But: a ticket with two senior citizens in 2008 might not be as successful as one might hope. (In the future, as baby boomers, such as me, reach retirement age, that demographic might indeed win.)

Jindal is an interesting suggestion, yet his youth might hinder him. (A billion people in India might find him attractive.)

I’ll go conservative in my “wish list.” Truth is, I wish Romney had been the nominee.

”
Officials with John McCain’s campaign made a series of conference calls Monday and Tuesday with supporters nationwide to say that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be named as the Arizona senator’s vice presidential running mate, immediately sparking a frenzied effort by some state Republican officials to come up with a strategy to head off such a move, The Washington Times has learned.

One of the concerned state GOP officials told The Washington Times that he talked with two “high-level” campaign officials who said “Lieberman is a very real possibility.””

Maybe I’ll go light a candle and pray for this to really happen. The only thing that could be better for Obama than McCain naming Lieberman would be if he named Bobby Jindal.

First, I erred in “GWHB.” I meant, of course, “GHWB.” His wife, who still likes me, would smack me across the chops for this egregious misspelling.

And: Hubert Humphrey, my favorite REAL liberal prior to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, DID in fact run in primaries in 1960, thereby invalidating my previous “last century” comment concerning vice-presidential nominees who were previous losers in presidential primaries. (None of them were ever elected, ibid.) HHH remains the ONLY person in the last century to win office as a VP having lost previously as a presidential candidate prior to the year in which he was chosen as vp.

Pls. forgive me.

Now: I have liked Patrick Buchanan for some years, probably since he served in the Nixon White House—but only because of his poise as a would-be defense lawyer, viz Edward Bennett Williams, not as a passionate defender of former Nazis. We all recall (I’m sure;>) the famous issue of National Review in 1992 wherein Bill Buckley (RIP, my hero) asked, “Is Pat Buchanan anti-semitic?”

Anyone who harbors any ill will towards Jews is not entitled to win this year’s election.

Nor, is any American presidential candidate who does not treat Black Americans as (at least) equals in any way fit to inherit the Oval Office.

So: we get on to the next angst. Gays.

As a “libertarian” conservative Republican, I am in favor of gently confronting any remaining homophobes and showing them the error of their ways. Gays are not at all any threat to us Americans, certainly not to either of my children. It’s those folks who are inhibited in their sexuality—and, therefore, not comfortable enough to be “out”—who are potential dangers to our kids.

I am a “supporting straight member” of the Log Cabin Republicans here in the Hudson Valley. (I am a “breeder.”)

Okay! Let the conventions begin! lol—there hasn’t been a good national political convention since 1976, in Kansas City.

You are correct about v-p pick. John Nance Garner said it best.

Don’t know why there’s a strike-through in my allusion to RWR’s executive decision of 1967, above. But, alas, we do not own these boards. (The California governor who signed the abortion legislation was, of course, Reagan; and he WAS elected president twice.)

And you and I don’t have to be James Carville or Alan Greenspan to understand that the economy will drive the election result this November.

Here’s to our having fun until November, when normal life resumes for those of us making a living.

Tim

Romney’s not a bad pick and I believe he would have made a better nominee than McCain but his adult life was spent as a venture capitalist. In an election that focuses on the economy having someone on your ticket who knows economics is a good thing but having someone who took over companies and fired many employees to improve the company’s bottom line is a negative. Romney, is a solid pick but hardly a game changer.

I suppose Gov. Romney is who I had in mind when I made the previous post.

Mitt Romney is the sort of ethical, successful candidate we need as a v-p nominee with my war hero, John McCain.

Leadership for our country in the 21st Century.

Now: wags will come out of the woodwork to assault former-Gov. Romney over his 1994 campaign against Sen. Kennedy. The “gay rights,” the “abortion,” etc, ad infinitum.

But, they can be repudiated easily.

Which California governor-later to be elected president twice- said “A mother should not be held hostage to her unborn baby,” as he signed the nation’s most progressive abortion bill into California law?

Give you a hint: this event occurred in 1967. The governor had been elected the year before.

Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973, written by a Republican Supreme Court Justice with the support of both Republicans and Democrats on the high court. Its essence was in protecting doctors who were called on to perform that most ugly act—often times to save the mother.

Years later, even “Roe” renounced her support of the eventual decision—but law is law.

More on this anon.

But, Romney would seem, indeed, to be the best vice-presidential candidate we Republicans could nominate. He could in fact be a most able person to step into office if needed.

But Ian—au contraire! Whomever McCain picks means a LOT in his seeking to also thwart history (“eight consecutive years of one party,” “oldest candidate for first term,” etc.)

McCain’s ideal choice would be a governor (executive experience) from EAST of the Mississippi, with no scandals in his/her past, preferably 46 -54 or so, regardless of stance viz Roe v. Wade.

This is still “fantasy” presidential speculation for us, though.

If the economy isn’t out of the tank by mid-October—and its resurgence isn’t articulated well enough by Washington—the “non-incumbent” party will win. You may bet James Earl Carter’s infamous “misery index” (so supremely articulated by RWR) on it.

The ten of us here on these boards won’t decide the election. Forty million American centrists will, in twelve states outside of New York.

A demographic to watch for in coming months: “single moms.” They are, in 2008, what “soccer moms” were in 1996. And they are the most “threatened” of any voting demographic group.

Another dynamic which will be debated for years to come, should Obama lose: the “Tom Bradley factor.” Watch out for those lyin’ white liberals—and for the unrequited Hillary supporters who are right out of “Basic Instinct.”

It is odd that Obama has all these fairly popular governors to choose from and instead is focusing on three candidates with significant weaknesses.

Unfortunately, for Republicans the VP pick doesn’t mean all that much.

Prior to his aborted 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden ran for the office in the 1988 primaries, and, briefly, in 1992. His plagiarism of Brit Neil Kinnock cost him dearly in 1988, as you’ll recall.

In the last century, neither party has won the presidency with a vice-presidential candidate who had lost in any previous years in a run for the presidential nomination. (LBJ in 1960 and GWHB in 1980 had run for the presidential nomination and lost ONLY in the years in which they were chosen to be veep candidate; likewise Walter Mondale, in 1976.)

As Casey Stengel would say, “You could look it up.”

If Obama chooses Biden, get thyself to a London bookmaker and bet McCain to win.