“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Depends how you define small. I figure at least part of the vote against McCain was the chance he'd have to give up power for a significant period of time due to his health and Palin would be granted the proverbial keys. That was a pretty frightening scenario. Furthermore, in the past half dozen presidencies, the VP has taken over. Granted, I don't see Romney with the kind of health issues McCain had, but it's still a concern.The reality is the likilihood of the VP having to take over for the President is a significantly small one.
Be that as it may, be wouldn't it be better to pick those who are already better at it?A situaiton that has happened relatively rarely in our countries history. While I want a VP that I think could be decent at it, its not nearly as big of an issue for me as it is with the President. Especially since unlike the President the VP would theoritically, baring an assasination of inauguation day, have a fair bit of time getting first hand, direct experience on how to do the job.
Absolutely. Gore was picked for his southern voting draw. Palin, for all kinds of reasons. I'm not quite sure about Quayle though.If it was simply who I thought would make an okay President or be able to do the job, it'd be Huntsman, Newt, and Perry with Cain coming in 4th. However, I think in the last 3 election cycles people were brought on the ballet more for political reasons rather than a belief they'd make the best President.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Was Ron Paul left off of this list deliberately? I'm confused.
Here is my choice: PAUL-CAIN
I also like Cain-Paul.
No Romney--ever. No Romneycare. No Obamacare. Neither of these peas in my pod.