A Romney-McDonnell sandwich
Wikimedia Commons
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, never shies away from sharing his views on big political races. He has a regular newsletter and grabs a mic whenever he can. Today, he weighs in on the GOP veep-stakes. Who will Mitt Romney choose as his running mate now that he has all but secured the nomination?
Sabato breaks down the contenders into four tiers. Topping his list are Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Rep. Paul Ryan.
Virginians might notice that local darling Gov. Bob McDonnell, who so desperately wants to be vice president, is not atop the list. Sabato ranked him in the middle of the second tier.
Sabato noted that many of the combos would make for a “white bread sandwich” ticket, i.e., a very white male ticket that affirms stereotypes about the Republican Party.
For McDonnell, it’s even worse. Sabato’s priceless analysis is that a Romney-McDonnell would be “White bread sandwich + mayo.”
How about it, RT readers? Whom should Romney choose as his running mate?
Sabato’s video presentation:
April 12, 2012 - 11:22 AM
Too many empty calories.
What’s the difference between “white” and “very white?”
300 calories?
Did McDonnell say he wanted desperately to be VP? Where is this coming from?
In light of Cain and Bachman…what stereotypes are we talking about here?
One would think that all Virginians would have just a small amount of pride to have a Virginian as a vice president of the US, even if you did not share his political views.
Weren’t all Americans supposed to find some small amount of pride in Obama being elected the first African-American US president regardless of his polical views? Weren’t we all supposed to see the historical importance?
I vehemently disagree with Obama but I am pleased that an African-American can be elected president. I disagree with former Gov. Wilder politcally but am proud Virginia has elected a Black governor (Sabato said Wilder would never get elected governor of VA). I am proud Roanoke has elected a Black mayor.
The libs acuse those that disagree with Obama as being racists. I have seen that on this blog.
Some can’t seem to rise above ideology just for a few seconds!
Virginia historically is the “Mother of Presidents” and all Virginians should take just a little pride if only briefly if there were one more Virginian to hold national office.
There is nothing wrong with an analysis of Gov. McDonnell’s political future but the RTED seems to take much delight in denigrating unecessarily a very popular governor and that lacks journalistic class.
I never expect much from the RTED and am seldom disappointed!
The RTEB did not quote Saboto’s newsletter when he predicted the GOP will hold the House and gain control of the Senate in Nov. I wonder why?
#5 You’ve seen people on this blog accuse others of being racists SOLELY because they disagreed with Obama on some political point? Sorry, John R, I simply don’t believe you unless you produce some solid evidence of that.
McDonnell didn’t do anything for the Commonwealth, so why should he be a VP pick? Because of semantics? Well, that’s pretty much what it all comes to…
It doesn’t matter who the VP pick is, Romney is such a goofball that his VP pick won’t matter. Romney’s Kerry-esque stupidity will guarantee Obama’s re-election by a probable 54-45% ballot.
Interesting that John R’s ‘most extreme’ examples would include two black politicians. To me it is utterly stupid to support a candidate because of his claimed ‘home state’. I’ll provide the same amount of support to Bob McDonnell for VP as John R did for Doug Wilder and Barack Obama, which is to say – NONE.
Obviously John R never has to actually use any of the road system in Va, so he’s still enthralled with McDonnell’s method of crippling industry and progress in Virginia by refusing adequate traffic systems.
Got to kneel before the phony god of ‘lower taxes’, don’t you know…
McDonnell is so Blaaaaah. I’m so hoping Romney will select Sarah Palin. She has “been there and done that” plus Romney will have so much super PAC money he can cover her gaffes. He should not overlook her experience as a Veep candidate under McCain. Two other possibilities that can help him, which he should not take lightly, is Rick Perry and Michele Bachman.
“Virginia historically is the “Mother of Presidents” and all Virginians should take just a little pride if only briefly if there were one more Virginian to hold national office.”
After the assault on women’s rights by the connies, Virginian’s should feel shame and embarrassment. We have had our national exposure and certainly don’t need to add to it by promoting McDonnell for vice president. It’s bad enough that Allen is back in the news.
Romney will not be President so his VP is not relevant to me. I love my nation more than I love Virginia having a seat in the White House. Having admitted that, Warner 2016 sure sounds good to me!
#9 Sandi, “I love my nation more than I love Virginia…”
That is a common opinion among liberals but it is contrary to what our Founding Fathers believed.
The constitution they wrote places the most power in the states and the people, the federal government has limited powers.
They feared a strong centralized federal government and the Obama Admin. has proved them right.
I guess I am a just a victim of my past. My ancestors came to the New World prior to the Revolution and helped settle southwest Virginia.
I believe in individual freedom and fear a strong federal government as they did. They fled oppression and faced hardships to get to the New World where there was no class distinction unlike Europe at the time.
Obama is trying to recreate class distinction.
@10 John R., you need to study up a bit on what class distinction is and means.
The term ‘class’, from an on-line dictionary means, a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort: a class of objects used in daily living.
Thus, and this is important, there has always been class distinctions in this country.
You could be in the class of white, land owning men, for whom the Constitution was written, or you could be everyone else including indentured servant, slave, woman, native American, etc.
You can be in the class of capitalist, those who use money to make money off the labor of others or you can be in the class of proletariat whom are exploited by the capitalist.
All we’ve done in the US is trade oppression by kings for oppression by private employers.
In conclusion, Obama is NOT trying to recreate class distinction because it has always existed although he may be pointing it out or highlighting it. It’s about time I say.
Our Founding Fathers did not live to see the Civil War. I will never, ever, never be a “state’s rights” citizen. We are The United States of America and frankly I reject the idea that only liberals feel that way.
A strong federal government is all that stands between us and anarchy. Majority rule is an ugly thing, but thinking that is new or unique to Obama is just partisan hooey.
I cannot imagine what you are a “victim of” if you think that Obama is the one who wants to “recreate class distinction”. That “honor” is uniquely TP/GOP hidebound IMO. Protecting wealth, power and selling yourself to the highest bidders were not the values of our Founding Fathers either.
#10 John R, I’m still waiting for your examples of people on this blog calling others racists because they disagreed with President Obama. I don’t believe it but since you said it I’m sure you can prove it.
#13 – I remember more than one poster here saying that people expressing their dislike for Obama here simply didn’t like him because he’s black.
While that’s not exactly coming right out and saying “You’re a racist!”, it’s saying the same thing.
There are few racists who see themselves as racist. It is not an admission someone has to make for the determination to be made.
I personally think that saying “Barack Obama got where he is today by being black”, sounds racist. People who say such things however, will argue to the bitter end that it does not and is not.
Perception is the biggest determination on racist criticisms. Some folks will not see it until someone literally uses the N-word. Some defend calling President Obama “Monkey Boy” as not racist. I see it as clearly racist.
When you express “dislike” of Obama or anyone of a different race or ethnicity, without explaining it, certainly someone could take that as racist. Whether that is your intent or not is pretty much irrelevant. Whether you believe it is racist or not is in your heart where no one is able to go. Tone, context and implication matter.
#14 Michael, John R CLEARLY says that some folks on this blog have said people who “disagree” with Obama — not dislike him or hate him — are racists. I’m looking for some examples of that actually happening. John R apparently can’t provide any specific examples.
Personally, I can’t name a single person on this blog who believes that anybody who “disagrees” with Obama is a racist simply because they disagree.
#15 – “When you express “dislike” of Obama or anyone of a different race or ethnicity, without explaining it, certainly someone could take that as racist.”
I agree with that. However, I do recall that explanations were given on why the poster disliked Obama and that there were several responses stating that the poster simply didn’t like Obama because he was black.
It’s actually a very easy accusation to make when the accuser it too shallow to look at the reasons given.
So, despite your reasoning, it’s quite apparent that many are quick to overlook details and jump on the chance to call someone a racist.
I will certainly not argue that many here are not “quick to overlook details and jump on the chance to call someone” a label or pejorative. It happens far too often.
Michael, a question occurs to me. Is there any “explanation” or “reason” that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton could give that would have you change your opinion of them or what they stand for and say?
#19 – Actually, no, Sandi. Both of them are racists and I have zero respect for either one of them.
And before you go making accusations or implying anything, my dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
No Michael, that was not the direction my query was headed in, but thanks for the clarification. You said that you “recall that explanations were given on why the poster disliked Obama” and then said how easy it was to make accusations of racism “when the accuser it too shallow to look at the reasons given“. I just wanted to establish that your parameters for allowing any explanation for a person’s POV, might be a bit “shallow” as well. Thanks for the confirmation. “No” and “Zero” seems a pretty “shallow” pool to me. You want me, and others, who know you only as a one name anonymous blogger entity to “look at the reasons given” and accept them at face value no matter what we might be seeing in conflict with that, but are not really much interested in returning the favor as your mind is made up.
#6 gdad
29.PS, we do not “make excuses for anything Obama does”, just for the ignorant, bigoted, partisan stuff he is accused of here.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 6, 2012 @ 9:08 am
Sandi seems to think my remarks about Obama are “bigoted”. I take that as being called a racist.
#21 – “You want me, and others, who know you only as a one name anonymous blogger entity to “look at the reasons given” and accept them at face value no matter what we might be seeing in conflict with that, but are not really much interested in returning the favor as your mind is made up.”
Not true at all, Sandi. Unlike you, I’m more than willing to look and listen to the views of others before making up my mind on a subject. While I usually disagree with the Liberal mindset, I do take the time to hear what they have to say.
I recall a thread about the Fair Tax. It was suggested that you read the book by Neal Boortz and you said you had no interest in anything he had to say. I don’t recall the exact words you used, but they were pretty insulting towards him.
So, before you point fingers at others, perhaps you should look in the mirror to see someone else who’s “parameters for allowing any explanation for a person’s POV, might be a bit “shallow” as well.
Well John R #22, I will just have to answer your rehash of an old conversation with the same answer it met originally, and as always, you may take it any way you like.
“John R, I did not “call” you anything. My comment refers to how I interpret some of the comments made on this blog and while you are prolific, you are certainly not the only person who posts here. That you do not see any of the comments made as being “ignorant” or “bigoted” does not meant that they are not.”
For the record “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_(disambiguation)
A racist is someone who believes “that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
or believes “that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
There is a difference, but regardless, I called you neither.
#22 John R, as Sandi points out, bigoted doesn’t necessarily mean racist. Beyond that, Sandi most certainly wasn’t talking about people who simply “disagree” with Obama.
Care to try again?
We all know what was meant by that remark. Sandi and gdad can try to walk back calling disagreement with Obama “bigoted” but it will not work.
Calling anyone’s remarks as “bigoted” is uncalled for. “Racist” and “bigot” in common usage is a distinction without a difference and it is meant to be hurtful.
In the belabored explanation of what was “really ment” by using the word “bigot”, there was no apology for those offended which means it ment what was implied. I am not surprised!
Why would the words “ignorant” and “bigoted” be used at all in supposed “civil discourse”? Only gdad and Sandi know that one!
Another incident that I will not bother to research is on one posting I used Obama’s middle name and was acused of “racism”.
To find that one would be a waste of time since it would not change closed minds.
The bottom line is the remark was taken the way it was ment.
#26 Now John R is into mind reading.
Sorry, John R, I caught you in yet another baseless generalization.
“Another incident that I will not bother to research is on one posting I used Obama’s middle name and was acused of “racism”.”
Why did you use President Obama’s middle name in your post? There was, and is, a misinformation push by the cons and birthers to portray him as a Muslim, was that yout intent, or do you have a personal relationship with the President? I have friends that prefer being addressed by their middle names, perhaps that is the case here.
28 – what the hell does using Obama’s middle name have to do with racism? Unless Muslims are a “race” – I don’t think that’s the case. Furthermore, it’s his name, for crying out loud.
If his middle name is such a sensitive issue, perhaps he should consider changing it. Not exactly uncharted territory for Barry Soetoro.
In my humble opinion, it is no more uncivil to cite references of offense without substantiation than it is to take something as an offense and insist that is how it was “ment”. Since you prefer that method of discourse, I will say that my “bottom line” as well is that the remarks I challenged were all “taken as it was ment”.
#27 gdad
Why don’t you answer my question? Do the words “ignorant” and “bigoted” have any place in supposed “civil discourse”? Actually, I think you have answered that question.
#28 Blue John, I used Obama’s middle name to prove a point. That is how quick some will accuse one of “bigotry” in defending Obama. I suspect Obama is proud of his name, don’t you?
Funny, how some liberals seem to think all conservatives are racist, sexist, homophobes, wanting to polute the planet, rob the poor, and give to the rich. Not anyone here, of course!
@29,
You need to reread my post Other, you missed the point entirely.
@31,
I would think Obama is proud of his name John R, and I don’t think using his middle name is or was racist, but more of an effort to play on the hatred some folks have toward Muslims.
John R, does saying “…even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose” in the context of the President’s remarks at a prayer breakfast strike you as “civil discourse”?
Is saying “Obama quoting scripture is a joke”, or “he does not come across as a faithful Christian”, and “he’s one of the greatest con artists this country has ever seen”, have any place in supposed “civil discourse”?
You want to believe I insulted you and lowered the “civil discourse” on this blog. You sir, are free to believe what you want. I am done explaining.
I’m just glad that we can call people “bigots” now and still be within the bounds of civil discourse, without having to be forced to issue a fake apology and without being forced to suffer the selective self righteous moral outrage of the “offended”.
Any other words we can add to the list? There are a number of people I’ve considered morons, idiots, dweebs, twerps, pinheads, dolts, jacka__es…are any of those allowed?
I never attack individual bloggers by belittling them but I will attack postings I disagree with vigorously. There are some bloggers I have no respect for because they are only critical and add nothing. I love to rebut issues.
I have no respect for Obama’s policies and think he is more a socialist than capitalist. Those are legitamate issues.
I don’t call those that disagree with me bigots, ignorant, or worse. I don’t demand links. Links are seldom reviewed and usually passed off as “not legitament” if not agreed with. I am not going to argue whether the WSJ or the NYT is more legitamate.
Attacking Obama is different that attacting individual postings. I don’t apoligize for being provocative in my postings. I love rubbing others that disagree with me the wrong way.
I am not looking for pinpals or friends, if I wanted a friend I would get a dog. But I will not let personal insults lie without a response.
I am not impressed with the level of “civil discourse” here on political issues with a few exceptions of some bloggers who do rise above the fray, they have the least number postings but the most informed postings.
Bottom line is that Obama has replaced Carter as the worst President of all time. And, We’ve had the worst congress of all time for several years now.
38. JimW – I find it hard to follow your logic. If Obama has been at loggerheads with Congress for three years wanting to do the opposite of Congress and Congress is the worst of all times; the logic would lead one to think that Obama is trying to do what is best for our Country.
JimW, good to know you believe Nixon, who resigned in disgrace rather than be impeached for his part in Watergate and it’s cover up, is not the worst President. This helps us in determining your agenda, and moral & ethical values.
JimW, I suggest you do some research and reflection. Neither Obama nor Carter are the worst of all time. Every president has had their faults and flaws. There are many measures of a president, and our own biases cloud our judgement in the process of evaluation. I, for instance, view Reagan as being in the top five worst presidents of all time, at a time when many hold him up as some sort of a saint or political messiah.
So your bottom line is relative to other’s perceptions. Food for thought.
89Hoo, thanks for joining and further clouding the fray.
No, I do not believe we “can call people “bigots” now and still be within the bounds of civil discourse” or decency, nor can we plagiarize even though it seems okay for some. If you take a moment to read what John R is all up in arms over, you will see that I called no people anything, I said: “we do not “make excuses for anything Obama does”, just for the ignorant, bigoted, partisan stuff he is accused of here”. He has repeatedly decided that I “ment” what he says I “ment” and nothing is going to change his mind, including my clarification of how I meant what I said.
You are doubtless free to describe some of the posts you see here (or even most of the posts you see here) as moronic, idiotic, etc. I feel sure you think some are. I know I do. That is still not the same as calling people “morons, idiots, dweebs, twerps, pinheads, dolts, jacka__es”, but rest assured John R will always know what I “ment” but disregard anything that you, Michael or anyone else “ment”. Of that, I am certain, and have just in this thread proved.
We haven’t had a President I would vote for since Calvin Coolidge…trying to determine who is worse is a bit like trying to decide whether you’d want your arm removed with a machete or a chain saw.
42 – “…thanks for joining and further clouding the fray…”
It was a, um, moronic conversation anyway.
43.. 89hoo – I love that, how am I not surprised.
“After Complaining About Being Silenced, ALEC Is Deleting Critical Comments From Facebook Page”. Is this not the way of the world?
http://news.coffeepartyusa.com/p/1602611466/after-complaining-about-being-silenced-alec-is-deleting-critical-comments-from-facebook-page
I grant you that there have been elections that amounted to “the lesser of two evils” but that is still a choice. Certainly the best man has not always won. You are old enough to have voted for Calvin Coolidge? Who knew?
45 – I would hope you wouldn’t be, Rich.
46 – Read carefully, Sandi.