Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Timoshenko
Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
Posted on 11/20/2009 6:30:28 PM PST by presidio9
John F. Kennedy believed that being passed over for vice president by the Democratic convention in 1956 saved his political career. That year, Adlai Stevenson, the presidential nominee, had left the selection of his running mate to the convention delegates—the last time a nominee did so. The choice came down to Kennedy and his Senate colleague Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, who had lined up too much early support even for the attractive young war hero to overcome. In the end, Kennedy had it both ways. He benefited from the television exposure and was spared the blame—which as a Catholic, he would have shared—for Stevenson's walloping by President Eisenhower that November. As for Estes, except for crossword puzzlers, nobody much remembers him.
Running and losing for vice president has never been a promising route to the Oval Office. Yet Sarah Palin, even before this week's book tour mediathon, has been touted by some as the heir apparent of the Republican Party, if not its de facto leader. Right-wing devotees cheer her on, liberals writhe in fear lest she come within 3,000 miles of the White House, and the news media lavish her with attention that's out of proportion to her actual chances of a political future. In fact, only one defeated vice presidential candidate ever achieved the feat that Palin would like to duplicate, and to date she shows no signs of resembling Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
FDR, as a young assistant secretary of the Navy, ran in 1920 as running mate to Ohio Gov. James Cox,
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Speak for yourself, I am a lifelong Independent and I support closed primaries.
..yes, I remember VP Quayle drawing thousands for speeches and book signings, and every talk show on the planet wanting him as a guest—no wait...
In that case, I presume you also believe in "taxation without representation", because that is precisely what a "closed primary" is.
IMO, any election paid for by the public's tax dollars should be open to any and all citizens. The ONLY legitimate purpose of a taxpayer-financed primary election is to winnow the candidates down to two, so that the general election results will always be based on a majority of votes cast rather than a plurality.
If the parties want to choose their candidates in a closed process, let them finance the effort out of party funds. Lots of ways----conventions, caucuses, even direct voting (lots of organizations these days "do elections" over the Internet).
But stealing MY money out of MY pocket to fund YOUR closed elections---no.
So change financing law, but if we aren’t a member of a party then we should not be making the actual choice of who their candidate is, if want to vote in what should be their private election then we should join their club by becoming members.
Quayle spelled a word perhaps incorrectly (in some dictionaries, I believe the second accepted spelling does have an “e” at the end).
Sarah couldn’t explain the “Bush Doctrine”, which never existed.
Barack Hussein Obama... mmm mmm mmm... thinks we have 58 states.
I'd love to. But you don't honestly think that either the Republicans or Democrats would detach themselves from the public tit now that they've gotten their lips attached to it, do you?? That "private election" should be privately funded. If it's publicly funded, it should be open to everyone who pays for it.
Open primaries foster honest government, closed primaries foster corruption. I've been lucky enough to see the process both ways. Growing up in Louisiana, all primaries were "party", and corruption was rife. The Democrats had a total lock on government. The Louisiana legislature passed an "open primary" law, and that "made" the Republican party possible, by giving honest Democrats an opportunity to vote for a Republican choice.
I now live in Washington, which had open primaries for many years, but which, after the court decision about "the parties should be able to choose their own candidates", began closed primaries. The increase in corruption was palpable, and we have that to thank for "Hillary II" (i.e. Gregoire). VERY fortunately, Washington chose to duplicate the Louisiana "top two" open primary system, which is still court-approved, since it fulfulls that legitimate purpose I mentioned in my previous post.
Taxpayer financed elections shouldn't be used to enforce "party discipline".
Truth is that it doesn't make that much of a difference. Texas is an open primary state, and we've considered changing it several times. However, it all came down to how to the fundamental question of what party membership entails. It doesn't mean much. Anyone in a closed primary state is free to join any party, and then vote for the other party in the general election. As long as that's possible, the difference between closed primary states and open primary states is going to be minimal. In other words there is nothing stopping anyone from joining the GOP in a closed primary state then voting democrat anyway.
If someone wants to join a party to vote in their primary then that is their right, as far as people registering merely to sway a primary, it is much harder to get people in large numbers to formally switch party registration to accomplish that, than it is to just make a flashy, emotional campaign on the internet to whip up a call to action the week of the actual vote when no paper work is required.
I do not comment much, but this lines merits it. Truly lol—well put!
Firstly, it isn’t true that Palin = Quayle, but even if it were true, Obama = Carter, and Quayle on his worst day is > Carter, and America elected Carter II, so there is no reason why Palin couldn’t be president.
Ok; what issues flips you back and forth between Republicans and Democrats?
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Timoshenko
Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
At this point, nothing. My particular flippage is from "too liberal" Republicans to more conservative candidates (Libertarian), or abstention. I came "very" close to not voting for McCain. Like many others, the only thing that kept me with the 'Pubbies was Palin, and how bad Obama was.
But there are quite a few Independents of my stripe who have just about had their fill of Republican "moderation".
Kirchner doesn’t look very beautiful in that picture.
Also she’s a leftist (though possibly the lesser of evils in Argentina where it appears the right is very weak) and I believe her husband (and predecessor) is controlling her Presidency ala Juan Peron and George Wallace.
As to Quayle the media slimed as the are sliming Palin as “dumb” and a lightweight even though he was not. He could have made a fine President.
“If you want a perfect intellectual for a President - you are not going to get one... If you want a person who is imperfect as Reagan was ... then Palin is the ticket...”
Reagan is far more intellectual and had a 20-year record of conservative eloquence to back up his candidacy in 1980.
And you dont have to yell this ... “IF THEY CANNOT WIN AN ELECTION” ... we know that. We also know that Palin runs weaker than Romney or Huckabee in head-to-heads:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-obama-still-beats-palin-and-other-gopers-but-palin-improves-a-little.php
“The numbers: Obama leads Palin by 51%-43%, is ahead of Mike Huckabee by 49%-44%, leads Mitt Romney by 48%-43%. The margin of error is ±3%. As a frame of reference, in 2008 the Obama-Biden ticket beat the McCain-Palin ticket by 53%-46%.”
Charisma ? Yes - exactly - because Charisma is the ONLY attribute that will rid us of Obama...”
They wish.
“Can she deeply analyze, understand issues and come to correct decisions?”
“She doesn’t have to. She’s a DOER not an analyst. That’s why she’ll have advisors.”
Wow. That is SO lame of a response. She’s not a ‘doer’ she’s been in politics for almost a decade - that’s talking and making decisions. As if a Presidential executive DECISION can be somehow delegated. It’s lame dismissive attitudes towards legitimate questions of readiness to lead like that which really scares me wrt Palin-mania.
“No, but it “did” get him elected. It certainly wasn’t any substance on his part.”
Yes, that is my point.
The argument made was that Sarah Palin would make a great President because she has charisma.
Like Obama shows, for any politician the ‘charisma’ factor may make one a great *candidate* but not a great President.
Obama has been the best candidate/ worst President combo in my lifetime.
Did Dan Quayle ever draw anything like Palin-sized crowds? How many books did HE sell... she is outselling Hillary... this is a bunch of hooey they are trying to gaslight everyone into thinking she isn’t what she really is...
I’ll yell if I wish to make a point... it is my style and if you don’t like it - go suck an egg...
Reagan was quite imperfect - being a conservative does not necessarily equal massive intellect...
Reagan sought and utilized wise counsel (that was his intellectual greatness) - just as Palin would do.
Reagan knew his limits as Palin does... Obama believes he has no limits... BIG FLAW...
Romney, Huckabee, Rudy and the minor league back benchers CANNOT beat Obama - not today and not in 2012 - largely because they will not have the backing of Conservatives and for the most part ALL OF THEM have no Charisma - None ...
Palin has infectious Charisma - crowds will grow and grow beyond all expectations - that is WHEN she really hits the streets with a full blown campaign... Polling prior to that time is a waste of time...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.