As far as the topic goes... This is a smoke screen. A diversion. Why should I really care if Bain Capital, with Romney in charge or not, invested in or managed companies that outsourced, downsized, or otherwise attempted to make unviable businesses into viable ones? Why should I care if Romney invests his money all over the world, owns more than two homes, etc.? He's a wealthy and successful man - those things are reasonable to me. What's really going on is the president SHOULD be on the defensive for the lousy economy, poor leadership, and awful policy choices. Since he can't run on his record, the best strategy is to put Romney on the defensive and attack, attack, attack. I'd judge them both by their records. Romney was a moderate republican when in office. Universal health care, pro-choice, etc., and was able to win election as a republican in one of the most liberal leaning states in the nation. He was able to work with the opposing party to get stuff done. Not that I agree with much of what they got done, but it did get done. Politicians say what's expedient to gain the vote of the people he's addressing. Obama does it. Romney does it. Much of what they say they want to do are things they have no power to achieve. What it really comes down to is whether we want 4 more years of Jimmy Carter malaise or to make a change and hope for better. Neither candidate is impressive to me, and there's not much of a good choice between the two.
You just posted in favor of the smokescreen which got us into this financial mess (the sex garbage which crippled the country and then gave us Bush) and now you say to stick to real national issues? No, I'm nobody, I'm just saying he'd win board arguments faster if he opened up and cited specific jobs he's had, since they've been impressive. (He doesn't have to mention any intelligence stuff.)
Then I don't know the answer to your original question. I know you lose your right to vote, but I don't think it technically DQ's you from being president. Larouche example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._Presidential_campaigns Some caucuses ousted him from the ballot because he could not vote, but I think that was a political move and may not have been technically legal. I suppose a party (if it wanted to) could strike the delegates and make moves like this, but if you are a candidate in the general election, I don't know if the state can forbid its citizens for voting for electors to support a felon.
That answer's zen-like brevity impresses nevertheless. Anyway, if you must continue to drop, among your sage pearls of wisdom, the references to important people you have known, your readers crave specificity to be convinced. Otherwise your references to your background go for naught.
Because he has continually lied about all of the above for nearly a decade in order to defraud the US government through tax fraud.
During the vetting process, John McCain looked at Romney's tax records, and then went with Palin. Romney feels he's better off hiding his tax records and taking the heat for that, rather than coming clean as pretty much all presidential candidates (and his own father) have done in the past 20 years. That, to me, says it all.
I'm shocked that a politician might lie about something. /sarcasm Obama promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. His chief "accomplishment" for his whole first term is a massive new tax on the middle class. You compare a firecracker (Romney/Bain Capital) to a nuclear bomb (ObamaCare).
Seems to me McCain chose Palin because he wanted to make a radical and bold move with his VP appointment. And it worked for the short term.
For the record, he wasn't important when we knew each other, so I don't know what the big deal is. As for what other posters crave, they will have to sate themselves. Remember, I'm not a believer in the Government doing things for us we can do for ourselves. Edit: I should say they stonewalled once those issues were discovered.
Look, I voted for the guy twice, but Bill Clinton hid his wife's tax records (since she was the earner in the family). Remember Whitewater and her commodities investments?
Bingo. Do people really believe McCain selected Palin because she was the most ready to step in and become President?
I've often wondered why McCain made such a horrible decision. The only thing I can come up with is that he knew he would lose and why toss in a GOP hopeful for 4 to 8 years down the road just to get beat up and lose image.
Did you watch or read Game Change? It was pretty interesting and enlightening. I think that McCain's aides have confirmed it was fairly accurate.
McCain needed a shot of adrenaline in his campaign. It was a shit time to be a Republican and run for election and the social conservatives didn't care for McCain. Palin as a woman, a social conservative and a new face solved many of those problems. And what people don't remember was until the financial crisis in October, it worked. If he had taken someone more traditional, it wouldn't have moved the goal posts at all. The lesson was that Sarah Palin was a great choice in many ways relating to the election, but was likely ill prepared to be President and wasn't well-vetted or prepared to handle the criticisms.
