VP picks on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 2

He has more than a sailor hat and a yacht. And 10% is about 80% better than i would have done.

Jimmy Carter did have his Bin Laden moment. He did authorize a mission to rescue the hostages held by Iran (Operation Eagle Claw). As with any risky mission, he rolled the dice. Unfortunately he lost the roll.

Carter paid a political price for that failure. Before anyone gets all finger pointy, read up on the details. The mission's failings had a lot to do with problems in the military at that time, much of which was being reformed. The mission's failure reinforced the need to continue reforms for which successive presidents have benefited from.

The decision to go or not was Carter's alone. So yeah, he would have gone after Bin Laden.

Why does Romney get a pass for saying in a 2007 debate that he would not go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden and now saying that anyone would have made the same decision?

Excellent article on why Portman could be on the ticket with Romney. Remember Romney does not have experience in the federal govt. There have been others like him, includding Obama, Dubya, Carter etc. etc. that have run and been elected. There was alwasy someone on the ticket with them had vast federal govt. experience.

Rubio does not have that much govt. experience, Portman does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rob-portman-s

Fixed

IMO, it has to do with winning demographics, not necessarily experience. sadly.

Bzzt fail. AV8R... please sober up and look at the historical record. Much of the military buildup that Reagan took credit for was initiated under Carter. Carter did inherit a military that was weakened, chastened by the Vietnam exit in 1975, and suffering low moral. Hardly his doing. Carter was very much a transitional figure. You can't reform and rebuild a military overnight. Carter recognized what needed to be done and began the process. Reagan continued the policy with a few tweeks, notably with the MX missile. Reagan got the privilege of being there as the first ships started to be deployed as part of the substantial navel buildup, ordered under Carter. In 1986 Reagan would finally get around to acknowledging in public, crediting Carter for his efforts in military reform.

I realize there is a lot of public misrepresentation of past Presidents. It is natural for those who lived during those times. A good historian will endeavor to pry those away to exam the facts as they actually occurred. For those of us that are our age AV8R (40 somethings) that can be hard to get past. Carter has a negative public opinion. In time I think he will be redeemed somewhat as being more effective than he was largely viewed as.

Not to start a Praise Carter thing, but the guy did more for Middle East peace than President before or since. The Iranian Hostage situation undermined his peace process, but Israel and Egypt did sign a profound Peace Agreement which has stood up well since.

Also, that failure to rescue the hostages turned into a rethinking of the Military's need for a swift, highly trained force that could succeed in future missions.
I'd say without that failure and change in philosophy, we wouldn't have had a "Seal Team 6"

So Romney is a douche bag for what he said about Carter.

Biden is a good surrogate and excellent at firing up the populist base. I think it would do more damage than good in dumping his running mate after 1 term. Hillary doesn't want it, she didnt want it in 2008 and I assume not much has changed in that regard. If she wanted to stay with the administration I think it would be as Sec of State where she has more influence/power. She has already said she will not serve in the next term, probably so she can gear up for a run in 2016.

Because the quote you are referring to was part of a larger quote that you are taking out of context

@billybob - you are the second person in 2 days with greater than average knowlege that has their money on portman. Kind of makes me sad. I really want rubio.

I like Portman, but I don't think he'll be the pick. The Dems will rip him a new one, right, wrong, or indifferent, for being Bush's budget chief. Also, he's just as boring as Romney is...the GOP needs someone who can ignite people, give firey speeches, etc. Personally, I'd like to see Chris Christie...but that's wishful thinking. I think Rubio is a good pick, will help in Florida, and with Hispanics. I also like Bobby Jindal.

Christie wants nothing to do with Romney, and it will actually hurt his 2016 chances if he lines up with Romney. He won't do it. If he were going to do it, he would have run for Pres.

Chris Christie is too much of a loose canon. Wouldn't want to take that chance. I think Christie doesn't want to do anything but to continue to govern, anyway. Period.