Veepstakes More Concerned about Sex Than Job Skills

It is commonly understood that Mitt Romney is a multi-centimillionaire - not a billionaire.

And while the G.O.P. has more qualms of this type - i.e.: homophobia, biblical morals - the Democrats are loaded with plenty of sexual baggage too.

Go back to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and read/listen to all the Democratic women who were sickened by his infidelity, or urged Hilary to divorce him. As if it were any of their (pun) f***ing business. And as if he was getting any from Hilary after being married that long? Maybe she told him to find it somewhere else? Or people were upset he lied about
it. Well then: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Impeaching a president over fellatio? WTF?

What about the very recent case in Columbia, S.A., in which many Secret Service lost their jobs for hiring sex workers?

Sure - hysterics claim it was job related. But then again - until very recently, so was our military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The basis of which caused us to fire thousands of gays BECAUSE IT AFFECTED THEIR JOBS!!

And what about homophobic DOMA - which is still in place - and then-President Clinton signed into law?

You're not trying to mislead people and claim that Dems don't screen Veeps for sex issues too, are you?

Good points, Hyper. It is nice that you are an equal opportunity party basher ;-)

It is commonly understood that Mitt Romney is a multi-centimillionaire - not a billionaire.

Forgive me. His reported net worth is a mere $200 million.

You're not trying to mislead people and claim that Dems don't screen Veeps for sex issues too, are you?

No such claim made. This election year, no Democrat VP vetting is necessary so that's not the topic.

I do think Republican lawmakers are HUGELY more hypocrytical than Democrats -- about every moral and social issue there is.

"Hyper?"...perhaps. "Intellect?"...not so much.

He wasn't impeached for 'receiving.'

He was impeached for lying.

Republicans keep becoming the subject of "gotcha" moments in the media due to their loud beating about sexual propriety, family values, the evils of homosexuality and their propensity for getting into seedy encounters in men's washrooms.

There is nothing like exposed hypocrisy to make for a juicy political scandal.

*not beating, braying (man, I really detest auto-correct)

He wasn't impeached.

Clinton? He actually was impeached. The Senate found him not guilty though. It was all a big waste of tax payer money. Republicans are good at that. They seem to think this is effective spending but health care is a waste of money. Go figure.

I dont think they think healthcare is a waste of money Lora... Could it be the million dollar question? How do we pay for it?

We don't pay for it by cutting all the entitlements.
This "all or nothing" mentality is what scares people. As with everything...slow and steady. Make some cuts, let people adjust...
There's money that could be better spent in Washington...I think we all agree...it's a matter of agreeing on where to spend it.

So who vetted our current vice-president? He is a disaster. Shocked that they just don’t lock him away for all the good sound bites he gives. He makes me LOL every time he talks.

Palin, she rocks because she is a strong person, conservative and a woman. It’s ok if she scares you, she scares most liberal women.
Why wouldn’t she scare you guys, she climbed the latter of success on her own, talks about personal responsibility, and speaks out for the life of every person as though they were equals.

Ooooo Scary!

She really does not seem to talk about sex much though, but maybe you would think that depending on your news source and only listened to the sound bites.

she climbed the latter of success on her own

Well, I actually haven't climbed any "latters". I also would not run a campaign against my mother-in-law like Palin did. So....is she scary? I wouldn't use that word to describe her. There are several more fitting adjectives.

Notice that Palin's political naivete and ignorance along with her intellectual shortcomings are irrelevant to Clark. And to most Republicans.

Don't want none o' them folks with book-smarts, higher lernin' or pointy heads running the guvmint.

Rory, you seem to forget that many in the Republican Party would love to see Condi Rice as VP or even president. She has a Ph.D. and is fluent in Russian (I mean TRULY fluent). And Romney actually has really good academic credentials; he SIMULTANEOUSLY pursued an M.B.A. and a law degree at an Ivy League school. Nobody ever seems willing to acknowledge that he has those TWO advanced degrees. They simply want to report that he was a governor and that he was a CEO at Bain.

All that aside, don't you think someone without "book-smarts" and "higher lernin" can be a good or even great president? Compare Harry Truman's education with Woodrow Wilson. The former was far less educated than the latter but did a much better job as president. And what about Nixon? He had plenty of "book-smarts" and was the beneficiary of "higher lernin" but left the Oval Office in disgrace.

I have to agree with Dave that the number of degrees really doesn't matter for the Presidency.
A President needs common sense, charm, and intelligence enough to know what they don't know and get the right people who do know.
Many of the people with the highest IQs are lacking in all three.

Higher education? Not necessary. But at least general knowledge and better than average intelligence.

Those things are very different from "higher learnin'" and "book-smarts," Rory. And even if people agree that "at least general knowledge and better than average intelligence" are necessary, they probably will disagree on how to measure those things. Suppose we use an IQ test to measure the latter. Does that mean JFK, who had an IQ under 120, was less qualified than Nixon, who had an IQ above 140, to serve in the Oval Office?

I tend to agree with Lora about common sense and the "intelligence ... to know what they don't know and get the right people who do know." As for charm or charisma, I think Americans tend to pay too much attention to that. Whether you like or dislike Obama, you must admit that he can be unbelievably charismatic. Harry Truman, on the other hand, apparently had little or no charisma. People, though, admired him for his spunk and guts. And I think most Democrats, if they know history, would have to admit that his record looks better than Obama's at this time.

I forgot to add one more thing, Rory. A president needs REALLY GOOD HEALTH. I wouldn't want someone with serious health issues in the Oval Office even if he happened to be a genius with an inordinate amount of common sense and the ability to choose the right people for the right jobs. The job is simply too stressful and taxing for someone who is not in really good health.

What about Roosevelt? His health wasn't great, but he was a pretty good President.

I am not sure whether I would agree that he was a "pretty good president." He certainly did some great things, but he also did some really awful things. Nonetheless, I certainly don't agree with some conservatives who consider him to be one of the worst presidents we have ever had.

You do, though, make a really excellent point; his health was terrible, yet he was one of the two most influential political figures of the 20th century. I probably would need to read a lot of material on polio to determine how much that would affect his attitude, ability to make wise decisions ..... Some diseases, no matter how awful they are, may have no real affect on those things, while others may greatly affect them. My natural inclination is to err on the side of caution. I think that is an especially wise thing to do in this day and age because our president has the power to use nuclear weapons. Roosevelt never had to decide to drop bombs on Hiroshema and Nagasaki because the Manhattan Project had not been completed before his death. If he had lived longer and had been forced to make that decision, I am not sure what he would have done. I personally feel Truman made the right decision on Hiroshema but should have waited longer before ordering that a bomb be dropped on Nagasaki. Truman, of course, has been criticized by some for his decision, but at least his supporters and critics can agree that some severe disease or illness was NOT the cause of his decision. The thought that a president could make a huge avoidable mistake solely because he is severely sick or is on death's door worries me. All presidents make mistakes, I know, but I suspect that healthy presidents are less likely to make them.

FDR might actually have been a better president if his health had been better. Would he have been more likely to cow Stalin into abandoning any thoughts of taking over Eastern Europe if he had been in great health at Yalta? I don't think so, but a healthier FDR might have had a slightly greater chance of doing so. Would he have been more likely to support Eleanor and back an antilynching bill if he had been healthier? I don't know the answer to that question, too, but her constant pleas for him to support such a bill might not have worn on his nerves as much if he had been healthier and he might have been won over by her. Suppose a doctor who likes history writes a book and essentially proves that all of FDR's wise decisions came at times when his polio was not wearing him down both physically and mentally, while all his bad decisions came when just the opposite was happening? If such a theory were proven, we would have to admit that the bad part of his legacy was an avoidable tragedy!

The subject of our presidents' health is actually a very interesting one. I have read three books on that subject and two of them, if you can find them, you might want to read. One is titled, if I remember correctly, The Health of Our Presidents. This very old book was written by a Dr. Ralph (Or was it Rudolf?) Marx. Another book you may want to check out is Gene Smith's When the Cheering Stops, which deals with President Woodrow Wilson's sad demise after he suffered a debilitating stroke. Smith's book will be the easier of the two to find because it was a huge bestseller in its day. The other will probably be harder to find because it never achieved any fame.

I would also like to plug David McCullough's Mornings on Horseback here. That book actually deals with Theodore Roosevelt's poor health when he was a child (He was a severe asthmatic). I can guarantee that your local library would have a copy of that book and even though it is somewhat old, it still could be ordered from a bookstore. That will turn out to be one of the best books you've ever read, especially if you have someone in your family who suffers from asthma.

I think I gave you the wrong title for Smith's book. I think it was When the Cheering Stopped.

Why do conservatives do this when all you have to do is find a half black, raised by whites, went to privileged schools, and can read a teleprompter? That way you can't ask questions without being called a racist.

Or a rich, half Mexican guy, raised by whites, went to privileged schools and can't form his own thoughts. No need to ask questions, just feed him the answers and he will regurgitate the "right" answers.

I did not know that Michael Steele was half black.

Micheal Steel isn't half black, wasn't raised by privileged white liberals and doesn't need a teleprompter.

I'll take Romney over Obama Lora and I think you are going to find that most of the country agrees with me in November. He was a successful business man. Obama did nothing to change the community he organized and went straight to government where he thought it was he who was making all the success in America happen.

I think you are going to find that most of the country agrees with me in November.

I guess we'll see, huh?

The only "business man" that I know of in recent years that ran for President is Ross Perot, who got 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and couldn't secure a major party nomination. Why do you suppose that is? No successful CEO will run and if they do, they can't get the Republican or Democrat nomination?

Personally, I think Lee Iacocca would be a good choice, but he won't run.

" ... most of the country ..."

Considering that many adults are not even registered to vote and a huge number of registered ones won't bother going to the polls, I don't see how any of us will find out what "most of the country" wants.

""No successful CEO will run and if they do, they can't get the Republican or Democrat nomination?""

Mitt Romney. Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that Romney had a "sterling business career."

""I don't see how any of us will find out what "most of the country" wants. ""

People who don't vote don't count. Non-voters are the people you see on Letterman or Leno when they go out on the street and ask ordinary people who the president is and some don't know or they think Lincoln was a founding father and Mount Rushmore is in Canada... etc. They simply don't count. Most of the country counts.

"People who don't vote don't count ...."

Actually many of the voters are the real ignoramuses. John Ziegler produced a documentary in which he interviewed people who voted for Obama in 2008 and found that more than 50% of them did not know which party controlled Congress.
Many intelligent people are sometimes disgusted with the candidates they have to choose from and simply sit out elections. I can remember one election that was held to determine who would become the new governor of Louisiana. The Democrat was a man who had been indicted for racketeering. The Republican was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. If those are the only candidates who stand a chance of winning, I don't blame people for staying at home.

Unfortunately, when dumb people vote, they count. There is never a good excuse to stay home. With this being the information and communication age you can always organize a write in candidate. Staying home means you didn't count.

Oh, yes, quoting Bill Clinton now are we?

Here's a quote from Bill regarding Romney also:

“the alternative would be in my opinion calamitous for our country and the world.”

Obama has the “right economic policy and the right political approach and I think that their economics are wrong-headed and their politics are worse.”

I quoted Clinton off the script and you are quoting his canned response to the backlash after accidentally telling the truth? Please.

He can say Romney had a "sterling" business career -- nobody argues that Romney is wealthy. That's quite a different thing than saying Romney would be a "sterling" President.

Conservatives love to read things into news and quotes to fit their own beliefs. The Bible is a prime example. It says it's an abomination to eat shellfish. It says a couple lines above that that it's an abomination for man to lie with another man. The Conservatives choose to read and acknowledge one abomination while completely ignoring the other.

This has nothing to do with the Bible. Romney had a sterling business carrier. Period. He is more than qualified to be president, not some community organizer who never did anything for himself, somebody else made them happen like Obama.

Jeff, you think corporate takeover experience is good experience for a President? Romney has never listened to a poor person's complaints. He doesn't know how "real" people live, paycheck to paycheck. Obama does! He has talked to people and listened to people.
Romney's experience is good if America is planning on marching into Mexico or Canada for a "corporate" take-over. If that's the plan, Romney's experience FAR outweighs Obama!

Actually, a corporate take over of China wouldn't be a bad idea.

The chairman of on Obama's jobs panel, Jeffrey Immel, is the CEO of largest outsourcing corporation in America who hasn't paid a dime in taxes for the past two years. Spare me the righteous indignation.

Talking to people and giving speeches does not a president make.

Why did you delete my response to R.F.?

Yes, there were comments made about race that I found inappropriate.

Jeff, I read your comment and thought it was very informative and truthful... Very interesting stuff and do agree with you... I think Obama had alot of doors opened to him, due to him being black....but what needed to be looked into, was his lack of experience, or lack of achievements... Let his record speak for itself...

Thanks Vickey. That comment about race was spoken by Harry Reid and why he thought Obama was so special.

After John Edwards, I can't say I blame him ;-) Who needs that headache?

I love the expression on the turtle's face heehee what a cutie.

:)

If it was Cheney he'd turn her around so he could shoot her in the face!

And since he's a Conservative, you can be sure he's got his gun with him. ;)

ouch

Are you implying that if the Veep pick had a porn membership, homosexual relationship, adulterous relationship and/or a sex tape the media and voters would over look it?

Depends on who it is and how long ago it was.
The American public has amazingly short memories.

It's not the Amercian public's memory I am concerned about.

It is the "selective memory" of the media that matters.

Abandon Ship! Abandon ship!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78653.html

Mitt Romney will be the next President of these United States.

That is a complete fantasy.

I will not agree that Mitt Romney will be the next president, nor will I agree that the possibility of Mitt Romney becoming the next president is a fantasy. I think that will be decided by the actual election, unless someone knows something that I don't. The only thing that I know is that with either Obama or Romney, we are in trouble. Neither conclusion will be for the best interest of America.

The only thing that I know is that with either Obama or Romney, we are in trouble.

Think positively, Vic!

"The only thing that I know is that with either Obama or Romney, we are in trouble. Neither conclusion will be for the best interest of America."

I thought the same in the last election. Our choices are a Democrat or a Radical Democrat.

Neither Obama nor Romney have anything to do with the Tea party. Although Romney comes closer than Obama to being a Republican both are liberals.

Strangely, I agree with both Vic Damico and R. F. On this one.

"Veepstakes More Concerned about Sex Than Job Skills"

No surprise. Since when has either party selected any candidate for any office with the good of the country in mind?

Well, the VP has been selected.
One that wants to end medicare, cut food stamps to 1.7 million children, ban abortion coverage by insurers who received federal or taxpayer funding (prohibiting abortion for any reason even if the mother's life is in danger), proponent of the Protect Life Act (again, far-reaching plan to prohibit any abortion at any time for any reason), and wants to defund Planned Parent Hood.

But, apparently, he does NOT have a sex tape so all is good with the Republican party.

I cannot imagine any sane woman voting for Romney/Ryan.
Or any person nearing retirement or currently retired. The babyboomers are still the largest population. Unless they are millionaires, they would have to be stupid (or Tea Party members, I guess) to vote for these two.