• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney's VP Pick: process of elimination = Portman

Agree Portman is prolly the safest and best choice. After the game changing experience in 2008, I'm guessing boring and safety will be in vogue this year.
 
Wrangor said:
Pretty easy to explain idiot. Obama is a secret cell Muslim jihadist that is hellbent on bringing down the American way of living. Romney is a Christian family man.

Was that so hard? - Nick Burns, your company computer guy..
Click to expand...

Hmmmn. Christian? The fundy church I grew up in believed Mor(m)ons to be cultists.
 
PhDeac said:
He is President of the United States.
Click to expand...


Holding a title does not mean you have done a good job. Many CEOs get fired for not doing their job well. Nonprofit organizations fire directors when he isn't doing his job well. Churches change pastors, teams change coaches. So if you consider Obama's performance the past 4 years to be good, then you would think he has "good experience". Personally, I can not remember a President who has failed on so many fronts, so no, I do not consider the fact that Obama has held a title the last 4 years to be qualifying "experience". The last four years are actually proof he was NEVER qualified to lead. If anyone knows of anything other than heading up a "law review" and being a community organizer, please let me know.
 
Strickland33 said:
Well, that's fairly convincing executive experience now, isn't it...
Click to expand...

It's only "convincing" if you've done a good job. My personal view of that is on my reply to PH. If I was Wake Forest bball coach and only win 3 games, does that make me "experienced" and qualified to now coach UNC?
 
Alert the media!!! ncsportsnut1 is not going to vote for Obama!!!!
 
I would tend to agree with that. Just commenting that I was still in that camp.
 
Wrangor said:
Agreed that Romney's qualifications are more impressive than the 2008 Barack Obama, but you didn't compare Romney to his current opposition who has been president for 4 years. Pretty difficult argument to make that running the Olympics, an investment firm, and being a one term Governor is better preparation to be president than actually being President for the past 4 years. I personally think Romney will/would do a fine job as President, and I think that he is qualified (hopefully people can look at a candidate and decide that regardless of party affiliation or whether they agree with the candidate or not) but that doesn't mean that Obama is unqualified.

Both are qualified, I think Obama's qualifications at this point are better, but that doesn't mean he should win either. McCain was much more qualified than Obama, but Obama dusted him in an election. The most qualified candidate does not/should not always win (insert BKF rant about Bush's 2nd term :) ).
Click to expand...

Good post. Spot on.
 
cville deac said:
Hmmmn. Christian? The fundy church I grew up in believed Mor(m)ons to be cultists.
Click to expand...

I believe Romney is as much a Christian as I believe Obama is a muslim jihadist. Hence the sarcasm.
 
TR1982 said:
That's the second time you've said this. We have never in the history of this country had a five trillion dollar surplus. Why do you insist on lying?
Click to expand...

hen Clinton left office the $5T surlplus was project over a ten year period by the CBO.
 
10 year budget projections are worthless. good or bad.
 
RJKarl said:
hen Clinton left office the $5T surlplus was project over a ten year period by the CBO.
Click to expand...

10 years / 5T surplus. Wouldn't that be a 500b surplus then? Using your math Clinton left a 150T surplus! (over the next three centuries)
 
Back to the subject of the thread.

The problem with Portman or Daniels is their ties to W will illustrate the Obama charge of "going back to the failed policies that caused the recession" making such claims far believable.
 
Natalie-Portman13.jpg


Great pick, has my vote.
 
RJKarl said:
Back to the subject of the thread.

The problem with Portman or Daniels is their ties to W will illustrate the Obama charge of "going back to the failed policies that caused the recession" making such claims far believable.
Click to expand...



Daniels isn't a consideration for VP because he has made it plain he doesn't want to be in the national spotlight right now.

Romney would be choosing "Senator" Bob Portman from Ohio, not "the former budget director for George W. Bush ten years ago" or whatever time frame it was. Yes, that will be the Dems attack but it won't stick in independents minds at all. It's more for political junkies like us to talk about. Further, he would be picked for VP, not OMB director or Chief of Staff so it's further diluted. His experience with budgets will be helpful in articulating discussions about the economy. Any attacks about his "budget experience" will be a plus because once again, this election is about the economy. Picking someone with financial experience helps Romney and is a net plus, not a minus because it again shows he is focused on fixing the economy.

To the bigger point, Portman delivers Ohio and changes the Electoral map. Locking down Ohio is worth the little snippy comments that would be said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top