Please Don'T Run
 

http://www.tbo.com/news/opinion/edit...BHY2DC3KE.html

BMT

I hope she runs..........for exactly those reasons stated in this OP/ED.:D

Saw the article, tend to agree.

My question is, who will they put up against her? The POTUS mentioned Jeb and Condi this past weekend. They have both also said that they were not interested. I also think that people may be tired of the dynasty by now.

TR

TR:

Valid point re dynasties. Nancy may, or may not like "Dubya", she sure as hell does not like political dynasties.

Tery

National Review has speculated Mit Romney or George Allen with Rudy Guilliani as VP. They tend to have a finger on the pulse of the RNC. I think that is a very solid ticket, however, I support a Michael Savage lead ticket.

You can have Michael Weiner (that is, the real name of Michael Savage). The guy's a jerk.

I wouldn't be against a Mitt Romney ticket of some sort, even if I think he goes too far in some directions and not far enough in others. From all reports I've seen, he's a clear-headed businessman, on the correct side of most of the issues I hold dear, and a decent family man. There are better candidates, and many worse, but few arrive with the perfect TV looks and lack of national baggage that Romney comes with.

I do not, however, envisage Rudy Giuliani being his VP. Giuliani has the name recognition, and can't see him much caring to be second fiddle to someone less famous than himself.

Indeed the leader of the Weiner Nation is reactinary and abrasive but he is passionate and maintains one thing most others dont - independence. I say it only half serious. I think that he is very bright and an independent conservative thinker but I am very aware he is not electable.

I think that Guilliani or Romney would be VP to the other for two reasons.

1. Party loyalty. The only way they got where they are is because of the RNC and when the RNC wants recompensed a party man must pay up.
2. The Vice Presidency, indubitably, precipitates a run for the Presidency.

I was only putting forth what NR proposed. I would settle for a Steve Forbes led ticket with Savage (or Rick Santorum) as VP. After all Forbes is a business man and Santorum a family man - something we support.

On a side note none of these candidates are leaders like Hamilton, T.Roosevelt or Lincoln so the idea that they will define an epoch in our short history is unlikely. I believe there will be a time in the next 35 years that a great leader will come to power. Someone in the mold of the aforementioned.

Savage's nightly impression of "Network" Howard Beale, shows he understands marketing, and nothing more. He is an extremist in the mold of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, advocating genocide as a solution.

You have taken some liberties drawing the correlation between the Republican Party and Savage. He is an Independent with no affiliation with the Republican Party. Just setting the record straight!

I disagree. I never saw Peter Finch's Beale character but am familiar with Savage's adopted tag line "I'm mad as hell...." To say he understands nothing more than marketing is a bit presumptuous, I think. I won't conjecture whether you listen to him or not but if one listened regularly one would realize that the man does understand more than marketing. He is reactionary and extreme but also insightful as was McCarthy and other patriots.

That was unintended. After listening to Savage for two years and reading his books it is innacurate to call him a republican. I wasn't clear but did not intend to affiliate him to the republican party. They would never accept a maverick like him.

My question for Dr. Weiner is (having listened to him for quite a while), how much of it is him really being a "maverick" and how much is pure shock-jock ranting in order to get ratings?

Some people agree with him, but many simply tune in for the trainwreck factor.

I would love to see Romney run with Rudy. I love the things Mitt has done in Mass over the past few years, however I don't like the fact that he changed some of his stances on things like abortion and gay rights just to set up a national run. But I'm just a lowely independent anyways. Off to do some work, woohoo I love finals week:rolleyes:

Which one of these guys (to include McCain) is the conservative Republican?:munchin

TR

Exactly. I guess the pundits think that a true conservative wouldn't have a chance after 8 years under George Bush. I disagree with that sentiment and even take exception to the notion that Bush is a conservative in the Reagan mold. Huckabee from Arkansas is a candidate I would like to see run. Gov Matt Blount is still needs seasoning, but if he doesn't step on his crank will end up in the White House one day.

Sir, they (RNC) are not concerned as much with conservatism as they are getting elected.

We need a Goldwater republican!

Charles

Looks like a herd of RINOs to me.

Only true conservative I have seen mentioned is Condi. Now she could win! I could see Rudy as a VP on that ticket doing some big numbers against Hillary.

TR

:(You suppose we are not going to have a "conservative Republican" on the ticket?

Not if any of those mentioned (outside Condi) are on the top of the ticket.

They may put a token on as the VP, just to appease the party faithful.

TR

No offense, but Huckabee is a buffoon, and comes from a clan of inbred cranks. Every man, woman and child in the state of Arkansas has their own favorite set of Huckabee stories.

+1 on Savage:p

RE: Weiner

His heart is in the right place, but he is a media figure. Not a leader of the people. I think he would be a good consultant, for his passion, but not a good decision maker.

Did you hear his program today, he had a guest on saying that the dims are going to revive efforts to silence him and other Talk Radio hosts that don't spew the socialist drivel that is supposed to pass as news.

The Article

If this is completely true it is worrisome to say the least. Then there's this story,OPSEC or Censorship?

These events are unsettling, at least for me.

If I am reading that correctly, it would seem to prohibit almost all posts on this forum by current soldiers, without the prior consent of their CO. The source doc is available, so I'll have to check it to see if Wired is using some hyperbole. :eek:

Edited to add: Section 2-1c concerns disclosure of "critical and sensitive" information on the Web. Section 2-1g contains the language requiring an OPSEC review prior to posting or emailing such information.

This begs the question as to what "critical and sensitive" means. The examples contained in the text are clear enough, but there have been other instances where much more innocuous information has been placed in these categories by the Army. They seem to be overly broad.

Gear reviews, pipeline discussions, body armor debates, survival and medical tips, where are we to draw the line? The rules about TTPs and current operations are one thing, but this would seem to be another.

Yeah, I shoulda put that in a separate thread...

Will a mod please merge these posts with the new OPSEC thread?