That would be your logic from my question, not mine.

 

Who is more directly involved in the economic issues? Department of Treasury or VP?????

 

VP should be able to cover a whole host of issues rather than just one.

The Treasury appointment should be the top economic mind that they can possibly get.

 

I would assume the Treasury appointment will be dealing with economic/fiscal issues on a DAILY basis. The VP wouldn't.

 

I would expect that the VP position should be highly qualified across the board.

 

To address your statement, I would rather have what you suggested than Obama.

 

 

And Romney is highly qualified across the board. His biggest strength happens to be in the one area that McCain is weakest. To me it makes perfect sense that you'd want to add a running mate who counters your weaknesses and Romney would do just that.

Wouldn't it make sense for the person that will run the Treasury Department to be the best economic person you can get? Since they will be dealing with fiscal policy on a daily basis.

 

Where the VP will not.

 

I'd like my most qualified person to be one of the two people leading our country, not a cabinent member....

And Romney is highly qualified across the board. His biggest strength happens to be in the one area that McCain is weakest. To me it makes perfect sense that you'd want to add a running mate who counters your weaknesses and Romney would do just that.

 

Personally, I don't see how a 3rd place horse that should have been able to make a run for the nominee position but failed miserably enhances the ticket.

 

I don't believe any of the candidates that ran for the nominee position would make a good choice as VP. And I say that as a huge Huckabee supporter.

I would love to see Huckabee get the nod, but wouldn't think it would enhance the ticket.

 

I would think that someone like a JC Watts would do a better job of enhancing the ticket.

 

I would concede that you would expect Romney could deliver Michigan. That is the ONLY area that I think he would enhance the ticket.

 

I don't think an undecided or unmotivated voter would look at Romney as VP and that was what made them tip over the fence to McCain.

I'd like my most qualified person to be one of the two people leading our country, not a cabinent member....

 

Maybe I don't understand how things work, but my understanding is the Treasury person is the one that is going to be a) making suggestions and policies to give for the President's approval and consideration; b)putting into practice what the President decides to do.

 

The President is not the one who sits in his little oval office and comes up with every idea on his own.

 

It is irrelevant who is most qualified person because we have only two choices, Obama and McCain.

 

Neither was arguably the most qualified nominee in their party's process but they are the nominee.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the President and Vice President also need to have a firm grasp on the subjects they are being advised on.

 

My question is when did our standards begin to fall so low? Not only should we expect great intelligence from our leaders, we should demand it.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the President and Vice President also need to have a firm grasp on the subjects they are being advised on.

 

My question is when did our standards begin to fall so low? Not only should we expect great intelligence from our leaders, we should demand it.

Who do you know that fulfills this? I don't know of anyone who qualifies. There's just too many issues and areas a president must deal with.

Personally, I don't see how a 3rd place horse that should have been able to make a run for the nominee position but failed miserably enhances the ticket.

 

I don't believe any of the candidates that ran for the nominee position would make a good choice as VP. And I say that as a huge Huckabee supporter.

I would love to see Huckabee get the nod, but wouldn't think it would enhance the ticket.

 

I would think that someone like a JC Watts would do a better job of enhancing the ticket.

 

I would concede that you would expect Romney could deliver Michigan. That is the ONLY area that I think he would enhance the ticket.

 

I don't think an undecided or unmotivated voter would look at Romney as VP and that was what made them tip over the fence to McCain.

 

I know it's a big "if", but if Romney wasn't a Mormon, he would have one the nominee IMO. Far too many of the evangelicans (sp?) dismissed him because of his faith. You take his resume and put it with a non-Mormon candidate and they are going against Obama, not McCain IMO.

I know it's a big "if", but if Romney wasn't a Mormon, he would have one the nominee IMO. Far too many of the evangelicans (sp?) dismissed him because of his faith. You take his resume and put it with a non-Mormon candidate and they are going against Obama, not McCain IMO.

 

I will not disagree with you and one of the main reason why I don't believe that he enhances the ticket.

 

McCain needs to enthuses and motivate fiscal conservatives AND evangelicals to win in November.

 

The gay marriage issue motivated the evangelicals to come out and vote in 2004 and then they went to Bush for President.

 

I don't see an issue that will really motivate evangelicals, so it will have to be McCain. And I don't see Romney helping in that regard.

 

The only thing that MIGHT help motivate evangelicals if somehow McCain getting to nominate SC justices becomes a major issue.

 

Bush's SC overturned partial birth abortion where it would have been upheld probably with a Democrat appointed Supreme Court.