There goes my VP pick

who has 'announced' so far?

I know...
Cain
Gingrich
and today Pawlenty expected.

Has Paul said yet?
 
Santorum, like Gingrich is seen as too much 'establishment'.
I don't think either can overcome it.
 
there is only one choice

kerz.jpg


don't change horses in mid-stream his policies are working
 
yeah i'd love to see what either of you would do with the tiniest amount of executive power.

let me guess.

winky - orders all females in state aged 12-16 be brought to his desert compound. begins "immigrant reprocessing" joint venture with purina corporation. local dogs develop severe acne from eating greasy, immoral immigrants.

catatonicom - gives up when his admin tells him they are out of blue pens, takes retirement package and lives off the public dole for the rest of his life. at one point, notices grass growing.
 
I think you be surprised as usual at what I would do.
It'd never happen though, as I'd be shredded before the election from the skeletons.
 
I heard on Fox this morning, that Rick Perry IS actually thinking about
possibly running.

If he does, I'm done looking.
He's the man.
 
let's see...

he was born in 1950. and he looks like this:

rick_perry.jpg


hmmm... makes me think i should buy stock in the company that makes grecian formula.

and i can't possibly trust anyone named richard. just a simple heuristic, based on several examples.

is pawlenty any good?
 
okay, this sounds pretty reasonable.

"In a December 2010 column in the Wall Street Journal, Pawlenty argued in favor of the historical benefits of "private sector" labor unions and strongly against "public sector" labor unions, whose collective bargaining rights he would like to see curbed: "The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America’s working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation." He also criticized modern unions: "The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment... Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt."[52]

but then it seems like his social views are pretty extreme right. now that's fine for him and all, but... again, it's electability...

they really do need a candidate that is a severe economic disciplinarian, but who could give a fuck about the moral agenda. jesus is really making your party dumb, man. and i mean that just as a observation of obvious patterns.
 
they really do need a candidate that is a severe economic disciplinarian, but who could give a fuck about the moral agenda. jesus is really making your party dumb, man. and i mean that just as a observation of obvious patterns.

my party?
who do you think 'my party' is? the Republicans? :grinno:
 
Back
Top