Who will be McCain's Vice President? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 08-23-2008, 12:40 PM

Will it be Lieberman? Giuliani? Alaska gov. Sarah Palin? Mike Huckabee? Romney?

Do you think he will pick someone from outside Washington? Young or Old? Religious or center-leaning?

Who do you want to see him pick?

I think Sarah Palin would be the most interesting choice. It would make all the females that were supporting Hilary just because of her gender think about switching sides (Hilary could run again in 4 years if Obama loses too). In reality I think he will pick Huckabee.

Willravel · 08-23-2008, 01:08 PM

Romney might be a smart choice for a GOP campaign. He'll probably want someone more conservative and religious than he appears, but not ultra-religious like Huckabee. He and Leiberman seem to be buddies (shudders), but picking a Republican in Democrat's clothing could lose him a lot of hard core Republicans, which seem to be his base.

Who do I want him to pick? Dennis Kucinich!

jorgelito · 08-23-2008, 01:47 PM

Could be Lieberman, Bobby Jindal, or how about Powell or Rice?

Any of these would give McCain an instant minority boost to counter Obama.

Willravel · 08-23-2008, 01:59 PM

Powell would be a brilliant choice, but he'd probably turn it down.

Rice is interesting, but I always get the impression that people don't like her. I mean it's obvious why liberals don't like her, and irrelevant, but a lot of my conservative friends don't trust her. I'll have to ask why. Moreover, I'm not sure if she could do the job if anything happened to McCain. Powell? Absolutely. Leiberman? Maybe. Rice? I honestly don't think so.

dc_dux · 08-23-2008, 02:01 PM

I think McCain has to decide if he wants to appeal to the conservative base of the party with a social conservative or broaden his appeal to independents.

In the first scenario, someone like former congressman John Kasich of Ohio (swing state) who is a social and fiscal conservative. In the other scenario, someone like Tom Ridge, former governor of Penn (another swing state).

But most likely, IMO, it will be Romney.
-----Added 23/8/2008 at 06 : 03 : 03-----
There is still a rumor that Powell will speak at the Democratic convention on Wednesday night (national security night) and endorse Obama.

highthief · 08-23-2008, 02:24 PM

Never mind - error!

dc_dux · 08-23-2008, 02:25 PM

Its a safe bet it wont be Pat Buchanan....lol

In a recent article on World Net Daily, Buchanan described McCain's top foreign policy adviser (who was a lobbyist for the Repub of Georgia) as a neocon war monger....a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes.

forseti-6 · 08-23-2008, 04:31 PM

It's going to be Romney. I don't think there is a better choice because he brings economic knowledge as well has been vetted A LOT during the primaries.

If McCain wants to guarantee victory, select Hillary, HAHA. I don't think that would happen in a million years, but who knows.

If McCain chooses a pro-lifer like Lieberman or Ridge, he's going to lost a lot of the evangelical vote.

jorgelito · 08-23-2008, 05:21 PM

Well having Rice, Powell or Jindal would equalize the whole race issue. Obama would lose the whole "minority" novelty and the contest could get back to real issues. Rice is a highly educated, competent woman. Of course many people don't like her. Hillary suffers from the same problem.

Hmm...Hillary-Rice ticket...interesting..... Wonder if Oprah would endorse them...

ASU2003 · 08-23-2008, 06:34 PM

In a dream world Powell would run.

But I highly doubt it.

ottopilot · 08-23-2008, 08:57 PM

I don't believe it really matters who McCain's VP choice is... Obama will win handily regardless.

With that said... it will most likely be Romney.

Willravel · 08-23-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I don't believe it really matters who McCain's VP choice is... Obama will win handily regardless.

With that said... it will most likely be Romney.

Just out of curiosity what would your dream Republican ticket look like?

ottopilot · 08-23-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Just out of curiosity what would your dream Republican ticket look like?

I'm not a Republican. My dream candidate would be non-partisan or apolitical.

I guess since we're dealing with real as opposed to ideal... I could live with something like a Lieberman / Powell (or vice versa) ticket.

samcol · 08-24-2008, 03:51 AM

I think Ron Paul is a shoe in for the republican VP spot.

ottopilot · 08-24-2008, 04:21 AM

So here's Ron Paul with a pancake on his head.

Ron Paul Pancake Head.jpg

pan6467 · 08-24-2008, 07:36 AM

Do not be surprised if McCain brings in a true darkhorse that no one even thought of.... former mayor of Cleveland, former Ohio governor, presently US Senator representing Ohio, George Voinivch.

Voinivich has an extreme bipartisan following in Ohio, a state McCain needs to win.

Both are mavericks, both are trying to shake up and redesign the GOP name.

Voinivich , IHO, McCain's strongest move. He rebuilt Cleveland, he was an extremely good governor in Ohio that was able to work well with both parties.

He's pro-life, so the GOP can rest easily. But he has voted NO with Dems to extend Bush's tax cuts Vote 118: H R 4297 . He has voted with Dems on numerous issues, Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs, Vote 229: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R.5970; Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, Vote 177: H R 6331: Shall H.R. 6331 Pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding?; Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.

How did he vote on Bolton?
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/04...ote-on-bolton/

Quote:

GOP Sen. Voinivich Blocks Vote on Bolton
Jon Ponder | Apr. 19, 2005

The Democrats on Foreign Relations did their level best to derail the nomination of hotheaded Bush political operative John Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations but it was Republican Sen. George Voinivich of Ohio who shut down the vote for now:

A Senate committee delayed a crucial vote today on President Bush’s nomination of John R. Bolton to be the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations after a Republican senator stunned the Foreign Relations Committee by saying he might oppose the nomination if forced to take a stand.

The delay exposes Bolton, a controversial State Department hawk, to at least three more weeks of efforts by Democrats to derail his nomination as other Republicans waver over allegations that Bolton intimidated subordinates over disagreements about policy and intelligence assessments.

The delay also marks a setback for the Bush administration, which was trying to push the nomination through the committee in the face of the wavering support of two moderate Republicans, Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

But it was a third Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who voiced doubts about Bolton today and forced a delay in the vote.

“I’ve heard enough today that I don’t feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton,” Voinovich said. “I’ve heard enough today that gives me concern as a member of this committee.”

I truly believe, Voinivich would be McCain's best choice. I think that a McCain-Voinivich ticket would be unbeatable by Obama. It would be enough to get moderates from both sides to take notice, it would be an Independent's dream and there is no dirt on Voinivich, the man is truly a decent man. I have had issues with his voting record but unlike some..... cough Biden cough...... he stands up for what he believes and doesn't back down or sell out.

This was written in January of this year,

Martin Gottlieb: McCain, Voinovich: Distant brothers

Quote:

Martin Gottlieb: McCain, Voinovich: Distant brothers

By Martin Gottlieb

Friday, January 18, 2008

Some followers of politics in Ohio might be wondering why Sen. George Voinovich is not now — and never has been — publicly aligned with presidential candidate John McCain.

They seem, after all, to have much in common. Both are strong Republicans with strong independent streaks. Specifically, both are generally seen as tilting from Republican orthodoxy toward the political center.
Extras

Both, for example, have been skeptical of Bush administration tax cuts, at various times. Both have been generally strong for the Iraq war, but critical of the administration's handling of it (though McCain was more strongly for the surge).

Both are also anti-abortion, rather than aligned with the "social moderates" in the party; that's worth noting because abortion is still one of the issues that defines political subdivisions in this country.

And yet when McCain was looking for support for a compromise on judicial nomination, for example, he came up with then-Sen. Mike DeWine, not Voinovich.

The pattern has held with regard to McCain's presidential campaigns.

All things considered, McCain and Voinovich bring to mind brothers who aren't close.

But there are differences between them. They might even be seen as profound and fundamental, depending how one thinks about politics or, as the politicians like to say, public service.

Look at the Senate issues they focus on, try to establish expertise in and have their names connected with in the Senate.

With McCain, you're talking about big, juicy, high-profile stuff: campaign-finance reform, pork-barrel spending, war and peace.

With Voinovich you're generally talking about the nuts and bolts of making governance work. Symbolically enough, one of his big concerns has been civil-service reform, designed to make sure the federal government is expertly staffed.

And you're talking about attention to the federal debt, an issue that is equally avoided by the politicians of both parties.

In foreign policy right now, Voinovich is particularly focused on Kosovo. And his involvement is typical of him. He's not fighting for or against its independence from Serbia, which is the hot issue. He's pushing the State Department and others to focus more energetically on the effort to make transformation to independence go well.

He has myriad initiatives in other realms. Most typically, he doesn't play to one side or another in a hot-button debate, but tries to focus attention on issues that otherwise don't get much attention.

This difference in issues plays out in different relations with the media.

Among media people, McCain is associated with "straight talk," meaning both a willingness to relax and say what's on his mind and a willingness in campaigns to speak unpleasant truths. A classic example was his admission in Michigan that auto industry jobs aren't coming back. His more opportunistic opponent, Mitt Romney, pounced on him.

Voinovich, meanwhile, has a reputation not as a "straight talker," in the McCain sense, nor as an obfuscator, but as a policy wonk who isn't very quotable.

To stretch a point, what we have here are two different approaches to the life of the centrist, of the skeptic surrounded by partisans and ideological warriors.

If you like the Voinovich approach, you might see McCain as a glory hound. You might, for example, see the pork-barrel issue as one that the media love, but that is of trivial importance. It entails a tiny percentage of the federal budget, and, anyway, some of the projects are actually good, concrete, nonpartisan ways of helping local communities.

You might also note that, much as the media love the campaign-spending issue, nothing ever really changes as to the power of the special interests in politics, no matter what. You might also believe the problem is overstated, anyway.

If, on the other hand, you like the McCain approach, you might see Voinovich as a back-bencher, a guy who doesn't enter, or typically figure into, the big battles, who doesn't get himself bloodied, doesn't really try to lead.

In a recent telephone press conference, Voinovich, typically, wanted to talk about such issues as Egypt and Kosovo. But he was asked about the presidential race.

He wouldn't endorse, but seemed to maybe lean toward Mitt Romney, because of his executive experience. He believes that where George W. Bush has really failed is in management.

That's a fairly unusual perspective, but one that wouldn't surprise anybody who knows Voinovich.

Some might conclude that the big difference between McCain and Voinovich is that one clearly has been aiming for the presidency since he got to Washington, and one hasn't. But, really, it's more than that.

So don't be surprised..... I have a feeling Voinivich maybe on that list and it maybe only Voinivich's decision that keeps him off.

dc_dux · 08-24-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

So don't be surprised..... I have a feeling Voinivich maybe on that list and it maybe only Voinivich's decision that keeps him off.

pan....I would be very surprised...no, shocked and stunned beyond belief.

While Voinovich is a well-respected policy wonk, right up there with Biden, he is probably one of the dullest members of the Senate and not what you want and need on the campaign trail. And, I dont see anything in your article that would suggest that McCain and Voinovich have any interest in working together.

The articulate and young pretty boy from OH, John Kasich, would be much more formidable.

pan6467 · 08-24-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....I would be very surprised...no, shocked and stunned beyond belief.

While Voinovich is a well-respected policy wonk, right up there with Biden, he is probably one of the dullest members of the Senate and not what you want and need on the campaign trail. And, I dont see anything in your article that would suggest that McCain and Voinovich have any interest in working together.

The articulate and young pretty boy from OH, John Kasich, would be much more formidable.

Kasich sucks. Too GOP. May help him in parts of Ohio, but those parts he'd already have locked up. Voinivich would bring ALL of Ohio. And dull or not, Voinivich has a lot of respect on both sides of the aisle and is not a puppet.

Course if McCain truly wants young, pretty boy, strong on beliefs..... he could switch parties and nominate my personal favorite senator and politician.... the one and only SHERROD BROWN..... IF Obama had chosen Brown... I'd be wearing Obama pins, have Obama/BROWN bumperstickers and be the biggest fundraiser for that ticket they'd have in Ohio......

perhaps I could do it for McCain/Brown...... stop laughing........ it's possible in my reality.

Plus, boring and unassuming maybe the contrast needed for the supposed hot headed, publicity hound, maverick McCain needs.

guy44 · 08-25-2008, 07:16 AM

Can't be Romney. Nobody really likes him and he's like the only guy in politics richer than McCain. After house-gate (I've got McCain owning 8 houses in the office pool!) McCain cannot choose another moneybags.

Rekna · 08-25-2008, 09:52 AM

It will probably be Cheney...

dc_dux · 08-25-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It will probably be Cheney...

From an interview McCain had with Stephen Hayes in 2005 (who was writing Cheney's biography at the time):

Asked whether he’d be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: “I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.”

With Cheney's popularity even lower than Bush's (less than 20% in one recent poll).....now that would make a great ad!

Stare At The Sun · 08-25-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I don't believe it really matters who McCain's VP choice is... Obama will win handily regardless.

With that said... it will most likely be Romney.

I think you'll be quite amazed when the actual elections take place. It will be close.

forseti-6 · 08-25-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Can't be Romney. Nobody really likes him and he's like the only guy in politics richer than McCain. After house-gate (I've got McCain owning 8 houses in the office pool!) McCain cannot choose another moneybags.

You're completely off base here. Romney is a very good conservative VP choice. I don't know what you mean by nobody. Do some research first.

Last time I checked, Obama was fairly well off too. Kerry was extremely rich. It's a double standard that Obama is trying to make John McCain's success seem like a bad thing. Since when was success bad?

djtestudo · 08-25-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

You're completely off base here. Romney is a very good conservative VP choice. I don't know what you mean by nobody. Do some research first.

Last time I checked, Obama was fairly well off too. Kerry was extremely rich. It's a double standard that Obama is trying to make John McCain's success seem like a bad thing. Since when was success bad?

When you are an evil money-grubbing Republican, of course.

Rekna · 08-25-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

You're completely off base here. Romney is a very good conservative VP choice. I don't know what you mean by nobody. Do some research first.

Last time I checked, Obama was fairly well off too. Kerry was extremely rich. It's a double standard that Obama is trying to make John McCain's success seem like a bad thing. Since when was success bad?

It is not that he is rich it is that he doesn't understand the needs of the lower and middle classes. He doesn't understand what it is like to struggle to make mortgage payments, he doesn't know what its like to pump your own gas, last year McCain spent $270,000 on maids and butlers for his houses, etc. He seems to be out of touch with realities outside of his rich circle. Obama on the other hand group up poor, he worked with the poor in Chicago, he understands what these people are feeling.

Another quotable are last year his wife said "Private jets are the only way to travel around the midwest (paraphrased)". It must be nice to get to fly everywhere but some of us have to drive and are struggling with the cost of gas. It costs me $600 a plane ticket to fly home.

forseti-6 · 08-26-2008, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It is not that he is rich it is that he doesn't understand the needs of the lower and middle classes. He doesn't understand what it is like to struggle to make mortgage payments, he doesn't know what its like to pump your own gas, last year McCain spent $270,000 on maids and butlers for his houses, etc. He seems to be out of touch with realities outside of his rich circle. Obama on the other hand group up poor, he worked with the poor in Chicago, he understands what these people are feeling.

Another quotable are last year his wife said "Private jets are the only way to travel around the midwest (paraphrased)". It must be nice to get to fly everywhere but some of us have to drive and are struggling with the cost of gas. It costs me $600 a plane ticket to fly home.

Last I checked Obama frequently travels on private jets too. John Kerry always flies on private jets, has multiple houses, and is possibly wealthier than McCain, yet no one tried to vilify him when he was running. This is why I don't like many tactics of the left. Everything to them is a double standard, just about everything they accuse conservatives of, there are liberals that are far more guilty of, yet they can do no wrong.

The polls always show what the American voter cares about. Since Obama started making a deal about this stupid house issue, McCain has actually pulled even with him in the polls. So it really shows that although you might think not knowing how many houses you have (and in reality, they're mostly houses owned by his wife) people don't really care. It doesn't mean he's out of touch, it just means he doesn't know.

It amazes how Obama's cult of personality trumpets any minor thing he does, and blindfolds his followers from any negative thing he does. Fortunately for the country, many of the independents do not swoon for him, and will vote for or against him based on ISSUES not his celebrity.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 08 : 34 : 02-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

When you are an evil money-grubbing Republican, of course.

So I'm assuming money grubbing Democrats is acceptable. Notice none of them are attacked from the right for being successful. I find it ironic how those on the left can talk about "the American Dream" when they seem to overtly attack those who are living it. You can't have it both ways!

dc_dux · 08-26-2008, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

Last I checked Obama frequently travels on private jets too. John Kerry always flies on private jets, has multiple houses, and is possibly wealthier than McCain, yet no one tried to vilify him when he was running. This is why I don't like many tactics of the left. Everything to them is a double standard, just about everything they accuse conservatives of, there are liberals that are far more guilty of, yet they can do no wrong.

Looking objectively, I think most would agree that both sides are equally guilty.

No one vilified Kerry (remember the Swiftboaters?) or his wife? Obama has not been vilified for being a "secret Muslim" or other equally outrageous charges about his patriotism? Or portraying Michelle Obama as an "angry black woman."

You dont think the right, most notably Limbaugh, Hannety, Fox News, et al, dont use the same tactics or apply double standards that you find so offensive? Hell, Limbaugh invented and mastered the tactics in modern day mass communications.

I agree the focus should be on issues and facts.. but lets no try to make the silly argument that taking the lower road is one-sided.

You might start with stopping the bullshit about a cult of personality and blindfolded and swooning followers.....or money grubbing Democrats.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 08 : 54 : 09-----
Or equally baseless claims that Obama wants to turn the US into a European style socialist state or destroy the world's greatest health care system.

Rekna · 08-26-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

Last I checked Obama frequently travels on private jets too. John Kerry always flies on private jets, has multiple houses, and is possibly wealthier than McCain, yet no one tried to vilify him when he was running. This is why I don't like many tactics of the left. Everything to them is a double standard, just about everything they accuse conservatives of, there are liberals that are far more guilty of, yet they can do no wrong.

Did you even check if they never attacked Teresa before posting or did you just try and poll that out of your butt?

Cindy’s fortune: An asset and a liability - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com

Quote:

In 2004, Republicans demanded fuller disclosure about the considerable fortune of Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Now, the GOP is reaping what it sowed.

Having established a recent precedent for increased scrutiny of spousal finances, the party now finds its own presumptive nominee, John McCain, under an unwanted spotlight over the fortune of his wife, Cindy.

Kerry's Wife: Above Suspicion?, WS: Why Won't Teresa Heinz Kerry Release Her Tax Returns? - CBS News

Quote:

Kerry's Wife: Above Suspicion?
WS: Why Won't Teresa Heinz Kerry Release Her Tax Returns?

April 26, 2004

(Weekly Standard) The democratic candidate's spouse refuses to disclose tax returns. Republicans seize the issue, asking what the spouse is hiding. The New York Times calls for full disclosure. Distracted by the controversy, the candidate is on the defensive. The spouse eventually relents and agrees to release five years' worth of tax returns, but only after the candidate's campaign has been damaged.

Sound familiar? Yes, John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, has refused to make her tax returns public, and her decision has caused some controversy. But she's not the spouse in the example above. That would be John A. Zaccaro, husband of then-New York congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1984. And if the Kerry campaign doesn't learn from the historical record, it risks its own John Zaccaro problem.

Twenty years ago Ferraro was bedeviled by her inconsistency. In July '84, she said she would release both her and her husband's tax returns. Yet a month later she backtracked and said she would release only her returns. Then she backtracked again, saying her husband would release "a financial -- a tax statement" on August 20. But she must not have consulted her husband, because Zaccaro initially refused. Finally he agreed to make public his tax returns from 1979 to 1984, after Republican attacks detracted from his wife's campaign.

When John Kerry talks about his wife's returns, he isn't inconsistent. He's inaccurate. He said on Meet the Press last week that presidential candidates are required by law to release their income tax returns. In fact, no such law exists. Releasing tax information has been customary since 1976. Also on Meet the Press, after host Tim Russert mentioned the Ferraro example, Kerry suggested his wife's decision not to release her returns wasn't a problem, because American politicians "have far more intrusive ethics forms today" than in 1984. "If you want to see what my wife's holdings are," Kerry said, "you can go to our Senate ethics forms. It shows you exactly what we have. It's very, very, very intrusive."

Kerry is dead wrong, for a couple of reasons. First, House and Senate members have been filling out financial disclosure forms for their respective ethics committees since 1978. In fact, Geraldine Ferraro had trouble with these forms, too. As a congresswoman, she regularly claimed to be exempt from disclosing her husband's finances, which would have been legal, provided she had no knowledge of her spouse's financial activities and had not profited from them. The problem was that Ferraro claimed the exemption even though she was an officer of her husband's real estate firm, P. Zaccaro & Company.

And congressional disclosure forms aren't as intrusive as Kerry says. It's true the forms contain a detailed list of a congressional couple's financial assets. But there's little specificity when it comes to the value of those assets. For example, poring through Kerry's most recent Senate disclosure form, which covers the 2002 calendar year, one finds that the senator and his wife have a stake in the Flying Squirrel charter airplane company in Delaware. But the form tells you only that the stake is "over $1,000,000," and that the investment provided somewhere between $50,001 and $100,000 in income in 2002.

What the congressional disclosure forms omit is also important. A tax return reveals someone's charitable contributions, for example, as well as an individual's mortgage deductions. Also, a tax return includes contributions to nonprofit organizations, including political ones. No such information is contained in the forms legislators submit to the House and Senate ethics committees.

Yet Heinz is adamant. She won't disclose her tax returns, she said through a spokesman, because she isn't a candidate for office. Why should she be subjected to the same scrutiny as her husband? Heinz has a point. She isn't breaking any law. She enjoys the same privacy rights as others. But she's now the first wife of a presidential candidate to refuse disclosure since the practice became customary. What would be in her tax returns that's worth keeping secret?

A lot, actually. One Republican lawyer says Heinz's returns would be a "treasure trove of opposition research." One thing the returns would show, this lawyer says, is the extent to which Kerry is a "kept man." According to his tax return, Kerry's income in 2003 was $395,338 -- over half of which came from the sale of his quarter interest in a 17th-century Dutch painting co-owned by Teresa and the art dealer Peter Tillou. (The 4' x 8' painting, incidentally, is "The Arrival of Frederick and Elizabeth, Prince and Princess of the Palatinate, at Flushing, April 29, 1613" by Adam Willaerts.) Sure, it was a high-income year for the senator. But in 2003, Kerry also took out a $6.4 million mortgage on his share of the couple's Beacon Hill townhouse in Boston to fund his strapped presidential campaign.

The Beacon Hill townhouse has come in handy before. Heinz bought it in 1995, the year she and Kerry married, for $1.7 million. An extensive renovation upped the market value to about $3 million. Then Heinz gave her husband ownership of half the house. A year later, in 1996, he mortgaged his share of the house in order to lend his Senate reelection campaign $900,000. It took the senator three years to pay off the loan. Boston journalists have long wondered how Kerry was able to get such plum mortgages on his Senate income. The answer is simple. His wife is worth nearly $550 million.

Making Heinz's tax returns public would confirm that she's Kerry's sugar daddy (sugar mommy?). It would also strike a blow against Kerry's populist rhetoric by detailing the lavish lifestyle he and his wife enjoy: the vacation home in Nantucket, the ski chalet in Ketchum, Idaho, the estate outside Pittsburgh, the Georgetown manse. Not to mention the red-and-white Gulfstream jet. And the tax returns could embarrass the Kerry campaign further if it's revealed that Heinz has contributed to independent organizations working to unseat President Bush.

A Bush campaign official says there are no plans to make an issue out of Heinz's tax returns. That's a big difference from 1984, when Republican surrogates took to the airwaves denouncing John Zaccaro. (Vice President George H.W. Bush's spokesman called Zaccaro "a very selfish man.") But the political press has started to question Heinz. Robert Novak devoted a column to the subject last week, for example. And the New York Times editorial page weighed in as well. "We urge that the candidate's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, release her tax returns," the editors wrote. The Times is being consistent. In 1984, during the Zaccaro controversy, an editorial in its pages said: "Mrs. Ferraro's husband, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion." Is Teresa Heinz?

Remember the John Kerry flip flop add where they showed him sailing? One of the things they were attacking was Teresa's money. They successfully painted Kerry as an elitist. This year McCain tried to do the same to Obama.
McCain tried to push the Obama is an elitist card and now it is biting him in the butt. He and Republicans are reaping what he sowed.

Now well were at it do we want to talk about the ridiculous attacks on Michelle Obama?

How is that for your hypocritical double standard?

forseti-6 · 08-26-2008, 02:51 PM

Look here's one thing we can agree on. Attacks on spouses are WRONG. I don't believe Rush's and Sean's attacks on Michelle Obama were justified.

That being said, don't bring up the elitist aspect. Obama and Kerry both certainly talked down to the crowd. McCain talks to the crowd. Every Obama speech seems like a pep rally for himself. McCain seems fairly humble in my view.

Rekna · 08-26-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

Look here's one thing we can agree on. Attacks on spouses are WRONG. I don't believe Rush's and Sean's attacks on Michelle Obama were justified.

That being said, don't bring up the elitist aspect. Obama and Kerry both certainly talked down to the crowd. McCain talks to the crowd. Every Obama speech seems like a pep rally for himself. McCain seems fairly humble in my view.

I have never seen Obama talk down to the crowd. Please provide examples.

ottopilot · 08-26-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have never seen Obama talk down to the crowd. Please provide examples.

Yes... while someone's perceptions may seem well founded, it would be hard to point to an example of Obama "talking down" to a crowd. His crowds are diverse in intelligence as any political crowd and they seem to love what he says. I could also see how an opposition supporter may have negative perceptions of how McCain communicates to his audiences.

Halx · 08-26-2008, 04:36 PM

Is Darth Vader a valid response?

hunnychile · 08-26-2008, 05:44 PM

The latest name I heard was Joe Mott from Youngstown, Ohio. Who knew?

forseti-6 · 08-26-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have never seen Obama talk down to the crowd. Please provide examples.

Well after reading what I wrote, I think I misspoke. I meant to say insults not talks down.

My example "all you need is inflate your tires and get regular tuneups and you'll save as much oil as you would get from drilling." Isn't that a little insulting?

ottopilot · 08-26-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Is Darth Vader a valid response?

Why not... "Barry, I am your fah-thah"

Rekna · 08-26-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

Well after reading what I wrote, I think I misspoke. I meant to say insults not talks down.

My example "all you need is inflate your tires and get regular tuneups and you'll save as much oil as you would get from drilling." Isn't that a little insulting?

First he didn't say it way. He said there are many things we can do to save gas now and not increase supply 6 years ago. Then he gave an example of inflating tires. Which is true! It has been estimated that people will save an average of around 3% gas by properly inflating your tires. Hell even McCain admitted Obama was right on the tire inflation.

It seems like all you have are republican talking points. You should try getting your news from more diverse sources. I make it a point to read the following websites daily:

CBS news, Fox news, Daily KOS, Redstate, Election Projection, and Electoral Vote.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...829354,00.html

Quote:

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.

-----Added 26/8/2008 at 10 : 10 : 21-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Is Darth Vader a valid response?

Already been mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It will probably be Cheney...

guy44 · 08-26-2008, 07:24 PM

Calling Obama rich in the same way that Romney and McCain are is ludicrous. McCain is the son of an admiral who went to the Naval Academy and spent years earning relatively large salaries in Congress and the Senate. He also married an incredibly wealthy heiress, and now can't even remember how many houses he owns.

Mitt Romney is the son of the former Governor of Michigan. Mitt turned into a brilliant businessman and made unfathomable amounts of money. He then became the governor of Massachusetts.

Barack Obama was raised partially abroad and partially in Hawaii and partially in Kansas. The one constant in his life was that his family's economic situation ran from working class to poverty-level (occasionally, he was fed with the assistance of food stamps). He was a brilliant student and politician, and managed to earn his way to the Ivy Leagues, a coveted position at the University of Chicago Law School, the state of Illinois's legislative bodies, the U.S. Senate, and now the Democratic nomination for President. He also wrote two well-received books, which recently (as in the last 4 years) allow him to claim a wealthy, but far from ultra-rich, income.

McCain and Romney were scions of powerful families, and each are currently worth hundreds of millions of dollars more than Barack Obama. I'm not saying that any of these facts prove that McCain or Romney are elitist, or that Obama isn't. But it certainly seems ridiculous to suggest that only the latter is, and if you can make a case for any of those three to be "out of touch with average Americans," well, it probably isn't Obama.

P.S. Forseti:

A) OK, I was being flip about nobody liking Romney. But seriously, there's hardly a groundswell of support for his VP consideration.

B) John McCain has certainly accomplished a lot in his life. But let's not call his wealth a "success," unless you consider getting a sugar mommy a resume-builder. The guy married into a fortune.

forseti-6 · 08-26-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

B) John McCain has certainly accomplished a lot in his life. But let's not call his wealth a "success," unless you consider getting a sugar mommy a resume-builder. The guy married into a fortune.

That's success isn't it?

To be honest, McCain probably didn't know how many houses he had because many of them belonged to his wife. So, moot argument on the Democrat's side.

My advice to both parties. Stop the bickering and get to the issues. I still don't know what McCain's full economic policy is and I still don't know what Obama's full foreign policy is.

And neither have elaborated on their health care policy since the primaries. Hello people!!! Aren't those the big issues of this election?
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 11 : 36 : 21-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME

Time Magazine... very diverse source

By the way, I listen to conservative talk radio, npr, watch cnn, fox news. Is that diverse enough?

Halx · 08-26-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

My example "all you need is inflate your tires and get regular tuneups and you'll save as much oil as you would get from drilling." Isn't that a little insulting?

...no.. I don't feel insulted. Then again, I was hugged when I was a kid.

forseti-6 · 08-26-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

...no.. I don't feel insulted. Then again, I was hugged when I was a kid.

Well I felt his saying that was insulting the intelligence of the crowd. He's assuming no one has properly inflated tires and no one takes their cars for service. Now I'm sure some people drive with near flats and don't change their filters and oil, I'd be willing to bet most people take care of their cars.

08-23-2008, 12:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Who will be McCain's Vice President? Will it be Lieberman? Giuliani? Alaska gov. Sarah Palin? Mike Huckabee? Romney? Do you think he will pick someone from outside Washington? Young or Old? Religious or center-leaning? Who do you want to see him pick? I think Sarah Palin would be the most interesting choice. It would make all the females that were supporting Hilary just because of her gender think about switching sides (Hilary could run again in 4 years if Obama loses too). In reality I think he will pick Huckabee.

08-23-2008, 01:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Could be Lieberman, Bobby Jindal, or how about Powell or Rice? Any of these would give McCain an instant minority boost to counter Obama. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-23-2008, 02:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think McCain has to decide if he wants to appeal to the conservative base of the party with a social conservative or broaden his appeal to independents. In the first scenario, someone like former congressman John Kasich of Ohio (swing state) who is a social and fiscal conservative. In the other scenario, someone like Tom Ridge, former governor of Penn (another swing state). But most likely, IMO, it will be Romney. -----Added 23/8/2008 at 06 : 03 : 03----- There is still a rumor that Powell will speak at the Democratic convention on Wednesday night (national security night) and endorse Obama. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-23-2008 at 02:03 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

08-23-2008, 02:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Never mind - error! __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-23-2008, 02:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its a safe bet it wont be Pat Buchanan....lol In a recent article on World Net Daily, Buchanan described McCain's top foreign policy adviser (who was a lobbyist for the Repub of Georgia) as a neocon war monger....a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-23-2008, 01:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Romney might be a smart choice for a GOP campaign. He'll probably want someone more conservative and religious than he appears, but not ultra-religious like Huckabee. He and Leiberman seem to be buddies (shudders), but picking a Republican in Democrat's clothing could lose him a lot of hard core Republicans, which seem to be his base. Who do I want him to pick? Dennis Kucinich!

08-23-2008, 01:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Powell would be a brilliant choice, but he'd probably turn it down. Rice is interesting, but I always get the impression that people don't like her. I mean it's obvious why liberals don't like her, and irrelevant, but a lot of my conservative friends don't trust her. I'll have to ask why. Moreover, I'm not sure if she could do the job if anything happened to McCain. Powell? Absolutely. Leiberman? Maybe. Rice? I honestly don't think so.

08-23-2008, 04:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
forseti-6 Existentialist Location: New York City	It's going to be Romney. I don't think there is a better choice because he brings economic knowledge as well has been vetted A LOT during the primaries. If McCain wants to guarantee victory, select Hillary, HAHA. I don't think that would happen in a million years, but who knows. If McCain chooses a pro-lifer like Lieberman or Ridge, he's going to lost a lot of the evangelical vote. __________________ "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

08-23-2008, 05:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Well having Rice, Powell or Jindal would equalize the whole race issue. Obama would lose the whole "minority" novelty and the contest could get back to real issues. Rice is a highly educated, competent woman. Of course many people don't like her. Hillary suffers from the same problem. Hmm...Hillary-Rice ticket...interesting..... Wonder if Oprah would endorse them... __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-23-2008, 06:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	In a dream world Powell would run. But I highly doubt it.

08-23-2008, 08:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	I don't believe it really matters who McCain's VP choice is... Obama will win handily regardless. With that said... it will most likely be Romney. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

08-24-2008, 03:51 AM	#14 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I think Ron Paul is a shoe in for the republican VP spot. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

08-24-2008, 04:21 AM	#15 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	So here's Ron Paul with a pancake on his head. Ron Paul Pancake Head.jpg __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

08-25-2008, 07:16 AM	#19 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Can't be Romney. Nobody really likes him and he's like the only guy in politics richer than McCain. After house-gate (I've got McCain owning 8 houses in the office pool!) McCain cannot choose another moneybags. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

08-25-2008, 09:52 AM	#20 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It will probably be Cheney...

08-26-2008, 02:51 PM	#29 (permalink)
forseti-6 Existentialist Location: New York City	Look here's one thing we can agree on. Attacks on spouses are WRONG. I don't believe Rush's and Sean's attacks on Michelle Obama were justified. That being said, don't bring up the elitist aspect. Obama and Kerry both certainly talked down to the crowd. McCain talks to the crowd. Every Obama speech seems like a pep rally for himself. McCain seems fairly humble in my view. __________________ "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

08-26-2008, 04:36 PM	#32 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Is Darth Vader a valid response? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

08-26-2008, 05:44 PM	#33 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	The latest name I heard was Joe Mott from Youngstown, Ohio. Who knew? __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

08-26-2008, 07:24 PM	#37 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Calling Obama rich in the same way that Romney and McCain are is ludicrous. McCain is the son of an admiral who went to the Naval Academy and spent years earning relatively large salaries in Congress and the Senate. He also married an incredibly wealthy heiress, and now can't even remember how many houses he owns. Mitt Romney is the son of the former Governor of Michigan. Mitt turned into a brilliant businessman and made unfathomable amounts of money. He then became the governor of Massachusetts. Barack Obama was raised partially abroad and partially in Hawaii and partially in Kansas. The one constant in his life was that his family's economic situation ran from working class to poverty-level (occasionally, he was fed with the assistance of food stamps). He was a brilliant student and politician, and managed to earn his way to the Ivy Leagues, a coveted position at the University of Chicago Law School, the state of Illinois's legislative bodies, the U.S. Senate, and now the Democratic nomination for President. He also wrote two well-received books, which recently (as in the last 4 years) allow him to claim a wealthy, but far from ultra-rich, income. McCain and Romney were scions of powerful families, and each are currently worth hundreds of millions of dollars more than Barack Obama. I'm not saying that any of these facts prove that McCain or Romney are elitist, or that Obama isn't. But it certainly seems ridiculous to suggest that only the latter is, and if you can make a case for any of those three to be "out of touch with average Americans," well, it probably isn't Obama. P.S. Forseti: A) OK, I was being flip about nobody liking Romney. But seriously, there's hardly a groundswell of support for his VP consideration. B) John McCain has certainly accomplished a lot in his life. But let's not call his wealth a "success," unless you consider getting a sugar mommy a resume-builder. The guy married into a fortune. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"