Romney Rice 2012. Condi - ideal running mate for Mitt Romney

[TheGreatGatsby]

The "optics" of a presidential candidate being supported by a previous president or secretary of state are positive, right?

Supported; yes. Overshadowed; no.

Romney is a lightweight and has done little to engender himself in any other light. Rice is a heavyweight in foreign policy, well respected worldwide, a scholar in world events, a true diplomat in the arena.

I think she'll be a plus as a VP. As an American, I would be happy to see her in the executive.

I think she'll overshadow the top of the ticket.

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

B/C libs always want to tell us bs reasons to not do what scares them. They did the same thing when they argued that Mitt wasn't even conservative during the primaries.

 

[candycorn]

The "optics" of a presidential candidate being supported by a previous president or secretary of state are positive, right?

Supported; yes. Overshadowed; no.

Romney is a lightweight and has done little to engender himself in any other light. Rice is a heavyweight in foreign policy, well respected worldwide, a scholar in world events, a true diplomat in the arena.

I think she'll be a plus as a VP. As an American, I would be happy to see her in the executive.

I think she'll overshadow the top of the ticket.

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way. There is a reason it is Obama/Biden, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore....the #2 guy/gal is #2 for a reason.

As for ridicule; I don't know why you think it is an either/or proposition--either you have a colossus or a clown. A competent person ready to take over is what you want. Hell, he could pick George W Bush, Dick Cheney or Rice and he'll have the same problem. The problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with him.

Again, in a vacuum; Rice is a great pick and as an American citizen, I'd be proud to have her as a VP. Politically, the pick is not the best move for Governor Romney which, on one hand, may be a good reason to pick her; that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway. Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL088BA38C3077AA41]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Supported; yes. Overshadowed; no.

Romney is a lightweight and has done little to engender himself in any other light. Rice is a heavyweight in foreign policy, well respected worldwide, a scholar in world events, a true diplomat in the arena.

I think she'll be a plus as a VP. As an American, I would be happy to see her in the executive.

I think she'll overshadow the top of the ticket.

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way. There is a reason it is Obama/Biden, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore....the #2 guy/gal is #2 for a reason.

As for ridicule; I don't know why you think it is an either/or proposition--either you have a colossus or a clown. A competent person ready to take over is what you want. Hell, he could pick George W Bush, Dick Cheney or Rice and he'll have the same problem. The problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with him.

Again, in a vacuum; Rice is a great pick and as an American citizen, I'd be proud to have her as a VP. Politically, the pick is not the best move for Governor Romney which, on one hand, may be a good reason to pick her; that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway. Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL088BA38C3077AA41]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]​

Thanks for advising us to pick a second rate candidate, but no thanks.

And you can brag all you want about how proud you are of Rice; but we all know you'll be sniping at her if she gets the nod.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way. There is a reason it is Obama/Biden, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore....the #2 guy/gal is #2 for a reason.

As for ridicule; I don't know why you think it is an either/or proposition--either you have a colossus or a clown. A competent person ready to take over is what you want. Hell, he could pick George W Bush, Dick Cheney or Rice and he'll have the same problem. The problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with him.

Again, in a vacuum; Rice is a great pick and as an American citizen, I'd be proud to have her as a VP. Politically, the pick is not the best move for Governor Romney which, on one hand, may be a good reason to pick her; that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway. Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL088BA38C3077AA41]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]​

Thanks for advising us to pick a second rate candidate, but no thanks.

And you can brag all you want about how proud you are of Rice; but we all know you'll be sniping at her if she gets the nod.

If she starts speaking about issues and taking stances on them that I disagree with; yes I'll be happy to take her to task on that. See, I don't hate people based on their color like you do.

She has some stuff to walk back from the rush to war; to be certain.

 

[freedombecki]

Republicans should be careful what they ask for. The 3 R's; Rice, Rubio and Ryan are all glorified demagogues. If we want someone with a backbone and fire in their belly think Paul or Christie. I'd probably be willing to compromise on Pawlenty. But that's just b/c I'm not fully convinced he's like the 3 R's yet.

So now you think Rice would be a bad idea?

Actually, anyone who Republicans would actually be excited about would just serve to remind them that the GOP Establishment shoved Romney down their throats when they would have rather had anyone else.

Pawlenty and Portman would probably be the safest choices. They don't outshine, they'd do an okay job if Romney got sent to the Celestial Heaven to rule his own planet, they won't "Go Rogue" and persue their own agenda.

Pawlenty would be the best pick. He handles himself well in interviews, and won't screw it up.


But the Veep pick won't make a difference.

Romney will lose because he's Romney. Evil Corporate Vampire with a weird religion.

Turning a company around to make it a profitable entity is evil? How do you think schools and other institutions got operating money? Hint: it has to do with profitability and the people who were determined to have a profitable enough business to prosper people who wanted a better chance at the American Dream, then turned around and shared the profits with libraries, hospitals, cancer clinics, sports arenas and buildings, and every good thing under the sun for their fellow Americans, not to mention a helping hand in a tsunami disaster, etc.

If you kill the host, the party's over, dear.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way. There is a reason it is Obama/Biden, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore....the #2 guy/gal is #2 for a reason.

As for ridicule; I don't know why you think it is an either/or proposition--either you have a colossus or a clown. A competent person ready to take over is what you want. Hell, he could pick George W Bush, Dick Cheney or Rice and he'll have the same problem. The problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with him.

Again, in a vacuum; Rice is a great pick and as an American citizen, I'd be proud to have her as a VP. Politically, the pick is not the best move for Governor Romney which, on one hand, may be a good reason to pick her; that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway. Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube​

Thanks for advising us to pick a second rate candidate, but no thanks.

And you can brag all you want about how proud you are of Rice; but we all know you'll be sniping at her if she gets the nod.

If she starts speaking about issues and taking stances on them that I disagree with; yes I'll be happy to take her to task on that. See, I don't hate people based on their color like you do.

She has some stuff to walk back from the rush to war; to be certain.

Then you don't think she's great; you're just giving us lip service like I stated. Blacks will always be "great" to a liberal until they are interfering with their politics. Then they're the worst people in the world. And if I hated people based on their color I wouldn't be advocating Rice you ferdicum nit wit.

 

[Peter Dow]

Supported; yes. Overshadowed; no.

Romney is a lightweight and has done little to engender himself in any other light. Rice is a heavyweight in foreign policy, well respected worldwide, a scholar in world events, a true diplomat in the arena.

I think she'll be a plus as a VP. As an American, I would be happy to see her in the executive.

I think she'll overshadow the top of the ticket.

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way.

Historically, there's one Vice Presidential televised debate, right? The VP candidates are both widely seen and heard then.

There is a reason it is Obama/Biden, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore....the #2 guy/gal is #2 for a reason.

And it would be Romney/Rice for the same reason.

As for ridicule; I don't know why you think it is an either/or proposition--either you have a colossus or a clown.

It was a debating point explaining it's better if a candidate for VP is nearer to colossus than clown.

A competent person ready to take over is what you want.

Therefore Condi is what you want.

Hell, he could pick George W Bush, Dick Cheney or Rice and he'll have the same problem. The problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with him.

Romney has a VP pick to pick. That's his immediate problem to solve and he being himself is what he has to solve his problem. He can pick the best candidate for VP who would enhance his ticket the most.

Again, in a vacuum; Rice is a great pick and as an American citizen, I'd be proud to have her as a VP.

Agreed.

Politically, the pick is not the best move for Governor Romney

Not agreed. Why isn't it the best move? What's a better move, in your opinion?

which, on one hand, may be a good reason to pick her;

that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway.

66% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Rice. That's very high for anyone in politics. There's never anyone with 100% favorable opinion.

Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

Adding Rice to Romney to make Romney - Rice helps get Romney elected more than any other pick so of course Romney supporters are going to agree with that pick if they have any sense.

I don't understand and so I can't agree where you seem to be implying some unexplained down-side to the pick.

Also Romney supporters have just watched Romney secure the Republican nomination so I don't think Romney supporters would view Romney picking a winning candidate for VP to go forward into the general election as a "new venture". Romney and supporters want to win the presidency - what's new about that?

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure why you think "overshadowing" isn't positive for the ticket?

A ticket with a political colossus on it is a ticket to vote for, right?

Do you think Romney wants overshadowed by his VP pick and voted in as president, or to have his VP pick ridiculed, as Palin was ridiculed, and not voted in as president?

Well, because historically the VP is usually seen but not heard and most of the electorate look at it that way.

Historically, there's one Vice Presidential televised debate, right? The VP candidates are both widely seen and heard then.


And it would be Romney/Rice for the same reason.


It was a debating point explaining it's better if a candidate for VP is nearer to colossus than clown.


Therefore Condi is what you want.


Romney has a VP pick to pick. That's his immediate problem to solve and he being himself is what he has to solve his problem. He can pick the best candidate for VP who would enhance his ticket the most.


Agreed.


Not agreed. Why isn't it the best move? What's a better move, in your opinion?

that he recognizes the politics are not 100% favorable and did it anyway.

66% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Rice. That's very high for anyone in politics. There's never anyone with 100% favorable opinion.

Even the most ardent supporter of Romney must agree that doing something not 100% favorable politically would be a new venture for him.

Adding Rice to Romney to make Romney - Rice helps get Romney elected more than any other pick so of course Romney supporters are going to agree with that pick if they have any sense.

I don't understand and so I can't agree where you seem to be implying some unexplained down-side to the pick.

Also Romney supporters have just watched Romney secure the Republican nomination so I don't think Romney supporters would view Romney picking a winning candidate for VP to go forward into the general election as a "new venture". Romney and supporters want to win the presidency - what's new about that?

Okay...lets look at the politics.

Politically she will deliver a few percentage points of women, maybe a few percentage points of blacks and firm up the group that will vote for Governor Romney anyway. It certainly doesn't deliver California, blacks, or women.

Her favorables are extremely high. You're right about that. Have you thought for a moment about why that is? Because she hasn't voiced a stance in broad circulation in about 4 years.

And it opens the door to the speculation (founded in my view) that she is more qualified than he is (the Bentesn/Dukakis syndrome).

I have made the suggestion on this board several times that she would be a great #2. But to serve as #2, you have to win the election. This doesn't help Romney as much as you are portraying.

Again, the problem isn't with Rice; the problem is with Governor Romney.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/229230-survey-what-two-tickets-candidates-would-you-want-to-see-battle-in-2016-election-3.html#post5469600

 

[candycorn]

Not agreed. Why isn't it the best move? What's a better move, in your opinion?

There are no attractive alternatives for Governor Romney. The problem isn't with the #2, it is with the Governor.

The better move would to pick a Senator or Governor from the midwest to lend an anchor of stability to his "whichever way the wind blows" attitude toward policy positions. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Tom Coburn, Roy Blount....etc...

But the problem Governor Romney has is that this may be the last move he has to make a game-changing move. Perhaps a moderate Democrat if he can find one.

 

[Peter Dow]

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube​

Oh that was very funny. I do hope those who made that video come on side to Romney - Rice 2012.

I much rather have them backing Condi than opposing her.

 

[candycorn]

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube​

Oh that was very funny. I do hope those who made that video come on side to Romney - Rice 2012.

I much rather have them backing Condi than opposing her.

Ron Paul's supporters or his campaign put that out.

 

[candycorn]

Thanks for advising us to pick a second rate candidate, but no thanks.

And you can brag all you want about how proud you are of Rice; but we all know you'll be sniping at her if she gets the nod.

If she starts speaking about issues and taking stances on them that I disagree with; yes I'll be happy to take her to task on that. See, I don't hate people based on their color like you do.

She has some stuff to walk back from the rush to war; to be certain.

Then you don't think she's great; you're just giving us lip service like I stated. Blacks will always be "great" to a liberal until they are interfering with their politics. Then they're the worst people in the world. And if I hated people based on their color I wouldn't be advocating Rice you ferdicum nit wit.

Just out of curiosity, have you verified her birth certificate for authenticity? If not, why not? Or do you just question the birthplace of those who you politically disagree with?

Racist scumbag.

 

[JackLandsman]

Dr. Rice has never expressed any ambition for higher office. Having said that, a selection such as this would make no political sense whatsoever. Mitt Romney's considerable weaknesses have stemmed from his demonstrable past as a social liberal--hence the "flip-flopper" tag--for one. Dr. Rice is pro-choice. In order to shore up the base and avoid John McCain's fate in '08 (lackluster enthusiasm for the top of the ticket and what was then Barack Obama's incumbent-like warchest), Romney would do well to pick a rock-ribbed Reaganite.

A year ago the president could have very well have been counted out on account of the staggering unemployment figures et al. The hard cynic in me, however, thinks the voting public and the institutions (see the Roberts Court's ruling on ObamaCare) are more or less pleased or simply content with this preening, obnoxious left-wing corporatist in the White House. And therefore a social liberal at the bottom of the Republican ticket would be unspeakable folly on Mitt Romney's part. He has base considerations.

But as my signature would suggest, I'm holding out for a Sarah Palin run as a third party candidate. Or perhaps the Tea Party should go to Tampa and nut up, upending the entire process. Brokered convention, much? I wouldn't cast a vote for a Palin-Romney ticket (I'm a liberal) but that would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than the presumed Obama-Romney snoozefest coming our way this fall.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If she starts speaking about issues and taking stances on them that I disagree with; yes I'll be happy to take her to task on that. See, I don't hate people based on their color like you do.

She has some stuff to walk back from the rush to war; to be certain.

Then you don't think she's great; you're just giving us lip service like I stated. Blacks will always be "great" to a liberal until they are interfering with their politics. Then they're the worst people in the world. And if I hated people based on their color I wouldn't be advocating Rice you ferdicum nit wit.

Just out of curiosity, have you verified her birth certificate for authenticity? If not, why not? Or do you just question the birthplace of those who you politically disagree with?

Racist scumbag.

I don't have any reason to believe she wasn't born here. But if she wasn't I wouldn't support her as a presidential candidate. Again, you have no logic; you're behaving like a five-year-old.

 

[bodecea]

She'd be a great choice, but I don't think she'd do it.

She's been saying she doesn't want to do it.

 

[JagOnDaRoad]

Light weight. Hmm. Not the best choice in a routine election cycle, but he'll be fine for now. Our real problem is trying to convince a huge chunk of the masses to think outside of pre-teen pollyannaism and listen to their non-stoned parents. Vote for a qualified candidate, not an pipedream like senator community organizer.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Light weight. Hmm. Not the best choice in a routine election cycle, but he'll be fine for now. Our real problem is trying to convince a huge chunk of the masses to think outside of pre-teen pollyannaism and listen to their non-stoned parents. Vote for a qualified candidate, not an pipedream like senator community organizer.

Romney is far from a lightweight. If Obama thought that, he wouldn't have campaigned for Santorum.

 

[candycorn]

Then you don't think she's great; you're just giving us lip service like I stated. Blacks will always be "great" to a liberal until they are interfering with their politics. Then they're the worst people in the world. And if I hated people based on their color I wouldn't be advocating Rice you ferdicum nit wit.

Just out of curiosity, have you verified her birth certificate for authenticity? If not, why not? Or do you just question the birthplace of those who you politically disagree with?

Racist scumbag.

I don't have any reason to believe she wasn't born here. But if she wasn't I wouldn't support her as a presidential candidate. Again, you have no logic; you're behaving like a five-year-old.

Nor do you have any evidence/reason to suggest otherwise about President Obama. Otherwise you'd be plastering it all over the place. You're getting your ass handed to you. Someone of your ilk needs to have an intervention with you; you're not helping Governor Romney with this shit and you're making all conservatives look like knuckle dragging idiots.

 

[freedombecki]

Dr. Rice has never expressed any ambition for higher office. Having said that, a selection such as this would make no political sense whatsoever. Mitt Romney's considerable weaknesses have stemmed from his demonstrable past as a social liberal--hence the "flip-flopper" tag--for one. Dr. Rice is pro-choice. In order to shore up the base and avoid John McCain's fate in '08 (lackluster enthusiasm for the top of the ticket and what was then Barack Obama's incumbent-like warchest), Romney would do well to pick a rock-ribbed Reaganite.

A year ago the president could have very well have been counted out on account of the staggering unemployment figures et al. The hard cynic in me, however, thinks the voting public and the institutions (see the Roberts Court's ruling on ObamaCare) are more or less pleased or simply content with this preening, obnoxious left-wing corporatist in the White House. And therefore a social liberal at the bottom of the Republican ticket would be unspeakable folly on Mitt Romney's part. He has base considerations.

But as my signature would suggest, I'm holding out for a Sarah Palin run as a third party candidate. Or perhaps the Tea Party should go to Tampa and nut up, upending the entire process. Brokered convention, much? I wouldn't cast a vote for a Palin-Romney ticket (I'm a liberal) but that would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than the presumed Obama-Romney snoozefest coming our way this fall.

Welcome to USMB, JackLandsman. Hope you enjoy the boards.

Actually Romney is quite the conservative. He was a Republican governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts, and his liberal state legislature outgunned 707 of the more than 800 line-item vetoes that Romney issued, according to Fact Check. He certainly tried his best, imho. He stuck out his term and did all he could to help Massachusetts regain and balance its fiscal proprieties.