Political News, Issues & Talk

[Guilford78]

Because being on a losing ticket can hurt your own chances of winning the nomination in a future election. These guys think they will have a better chance of winning four years from now when there is no incumbent to run against. They don't really think Romney is going to win this election.

You're basing this assumption on?

[Bluechild]

You're basing this assumption on?

Probably on the lukewater endorsements he is getting from other Repubs.


Gayle

[meinmaryland]

Did someone really try to blame 9/11 0n Clinton???

Pia

[debi]

Hey, Clem. I just now saw your post.

Dennis Miller is great

Rubio doesn't have any rest from the VP question, does he? I actually think that he might do it. This is such an important election and he is well liked. He could bring a whole lot to the campaign. If Romney wants him he'll pull out all the stops and Rubio will have a hard time saying no. I respect his reason for wanting to remain a Senator and believe that it would be good for him to get more experience there, but, the VP slot may be the right place for him. I would certainly love to see it.

[pelenka]

First, it is narrated, in part by Bill Clinton. If there is anyone to blame for the rise of al Qaeda it is Bill Clinton. It was on Bill Clinton’s watch that all the events happened that resulted, ultimately, in the tragedy of September 11.

See? There it is again. If you’re blaming Bill Clinton simply because Al Queda rose on his watch, then shouldn’t you praise Obama because Bin Laden was killed on his watch? Or because he economy has started to look better since he’s been in office? The reasoning doesn’t even make sense. All I’m hearing is someone yelling “blahblahblah Obama svcks” with their fingers in their ears.

-Agi

[AnitaLaLouise]

The rise of al Qaeda can be directly tied to Reagan and the Russian war in Afghanistan. Any president post-Reagan could have done something. None of them did though.

[debi]

"None of them did"

There are only 2 presidents you are speaking of, then. One was Bush '41 (in for 4 years) and Clinton (in for 8 years). To me, that doesn't spread around the blame very much. The next president, Bush '43, did act.

[kammieoh]

You really think having a BUSH on the ticket would help?? Wonders never cease...


Loretta

No, I don't Loretta. That was the opinion of the pundits on Morning Joe, not my personal opinion. I personally think that Obama will win a second term no matter who Romney picks, unfortunately.


Rita

[AnitaLaLouise]

"None of them did"

There are only 2 presidents you are speaking of, then. One was Bush '41 (in for 4 years) and Clinton (in for 8 years). To me, that doesn't spread around the blame very much. The next president, Bush '43, did act.

No he didn't. He was acted upon and then forced into action. And was unable to locate and take out Bin Laden.

[debi]

I see what you mean. And you can argue about why he acted but, he DID act. Clinton had reasons over the years to act and didn't. I see Bush as having done something Clinton should have. *If* (and I know it is an *if*) Clinton had acted, things may not have accelerated to the tragedy of 9/11. We can never know. Hindsight is better than foresight for each of us, our presidents included, and I give Clinton that. While I'm not ready to throw him completely over for his choices, I do think his actions, or lack thereof, make some of the words he speaks now seem pretty hollow.