed anti-gun legislation into law? When Romney raised taxes? When he created RomneyCare?
 
uh, I was highlighting the irony of her being introduced to the national stage by a liberal media outlet, and actually coming off relatively well in the beginning.
I doubt that it was the "introduction" since it was broadcast in Sept of '08, after she had been announced by McCain as his running mate.

what are you talking about?
Um, where I come from it is called "irony" or "hypocrisy" when a person previously advocated for things she now is against.
 
I pray he nominates Michelle Bachmann. :)

I'm sure you do. but thats not going to happen. I am praying that obama continues to let his real marxist beliefs come out when he speaks off-prompter.
 
I'm sure you do. but thats not going to happen. I am praying that obama continues to let his real marxist beliefs come out when he speaks off-prompter.
Oh man....here I was hoping for the Muslim-Mormon showdown.

Darn.
 
Were you living under a rock when Romney was governor? When Mitt signed anti-gun legislation into law? When Romney raised taxes? When he created RomneyCare?

Newt summed it up perfectly. The issue is not whether Romney is more conservative than say Reagan but whether he is more conservative than Obama and the answer is a clear yes
 
I doubt that it was the "introduction" since it was broadcast in Sept of '08, after she had been announced by McCain as his running mate.

You have absolutely no idea what you speak of. The original was from "Alaska: The Senator and the Oil Man", a program they aired on on August first. See the 17 minute mark

Alaska: The Senator and the Oil Man - The VECO Scandal . NOW | PBS



Um, where I come from it is called "irony" or "hypocrisy" when a person previously advocated for things she now is against.

Ok, but that wasn't what I was originally referring to
 
Without Palin,McCain would have lost by a much larger margin than he did. I don't like her either, but she brought votes to the ticket.

I agree that Romney's pick is important, but I think he will win no matter who he picks. Obama is in self-destruct mode, his policies have all failed, and his true marxist beliefs are coming out--finally.

"finally"! Ya think? Bobcat, yer clueless. A few more understand better each day, that the tiny, feeble effort Obama has made to push back against this, while you yell for everyone to have "skin in the game" is what will someday cause a pushback relieved either via the ballot or the bullet. The dirty little secret is that it is even more severe a situation today, than when these figures were gathered and tallied.

Failed system, clueless right wing extremists are convinced they hold a mainstream view. Good luck with that!

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf
Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004 (a new triennial, SCF, Fed Reserve "Study of Consumer Finances...will be released shortly after the election...sure to document, even further wealth concentration into the hands of the top ten percent.)

January 30, 2006
Abstract

This paper considers changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the 1989–2004 period using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF)...
page 27

...Ownership shares. For some assets, the distributions of the amounts held are far more disproportionate than the differences in ownership rates. MOST STRIKING is the 62.3 percent share of business assets OWNED BY THE WEALTHIEST 1 percent of the wealth distribution in 2004 (table 11a); the NEXT-WEALTHIEST 4 percent OWNED ANOTHER 22.4 percent of the total. Other key items subject to capital gains also show strong disproportions: THE WEALTHIEST 5 PERCENT OF FAMILIES OWNED 61.9 percent of residential real estate other than principal residences, 71.7 percent of nonresidential real estate, and 65.9 PERCENT OF DIRECTLY- AND INDIRECTLY HELD STOCKS. For bonds, 93.7 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WERE HELD BY THIS GROUP...."

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
(bottom of page 32)

"..it is possible to provide a partial update of the wealth figures to July 1, 2009 based on two notable developments....

...Trends in inequality are also interesting.... The share of the top 1 percent advanced from 34.6 to 37.1 percent, that of the top 5 percent from 61.8 to 65 percent, and that of the top quintile from 85 to 87.7 percent, while that of the second quintile fell from 10.9 to 10 percent, that of the middle quintile from 4 to 3.1 percent, and that of the bottom two quintiles from 0.2 to -0.8 percent. ..the share of households with zero or negative net worth, from 18.6 to 24.1 percent."

In 2009, 240 million owned 12.3 percent of the wealth in the U.S. Many more foreclosures, job losses, serious illnesses have hit the have nots since then, and now student loan debt tops a trillion dollars. Voting for Romney is certainly the path towards a solution. If Obama had the slightest marxist leanings in reaction to the crisis of evaporation of a middle class and the economic demand it features, you would see evidence of it, like this 1933 proposal, written by a banker who was Yale Skull and Bones and the father of the man Bush named his son, Neil (Mallon) in honor of.

GDP was under $60 billion in 1933. The proposal described would be the equivalent of $1 trillion in relation to current annual GDP. You are so unaware of how out of touch and rightist to the extreme, you indicate you must be with your "marxist" reference ! You don't know where we are because you haven't bothered to find out where we've come from.......

Reading Eagle - Google News Archive Search
Wants 20 Billions Given To American Citizen
Reading Eagle - Aug 13, 1933
Two govern mental measures for overcoming the depression arc proposed by Guy Mallon, Cincinnati lawyer, who has been active in civic affairs, in his book, ...
GuyWmallon.jpg


Every time a "job creator" hired an obvioulsy illegal alien, a transfer of wealth began that made the hirer wealthier and the pool of potential legal hires, poorer.
 
Last edited:
Dick Cheney: Picking Sarah Palin for VP Was 'A Mistake' - Yahoo! News

wow, Cheney finally said something really intelligent.

yes, choosing Sarah Palin for VP was a horrible mistake that cost McCain the election.

if Romney also picks an ignorant, foolish right-winger...he will suffer the same fate

I agree with Dick Cheney and I'm glad you do as well

Does this mean you agree that Barack Obama, who had much less experience than Sarah Palin (And he was running for president) was just as unqualified if not more unqualified as well, and judging from his performance as president, does not deserve a second term?
 
Last edited:
Considering all the candidates mentioned for the VP spot, I don't see how Romney can avoid making a mistake. The VP field is clown show.

If the VP spot is as important as liberals seem to think, then how in the hell did an old drunken racist make it to the #2 spot?

She brought some energy to the campaign, but after some time, she became a liability instead of an asset to the campaign.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

It doesn't matter who Romney picks...for two reasons:

1. The VP has a very minor role in the government except to take over if something happens to the President.

2. Whomever Romney picks will be the target of a ****-storm of set-ups, lies and smears from the liberals. It happened to Palin...it'll happen again.

Palin was as much to blame for the s--tshow as the media. She fed the beast, after all. The woman has that ambitious political desire to be loved, so much so that she couldn't stay away from a camera to save her life, no matter who was holding it.

when I first heard of Palin, I thought it was a brilliant choice.

Then I heard her speak.

;)

This is exactly how I felt about her. I thought McCain had it nipped in the bud, until Palin's desire to be seen was met with the inability to think on her feet.

Even if I am to believe she became a liability instead of an asset (I believe it's true, but not to nearly the extent suggested by many), I think a strong argument can be made that her status as a liability came about more due to horrendous campaign strategy and execution on the part of McCain's camp rather than Palin.

Palin as a choice was not bad and likely helped make things as close as they were in the end. However, McCain's campaign strategy leading up to and after the pick doomed it. A more intelligent strategy and the Palin pick would've been outstanding in the end imho.

McCain's strategy seemed to be "put the cute chick out front," which would have worked had Palin been able to talk the talk.
 
for the poster called Post.

Your demonization of successful people is noted. Your marxist ideology and your love of obama are also noted, as is your misinterpretation of economic facts as displayed by posting lies from left wing sites.

Now, how about going back and getting some facts rather than being a parrot for left wing lies?
 
Just two words for you Palin haters---------------------Joe Biden.:lamo
 
I like Dick Cheney, and I think he is right. That's why Christie isn't ready as well. The GOP has to be reluctant to pick a star, which is something the media doesn't like, because it wants to sell an icon rather than a potential heir apparent.

The problem with an "heir apparent" is that VP is essentially a dead end job. Anybody that actually wants to be President someday is better off stayingb in th Senate or Governorship they are in now. Names like Rubio and Christie sound sexy, but they both want to be the President themselves someday. Where they are now, they're better off
 
You have absolutely no idea what you speak of. The original was from "Alaska: The Senator and the Oil Man", a program they aired on on August first. See the 17 minute mark

Alaska: The Senator and the Oil Man - The VECO Scandal . NOW | PBS
That's funny, because just a few posts back you agreed that what I referred to was what you were remembering.

Again, if that is what "introduced" you to her....that is totally relative to your awareness....not the US in general.





Ok, but that wasn't what I was originally referring to
I know, it is either something you forgot about the profile in the show....or something you overlooked. Either way, what her stand was then........ is hilarious Now.
 
are you saying that obama is muslim? :2wave:
I'm saying that is what most who also call him a "Marxist" believe.

Conservative Republicans who believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim have more than doubled since 2008, according to a survey on religion and politics released on Thursday.

The Pew Research Center found that 34 percent of conservative Republicans now believe Obama, who is a Christian, is actually a Muslim, compared with the 16 percent that believed that in 2008.
 
Last edited:
Obviously picking Sarah Palin was a mistake. They chose the most incompetent politician that they could have. The campaign would have been 20 times more likely to gain votes if he chose Dubya as VP. The Republicans also knew that they weren't gonna win. How could they? The country blamed every problem on them (some of them rightfully so).
 
Even if I am to believe she became a liability instead of an asset (I believe it's true, but not to nearly the extent suggested by many), I think a strong argument can be made that her status as a liability came about more due to horrendous campaign strategy and execution on the part of McCain's camp rather than Palin.

Palin as a choice was not bad and likely helped make things as close as they were in the end. However, McCain's campaign strategy leading up to and after the pick doomed it. A more intelligent strategy and the Palin pick would've been outstanding in the end imho.

I am probably harsher than you on this, but I think it was both, Zyph. We cannot deny that the media and liberals were looking for a chance to go after the pick, but I don't see how Palin could have really come out ahead on this one. She preferred to stay in the bland generalities through campaign direction or no. The campaign didn't really move toward her strengths and allowed her to become the mystery figure in the campaign and yes, the perfect target. However, Palin was also Palin's own worst enemy.
 
Just two words for you Palin haters---------------------Joe Biden.:lamo
Instant polls taken at the end of the event by television channels suggested that despite Mrs Palin managing a more measured performance than many had anticipated, voters were more impressed with Mr Biden.
A poll by CNN and Opinion Research found 51 per cent thought Mr Biden had performed best, with Mrs Palin taking 36 per cent of respondents.
A survey of uncommitted voters for CBS found the split even more pronounced, with Mr Biden on 46, Mrs Palin on 21 and a relatively high proportion stating that neither had impressed or that they could not decide.
When the uncommitted voters were pressed, 18 per cent said they would vote for Barack Obama and Mr Biden following the debate, with only 10 per cent ready to line up for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Another instant poll done by Fox News, which did not allow for such fence-sitting, had the divide between the two candidates at 61 per cent for Mr Biden and 39 per cent for Mrs Palin.
Who won the VP debate: Palin or Joe Biden? - Telegraph

Ha-ha. (last laugh)
 
The problem with an "heir apparent" is that VP is essentially a dead end job. Anybody that actually wants to be President someday is better off stayingb in th Senate or Governorship they are in now. Names like Rubio and Christie sound sexy, but they both want to be the President themselves someday. Where they are now, they're better off

Much of the time, yeah, a dead-end job. Another problem is that we are approaching the position as a big man in charge at the same time people want to use it as "rising star"-which doesn't necessarily work. The rising star doesn't have the experience and reputation to come off as a strong choice to take the President's place or be influential. Then, at the same time, people apparently don't want a strong VP. The VP inherits all of the problems of the administration they serve and rarely gets the benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom