US Elections 2008

[xxmimixx]

^ I know. I thought I would like her at first (because I never heard of her, and she looks kinds cool), but after some background checking on her, unfortunately, I just didn't like her. So I just express my feelings about her here (which I don't really care).

What I'm curious is how is the newborn baby is gonna feel in the future that she is an uncle, but he's 5 - 6 months older than his niece/nephew xD.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Archer

I still don't know why this channel has viewers period, much less have more viewers than any other news network out there. This isn't journalism, this is propaganda.

There are two types of fox news viewers, those that watch to have their views confirmed and those that watch to find something they disagree with. They like to pretend most of their viewers fall into the first catagory and their ratings somehow represent some sort of evidence that Americans support their right wing ideals, though I suspect the second group is larger than they would like to admit.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Just a note: Nearly all of them use teleprompters, Republicans and Democrats alike. As explained by several news media, (so far, I count CNN, MSN and Fox reported this) Palin was indeed going off of the teleprompter, but then it cut out during her speech, so she resorted to plain old memory (which was fairly obvious when you see her look up and repeat to herself [as silently as possible] her next lines once) and she did fairly well.

And just like the rest of the US, there's regulations and limits to hunting. Besides, not all hunters hunt for the sport of it. Subsistence hunting and fishing is a big thing in Alaska.

Oh, and I'm sorry if I appear to be ignoring some of the responses made to me. I'm not. Either someone else already responded to it with the same view as me, or I'm simply avoiding responding to what I perceive as aggressive undertones.

[cors8]

Yes, everyone uses teleprompters. Palin's teleprompter did not break. The RNC confirmed that.

McCain still sucks at it and the RNC fails at Google images.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by cors8

Yes, everyone uses teleprompters. Palin's teleprompter did not break. The RNC confirmed that.

McCain still sucks at it and the RNC fails at Google images.

And to me, Obama sucks just as much and neither candidates make me feel like I should vote for them.

Anyways, cite regarding the teleprompter? I never said it "broke."

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

And to me, Obama sucks just as much and neither candidates make me feel like I should vote for them.

Anyways, cite regarding the teleprompter? I never said it "broke."

By cut out, I assumed you meant broke. Here's the article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonath...not_break.html

As for the speeches, you don't have to vote for either of them. However, that doesn't mean Obama didn't have the better speech nor the fact that he's a great orator.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by cors8

By cut out, I assumed you meant broke. Here's the article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonath...not_break.html

As for the speeches, you don't have to vote for either of them. However, that doesn't mean Obama didn't have the better speech nor the fact that he's a great orator.

So, it was malfunctioning and scrolling ahead. But, despite that problem, she still had memorized her lines and continued on as if there were no problems. That's not easy to do with such a long speech that changes topics quite often.

Actually, I didn't think Obama's speech was any better than McCain's. They were about the same. McCain's faults were about why he even brought up his experiences as a veteran. It weakened the impression of being a tough leader when he got a bit emotional. Obama, on the other hand, paused way too much way too long, which meant that he was grasping for things to say [that would appear to make the audience accept his words], and his body language was screaming at me that he was begging for acceptance underneath the leader persona.

But, if I really had to choose between the two, I would have to go for McCain since I wouldn't want the President of the United States of America to give off the "begging for acceptance" impression when he's meeting with foreign officials. But, that's just my take on it.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

So, it was malfunctioning and scrolling ahead. But, despite that problem, she still had memorized her lines and continued on as if there were no problems. That's not easy to do with such a long speech that changes topics quite often.

Actually, I didn't think Obama's speech was any better than McCain's. They were about the same. McCain's faults were about why he even brought up his experiences as a veteran. It weakened the impression of being a tough leader when he got a bit emotional. Obama, on the other hand, paused way too much way too long, which meant that he was grasping for things to say [that would appear to make the audience accept his words], and his body language was screaming at me that he was begging for acceptance underneath the leader persona.

But, if I really had to choose between the two, I would have to go for McCain since I wouldn't want the President of the United States of America to give off the "begging for acceptance" impression when he's meeting with foreign officials. But, that's just my take on it.

I suppose that this election isn't about the issues, it's about how charismatic the candidates are.

If personality actually meant something in a president, Bush would've been one of the best presidents of our history. McCain might have a great history and a great personality, but we have no idea what the heck he's planning to do as president, aside from copying Obama's own campaign theme.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

But, if I really had to choose between the two, I would have to go for McCain since I wouldn't want the President of the United States of America to give off the "begging for acceptance" impression when he's meeting with foreign officials. But, that's just my take on it.

It is definitely an interesting take. I viewed McCain's speech as being very awkward, almost fidgety, as if he desperately wanted to say something else, but he always stopped himself, and continued with his script (I admit that this could have been caused by the distraction brought about by the unruly dissenters). Obama, on the other hand, used some classic rhetorical tricks (the basic verbal pauses you mentioned, as well as many others) to help clearly and concisely draw his audience in, before he attempted answer the big question that he posed (attempted being the key word here).

In the end, after McCain's speech, I felt that McCain would make an excellent advisor to a President, but not a President. Whereas Obama felt at least like he would make a good vice-presidential candidate (i.e. he had the speaking points of a good President, but not necessarily the end-result info that a Presidential candidate should have).

[solomon]

ever scince Kennedy, the charisma card has been key. You have to be charismatic with some swath of the voter population to get elected.

I tried to look at the candidate's history and records more. then I let their charisma work it's magic (I personally find Obama much more appealing than McCain on a superficial level).

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by Archer

I suppose that this election isn't about the issues, it's about how charismatic the candidates are.

If personality actually meant something in a president, Bush would've been one of the best presidents of our history. McCain might have a great history and a great personality, but we have no idea what the heck he's planning to do as president, aside from copying Obama's own campaign theme.

Does this mean you don't think McCain won't be as bright as Obama? I don't think either one of them have problems intellectually. At that point, it's the impression you give to the other party that will matter. If the President, whomever it may be in the future, gives the other party the impression that he/she is a push-over, what do you think will happen? Keep in mind that when it comes to foreign policy, the "other party" usually have some kind of militaristic power at their disposal. Bush's big problem was properly saying what he was trying to convey. He was stumbling terribly.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Does this mean you don't think McCain won't be as bright as Obama? I don't think either one of them have problems intellectually. At that point, it's the impression you give to the other party that will matter. If the President, whomever it may be in the future, gives the other party the impression that he/she is a push-over, what do you think will happen? Keep in mind that when it comes to foreign policy, the "other party" usually have some kind of militaristic power at their disposal. Bush's big problem was properly saying what he was trying to convey. He was stumbling terribly.

It's not a matter of being intellectual, it's a matter of saying what your policies are. McCain said a lot of empty words about rebuilding the economy and whatnot, but didn't really say much about how he was going to do something like that. If he can't explain how he's going to fix the problems that America has with the elections only a few weeks away, then why should I vote for this guy? Never mind the impressions that the candidates give, since that gets muddled through various forms of media bias all the time.

McCain's campaign is really sloppy, to say the least. That's not a good sign.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Archer

McCain might have a great history and a great personality, but we have no idea what the heck he's planning to do as president, aside from copying Obama's own campaign theme.

Anyone who plans to correct the problems within, has to have planned some changes within. And, the theme of this election is change, since that is what people want to hear. McCain is not wrong in what he is doing. That is what his opponents are using to attack him, and he has to have an answer. Isn't this what the Democrats should be happy about so that they can finally start the discussion on how much they differ regarding the so-called changes? Instead of attacking McCain using slogans like he stole Obama's line, isn't it better to fill inside of it. McCain said something that he should back up, and explain. And, I hope that is what the Democrats aim for, instead of looking for unfruitful discussions.

And, on McCain, I have always considered him as someone outside the typical Republican circle. And, maybe that is one of the reasons he went with Palin, to find someone Republican but outside the first-looked Republican pool. Someone who can play to his tunes, instead of trying to do what Cheney had done. That is understandable, considering that there should be quite big concerns about the issue of trust within the current Republican party.

[Ithekro]

These 50-50 elections need to stop really. Too many of these will eventually split the country so badly that we may not recover for a generation or two. While Civil War is not entirely likely, it is always a possibility. The typical presidential candidate has the same platform as tye next candidate. Because once they are inb office, it won't matter what they said on the campaign trial...because making the laws in not there job...that's congress' job. The VP's job is the run the Senate and break tie votes when not standing in for the President. While executive power has a lot of sway...the check and balances system is still in effect. Thus each sides worries about President X or President Y don't mean a whole lot on national issues...its Congress that does us good or bad most of the time.

Foriegn matters are pretty much detirmed by what other nations are doing and what threats or non-threats exist. This hasn't changed in over two hundred years. Only the ability and type of responce has changed based on economic and military power. With a military spread thin and an economy that is not all that healthy...responces are limited. Is Globalization in the hands of the President? Probably not. Can the President force companies to return their factories to American soil for American workers to work in....probably not. Can the President set national goals...yes. Can the President force change, only through either Congress or the Juducial System outside of an Executive Order. Will and Executive Order fix things...probably not...it would ptobably hurt more and br classified as unconstitutional.

If the President (any President) upholds the Constitution, he or she is likely a good President.

If a President took a stand on the committing to a Space Program that got our species off this rock in the near future....he or she would have so much support it would be unreal. Because quite frankly..we need to expand into space to ensure our survival. For one day the sun will go out (might be a million or a billion year..or tomorrow...but it will), and with it goes everything our species has done in all our lifetimes. Nothing will be left...nothing will be remembered...and no one will care, Unless we go out into space. Be it the Babylon 5 reasoning or the Macross reasoning...it still holds true. All our eggs are in one basket right now. We need to make sure that this will not always be the case.

Americans were once known as pioneers. Europeans known as exploreers (both were also known as conquorers and murders to those they displaced)...perhaps the reason society seems to be declining in the United States is because we have no goal anymore. No new adventure over the horizon. No new lands to claim. No new place to get away from the governments that we dislike, or a place to start out anew. Maybe we are a lost people because out spirit is tied to exploring and expanding. Just something to ponder while we muddle through another election.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Anyone who plans to correct the problems within, has to have planned some changes within. And, the theme of this election is change, since that is what people want to hear. McCain is not wrong in what he is doing. That is what his opponents are using to attack him, and he has to have an answer. Isn't this what the Democrats should be happy about so that they can finally start the discussion on how much they differ regarding the so-called changes? Instead of attacking McCain using slogans like he stole Obama's line, isn't it better to fill inside of it. McCain said something that he should back up, and explain. And, I hope that is what the Democrats aim for, instead of looking for unfruitful discussions.

And, on McCain, I have always considered him as someone outside the typical Republican circle. And, maybe that is one of the reasons he went with Palin, to find someone Republican but outside the first-looked Republican pool. Someone who can play to his tunes, instead of trying to do what Cheney had done. That is understandable, considering that there should be quite big concerns about the issue of trust within the current Republican party.

In my own honest opinion, Palin reminds me so much of Cheney that it's downright scary. She looks for loyalty rather than efficiency, has a tendency to hoard money, abuses power when things aren't going her way, and bans books. She went into a town of less than ten thousand people with no financial problems and left it with 20 million in debt. If she knew how to do things, then maybe her party would've allowed her to actually have some interviews done before the VP debates. And before you bring these up: executive experience means nothing when you've messed up this badly, and Alaska being near to Russia doesn't mean that she has foreign policy experience.

She isn't qualified to Vice President, nor is she qualified to be President. She barks too much for a person that has been a nobody until barely a week ago.

As for McCain's change line, go look at the post I made earlier. He says quite a bit, but those words have no substance behind them.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

These 50-50 elections need to stop really. Too many of these will eventually split the country so badly that we may not recover for a generation or two. While Civil War is not entirely likely, it is always a possibility. The typical presidential candidate has the same platform as tye next candidate. Because once they are inb office, it won't matter what they said on the campaign trial...because making the laws in not there job...that's congress' job. The VP's job is the run the Senate and break tie votes when not standing in for the President. While executive power has a lot of sway...the check and balances system is still in effect. Thus each sides worries about President X or President Y don't mean a whole lot on national issues...its Congress that does us good or bad most of the time.

Foriegn matters are pretty much detirmed by what other nations are doing and what threats or non-threats exist. This hasn't changed in over two hundred years. Only the ability and type of responce has changed based on economic and military power. With a military spread thin and an economy that is not all that healthy...responces are limited. Is Globalization in the hands of the President? Probably not. Can the President force companies to return their factories to American soil for American workers to work in....probably not. Can the President set national goals...yes. Can the President force change, only through either Congress or the Juducial System outside of an Executive Order. Will and Executive Order fix things...probably not...it would ptobably hurt more and br classified as unconstitutional.

If the President (any President) upholds the Constitution, he or she is likely a good President.

If a President took a stand on the committing to a Space Program that got our species off this rock in the near future....he or she would have so much support it would be unreal. Because quite frankly..we need to expand into space to ensure our survival. For one day the sun will go out (might be a million or a billion year..or tomorrow...but it will), and with it goes everything our species has done in all our lifetimes. Nothing will be left...nothing will be remembered...and no one will care, Unless we go out into space. Be it the Babylon 5 reasoning or the Macross reasoning...it still holds true. All our eggs are in one basket right now. We need to make sure that this will not always be the case.

Americans were once known as pioneers. Europeans known as exploreers (both were also known as conquorers and murders to those they displaced)...perhaps the reason society seems to be declining in the United States is because we have no goal anymore. No new adventure over the horizon. No new lands to claim. No new place to get away from the governments that we dislike, or a place to start out anew. Maybe we are a lost people because out spirit is tied to exploring and expanding. Just something to ponder while we muddle through another election.

After thinking about it, you really put the whole election thing in perspective.

You had a lot going there until the goings on about the space program. I support it like I do support funding of the arts and public television but as of right now I think we have bigger fish to fry.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

Here's a thought: What if the pick of Palin is the Republican's thinking ahead?

I know this may be attributing too much forethought to them, but if I put on my "Karl Rove" hat for a moment, my thought process would go something like this:

To me, Palin is not about winning in 2008, it's about winning in 2012 or 2016. It's more of a sacrificial move than anything else.

Considering what has been revealed about the decision to pick Palin, it sounds like McCain himself basically ignored the rest of the party and his advisers. It is a huge bet to begin with and it wasn't even assured that people would like her. (Beside, she appeals to the base at a time when the republican tag is poison and independents don't like her at all.)

Ignoring that logic, the question then becomes why Palin? Of all the Republican female governors, why her? There are ones with far better resumes and who could have done something in 2012 like Obama did with his speech in 2004.

1. This year republicans are toast. The only way to win would be some giant fuck up by the democrats or a big terrorist attack inside the country a week before election day (and that might not be enough).

I think there is a fair way that the republicans could have actually won this election. The problem is it would require them playing the odds even more than they are currently and focusing on the few states that truly matter. (When I say fair, I mean without resorting to gutter politics and playing the "If I say a lie enough times, it becomes true" card.)

It's already been noted that with hillary not in the race anymore, there aren't really any big-name women left on the political stage. "If not hillary, then when?" everyone is asking. So they put Palin on the ticket now, and this introduces her to the country and provides a first tempering. Then, keeping her in the public eye for the 8 "obama years" she becomes the true knight of the republican party. An experienced, 52 year old female republican candidate who the democrats would have no one but owhite men to counter.

It is being argued that Hillary is certainly viable for 2016. She will just be out of her prime since the Clinton name would have been 16 years ago at that point. I've also seen it argued that Hillary is viable for 2012 if Obama does not win and it is clear that the republicans somehow deliver a victory that can't blamed on her.

They actually have to remove Palin from the public eye after the election if she loses. She is under leveled, lacks an aerial attack, and is not wearing fire absorbing armor in a dungeon where everyone can fly and breathes fire.

Originally Posted by cors8

I highly doubt McCain would be willing to follow that plan, if he had any pride at all.

Also, 2012 or 2016 is very long time. A lot of things can happen politically. Obama came to prominence in 2004. A new Democratic woman could just as easily come to the national stage and challenge Palin. I think there are a few female Democratic governors who could rise to challenge her, especially on experience. A state with a population of less than a million becomes less impressive when you compare it to the lower 48 states.

Equally, there are a few republican women out there who easily could rise up.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

There are two types of fox news viewers, those that watch to have their views confirmed and those that watch to find something they disagree with. They like to pretend most of their viewers fall into the first catagory and their ratings somehow represent some sort of evidence that Americans support their right wing ideals, though I suspect the second group is larger than they would like to admit.

Reminded of this quote:

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Just a note: Nearly all of them use teleprompters, Republicans and Democrats alike. As explained by several news media, (so far, I count CNN, MSN and Fox reported this)

The media usually takes great care not to show the teleprompter. The people working the cameras at both conventions, especially the RNC, seemed to have trouble with this.

[Ithekro]

Okay I admit, the Space Program is one of my few remaining buttons.

Can we fix our problems, social, famine, disease, overpopulation, reduced resouces? Well can we? With just what we have avalible to us on this world?

Social? That will take a long time, and probaly a complete restructuring of all forms of nationalism and cultural identity to solve this issue globally. We are human...we have problems...can we fix it...who knows.

Famine...depends on how many mouths we have to feed, how may pockets want to get a piece of the action, and how much land is left for farming and such. Can it be done...probably. Will it be done...no. People are still greedy...people still don't or can't care. People will not try to better themselves and just expect a handout of either food or money. It is just what humans do. You have to fix humans first before you can solve famine.

Disease? Probably can be solved...assuming we are doing it right and not just making the viruss and bacteria resistant to everything we've got. And assuming governments are making or testing new diseases.

Overpopulation? How? Education? Well its working in the First World and maybe the Second World...but the Third World? It hasn't yet. Maybe if their societies change the overpopulation can be reduced...but people are also living longer and not dying as early as they use too. Thus the current population will remain for longer that it did fifty to a hundred years ago. Also in a related trend, several European nations and ethnic groups are reducing in size. This could be good, it might be bad. We don't know yet. If China's one child policy (with males be the prefered child to be had) remains in effect, it is possible that in another two generations there will be a huge male population of China...with little to no females...this would, in some ways, effectively make the Chinese a dying race...from a certain point of view. Because one generation after that would be half-Chinese only. I don't image they will let it come to that extreme.

However another way to remove overpopulation is to spead out to someplace else (that seems like a simple solution...it really isn't). Orbital station. Lunar habitates, Mars colonies, astroid mining bases are options. Ocean colonies has been proposed every once in a while, as has Antartic colonization (what sort of melting would that cause?) But keeping the options open is a good thing, as difficults as those things are.

Reduced resources? Aside from finding new energy production or capture methods, if we do nothing...things will run out. But this applys to everything...not just fossil fuels. Eventually we'll run out a a lot of materials, or just run out of places we can dig for thing because there are too many people in the way. Too many people also gets us back to the famine problem. More houes and cities...less land to grow things. Something must give eventually. Or one goes out to find more resources. It could be an unending cycle of hunting for resources...like our species has done since before anyone can remember. It is only a matter of where to look, and what are we looking for. Even if we can solve the energy crisis with solar or nuclear energy sources...there will always be something we will want to find. Be it construction materials, or even just a new capitalist venture...our species looks for resources.

Maybe we can focus inward and try to fix out problems...maybe we can't due to our species nature. Maybe or answers lie out in the void...maybe they don't. Who will say? Maybe some historial three hundred years from now will know if we solved out problems, or if we had to go into space....or if we failed to do either. We we fail both, where does that leave us anyway? A doomed species...or just like we are now....humans in a cycle of life and death repeated over and over again until we destroy ourselves...evolve into the next species that runs this planet (or is taken out by the next species that will run the planet..not likely they way we are with animals), get taken out by a random stellar event (astroid, solar flare, comet, cosmic EMP, magnetic polar shift...whatever) or the sun just dies. If that is what we are, then that is what we will be. Humans until the end.

In that light. Unless an elected President is responcible for our destruction or salvation as a species in some way....cosmically theses elections are rather meaningless.

Fortunely most people don't think cosmically.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by Archer

In my own honest opinion, Palin reminds me so much of Cheney that it's downright scary. She looks for loyalty rather than efficiency, has a tendency to hoard money, abuses power when things aren't going her way, and bans books. She went into a town of less than ten thousand people with no financial problems and left it with 20 million in debt. If she knew how to do things, then maybe her party would've allowed her to actually have some interviews done before the VP debates. And before you bring these up: executive experience means nothing when you've messed up this badly, and Alaska being near to Russia doesn't mean that she has foreign policy experience.

She isn't qualified to Vice President, nor is she qualified to be President. She barks too much for a person that has been a nobody until barely a week ago.

As for McCain's change line, go look at the post I made earlier. He says quite a bit, but those words have no substance behind them.

I'm a little confused here. Links are being cited that screams out anti-Republican more so than it is a neutral look into things, not to mention the one you gave didn't give the full details regarding what is going on with Palin. Plus, responses are being made towards things said by people who work for the media and clearly does not reflect the views of the parties involved.

As for the debt, the only people that seem to complain about it is the people outside of Alaska, which I find extremely strange.

To state that she was a nobody when she was a councilwoman, Mayor, supervisor and Mayor in the past 16 years of my state, thus she is not at all qualified to be Vice President is like the other side stating that Obama shouldn't even be running for President because he was a virtual unknown until approximately four years ago when he's had his own political history since 1997 and a little earlier.

-------------------

I hate to repeat myself, but it's as if some people are painting a "saintly" picture of Obama by neglecting to state the things he's done (or doing) wrong amidst the praises, while turning around and blasting away at all the wrong things McCain or Palin are doing (or have done) wrong without stating the changes they've made to improve as well as other things they've done that was good. That's the impression I'm getting.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

Here's a thought: What if the pick of Palin is the Republican's thinking ahead?

I know this may be attributing too much forethought to them, but if I put on my "Karl Rove" hat for a moment, my thought process would go something like this:

1. This year republicans are toast. The only way to win would be some giant fuck up by the democrats or a big terrorist attack inside the country a week before election day (and that might not be enough).
2. Considering point #1, we have to consider that Obama will win, and that most likely he will serve 2 terms because he will have a democratic congress to help him.
3. So the important thing is thinking about 2016. How do the republican's win? By running something democrats can't match. It's already been noted that with hillary not in the race anymore, there aren't really any big-name women left on the political stage. "If not hillary, then when?" everyone is asking. So they put Palin on the ticket now, and this introduces her to the country and provides a first tempering. Then, keeping her in the public eye for the 8 "obama years" she becomes the true knight of the republican party. An experienced, 52 year old female republican candidate who the democrats would have no one but owhite men to counter.

To me, Palin is not about winning in 2008, it's about winning in 2012 or 2016. It's more of a sacrificial move than anything else.

Intriguing.

Quite possible -- I remember hearing that Bill Clinton was originally running against an incumbent Bush back in '92 to get his name out there, with the eventual goal of a '96 run... until he won.

The Dems have, or will have people besides "old white men." They already fielded out Hispanic Bill Richardson in the contendership, and that's just off the top of my head. There are many, I'm sure, who have not yet run for the Presidency.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Considering what has been revealed about the decision to pick Palin, it sounds like McCain himself basically ignored the rest of the party and his advisers. It is a huge bet to begin with and it wasn't even assured that people would like her. (Beside, she appeals to the base at a time when the republican tag is poison and independents don't like her at all.)

Ignoring that logic, the question then becomes why Palin? Of all the Republican female governors, why her? There are ones with far better resumes and who could have done something in 2012 like Obama did with his speech in 2004.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Palin was forced on McCain. I don't think he wanted her, by any stretch of the imagination.

Why Palin? It could be that choices 1, 2, 3 all said no. Kay Bailey Hutchison is rumored to be planning a run for governor soon, and (A) if McCain wins then she'll be VP and can't go for Texas gov or (B) if McCain loses then she's #2 on a losing ticket.