Re-Evaluating Newt..

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm backing Newt.. Is he perfect?? No.. he's been vetted and then some. All the libs have is their same old tired BULLSHIT about Newt cheating on his wife..Well so did Bubba and look at how they worship him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Last night Newt and Herman Cain went one on one with each other for about 90 minutes on Cspan. It was all policy oriented with not a single 'gotcha' question and without any smackdowns. There were some congenial disagreements and thoughtful exploration of various topics. Newt as always was brilliant and on point in his comments, but Herman also held his own for 90 minutes of pure policy discussion. Mutual respect clearly evident.

So what is the media talking about this morning? Even Fox News? Not about the policy issues. Not about the thoughtful commentary and exploration in areas they were not in agreement on. Noooooooo, they are casting the program as a 'fund raiser' and deploring the fact that nothing important happened. No fireworks. No pithy insults. No anger. Not a debate a all.

It just makes me want to scream!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Last night Newt and Herman Cain went one on one with each other for about 90 minutes on Cspan. It was all policy oriented with not a single 'gotcha' question and without any smackdowns. There were some congenial disagreements and thoughtful exploration of various topics. Newt as always was brilliant and on point in his comments, but Herman also held his own for 90 minutes of pure policy discussion. Mutual respect clearly evident.

So what is the media talking about this morning? Even Fox News? Not about the policy issues. Not about the thoughtful commentary and exploration in areas they were not in agreement on. Noooooooo, they are casting the program as a 'fund raiser' and deploring the fact that nothing important happened. No fireworks. No pithy insults. No anger. Not a debate a all.

It just makes me want to scream!!!!

You know, dear, that they don't choose reality show contestants for their calm, reasonable, even-tempered demeanors.

 

[Liability]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

He is inconsistent in the positions he takes. One of the problems that comes with having a long track record, I suppose, is that your record can be researched. Take a peek: Newt Gingrich's flip-flops - CSMonitor.com

And Newt has flipped and flopped on several matters that make me question how steadfast of a conservative he is. How would he govern when confronted with an obstructionist opposition (minority) party in Congress? Would he cave-in to the "threat" of obstructionism? Or would he man-up and start to behave a bit more like Ronald Reagan?

Yeah. I kind of like much of what Newt has said. But I very much dislike the fact that I don't know (based on his record) whether he will adhere to those things when push comes to shove.

One of the "great" arguments I keep hearing for WHO the GOP "should" pick as the nominee is "is this question of whether "(name the candidate) is the candidate most likely to defeat the Obama effort to get re-elected?"

I think that's crap. It leads to the watering-down of what we need. We NEED someone who will --WILL -- reverse much of what the current President has done. We don't need to find some middle of the road politically-calculating mere politician. We need a statesman with vision and principle who WILL reverse our present course.

I believe that Romney is not that candidate. I strongly suspect that Mr. Gingrich isn't either.

When it comes down to the big vote in November 2012, I would vote for Romney or Newt in a heartbeat to get President Obama electorally defeated. But I'd prefer to have the ability to cast my vote for someone whom I BELIEVE is more likely to truly take-on the Democratics in Congress -- and defeat them, time and time again, without resorting to cheap compromises which are not based on principle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

He is inconsistent in the positions he takes. One of the problems that comes with having a long track record, I suppose, is that your record can be researched. Take a peek: Newt Gingrich's flip-flops - CSMonitor.com

And Newt has flipped and flopped on several matters that make me question how steadfast of a conservative he is. How would he govern when confronted with an obstructionist opposition (minority) party in Congress? Would he cave-in to the "threat" of obstructionism? Or would he man-up and start to behave a bit more like Ronald Reagan?

Yeah. I kind of like much of what Newt has said. But I very much dislike the fact that I don't know (based on his record) whether he will adhere to those things when push comes to shove.

One of the "great" arguments I keep hearing for WHO the GOP "should" pick as the nominee is "is this question of whether "(name the candidate) is the candidate most likely to defeat the Obama effort to get re-elected?"

I think that's crap. It leads to the watering-down of what we need. We NEED someone who will --WILL -- reverse much of what the current President has done. We don't need to find some middle of the road politically-calculating mere politician. We need a statesman with vision and principle who WILL reverse our present course.

I believe that Romney is not that candidate. I strongly suspect that Mr. Gingrich isn't either.

When it comes down to the big vote in November 2012, I would vote for Romney or Newt in a heartbeat to get President Obama electorally defeated. But I'd prefer to have the ability to cast my vote for someone whom I BELIEVE is more likely to truly take-on the Democratics in Congress -- and defeat them, time and time again, without resorting to cheap compromises which are not based on principle.

I read the article, and frankly, I'm not seeing anything there that I have a particular problem with. Certainly not anything that makes me think he wouldn't stick to his policy proposals and keep his campaign promises. What he did when he brought the Republicans to power in the House during the Clinton administration more than reassures me on THAT score.

Granted, I would appreciate clarification from him concerning his supposed "flip-flops", but I'm not bothered by the idea that people occasionally change their mind, nor am I seeing anything in that article serious or plentiful enough to disturb me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So . . . I've been reading some reviews of the Gingrich-Cain debate, and it certainly seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's a damned shame they're from the same state, so we probably wouldn't be able to put them on the same ticket.

I found the suggestion of tax credits to doctors for providing documented charitable work, as opposed to our bloated bureaucratic nightmare - or, God forbid, Obamacare - intriguing. I was also fascinated by the notion of abolishing the Congressional Budget Office entirely and finding another, more realistic way of measuring government performance and predicting the outcome of policies.

I was bothered, however, as reviewer after reviewer seemed to dismiss Gingrich - after pointing out that he clearly has the better grasp of information, statistics, and history - as "too pedantic and lecturing" and decided Cain was better because he was "warm and inspiring". Dear God, this country is in trouble if that's really the priority.

 

[The T]

So . . . I've been reading some reviews of the Gingrich-Cain debate, and it certainly seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's a damned shame they're from the same state, so we probably wouldn't be able to put them on the same ticket.

I found the suggestion of tax credits to doctors for providing documented charitable work, as opposed to our bloated bureaucratic nightmare - or, God forbid, Obamacare - intriguing. I was also fascinated by the notion of abolishing the Congressional Budget Office entirely and finding another, more realistic way of measuring government performance and predicting the outcome of policies.

I was bothered, however, as reviewer after reviewer seemed to dismiss Gingrich - after pointing out that he clearly has the better grasp of information, statistics, and history - as "too pedantic and lecturing" and decided Cain was better because he was "warm and inspiring". Dear God, this country is in trouble if that's really the priority.

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

 

[Foxfyre]

That's the thing. If I was never allowed to change my mind or realize that a position, even a position I strongly defended in the past, was the wrong way to go, I would be a total mess today. Okay, I know a bunch of you think I AM a mess, but only numbnuts and dingbats pick a side they are unable to defend once they have thought it completely through, have studied, or in the light of new and better information.

When in college, as a reporter, I thought that joining anything and everything was the best way to get the inside scoop on stuff. And to a certain extend it worked. I had quite the reputation for getting the 'real' story. But in retrospect, I can now see that I joined some things that, with more experience and mature thinking, I can't condone or support but nevertheless lended my support to then when I joined.

For instance, at one time--at the same time actually--I was a member of a fledgling on campus John Birch Society and also a member of the Young Communists of America.

Can you imagine how that would look on a resume if I was running for high office now? Or how the media and my opponents would use that against me?

When I see something questionable in somebody's resume, I look to see that that is still manifesting itself today. In Barack Obama's case it is. Not only did he hobnob and receive favors for some very ideologically as well as ethically questionable people in his past, but he has appointed many of the same kinds of people to his staff and among his many Czars.

Is that true of Newt? Does his more questionable ideological or professional past continue in his present? Inquiring minds who want to know the truth will look for it.

Those who don't will continue to use the assigned derogatory talking points and catch words in an attempt to personally destroy him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So . . . I've been reading some reviews of the Gingrich-Cain debate, and it certainly seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's a damned shame they're from the same state, so we probably wouldn't be able to put them on the same ticket.

I found the suggestion of tax credits to doctors for providing documented charitable work, as opposed to our bloated bureaucratic nightmare - or, God forbid, Obamacare - intriguing. I was also fascinated by the notion of abolishing the Congressional Budget Office entirely and finding another, more realistic way of measuring government performance and predicting the outcome of policies.

I was bothered, however, as reviewer after reviewer seemed to dismiss Gingrich - after pointing out that he clearly has the better grasp of information, statistics, and history - as "too pedantic and lecturing" and decided Cain was better because he was "warm and inspiring". Dear God, this country is in trouble if that's really the priority.

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

 

[The T]

So . . . I've been reading some reviews of the Gingrich-Cain debate, and it certainly seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's a damned shame they're from the same state, so we probably wouldn't be able to put them on the same ticket.

I found the suggestion of tax credits to doctors for providing documented charitable work, as opposed to our bloated bureaucratic nightmare - or, God forbid, Obamacare - intriguing. I was also fascinated by the notion of abolishing the Congressional Budget Office entirely and finding another, more realistic way of measuring government performance and predicting the outcome of policies.

I was bothered, however, as reviewer after reviewer seemed to dismiss Gingrich - after pointing out that he clearly has the better grasp of information, statistics, and history - as "too pedantic and lecturing" and decided Cain was better because he was "warm and inspiring". Dear God, this country is in trouble if that's really the priority.

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

Which ever of them wins? Should have the other at least as an advisor...or in the Cabinet somewhere. That is the way to attack this.

My suggestion of Carpet bagging you understand, was an attempt at humour.

 

[The T]

That's the thing. If I was never allowed to change my mind or realize that a position, even a position I strongly defended in the past, was the wrong way to go, I would be a total mess today. Okay, I know a bunch of you think I AM a mess, but only numbnuts and dingbats pick a side they are unable to defend once they have thought it completely through, have studied, or in the light of new and better information.

When in college, as a reporter, I thought that joining anything and everything was the best way to get the inside scoop on stuff. And to a certain extend it worked. I had quite the reputation for getting the 'real' story. But in retrospect, I can now see that I joined some things that, with more experience and mature thinking, I can't condone or support but nevertheless lended my support to then when I joined.

For instance, at one time--at the same time actually--I was a member of a fledgling on campus John Birch Society and also a member of the Young Communists of America.

Can you imagine how that would look on a resume if I was running for high office now? Or how the media and my opponents would use that against me?

When I see something questionable in somebody's resume, I look to see that that is still manifesting itself today. In Barack Obama's case it is. Not only did he hobnob and receive favors for some very ideologically as well as ethically questionable people in his past, but he has appointed many of the same kinds of people to his staff and among his many Czars.

Is that true of Newt? Does his more questionable ideological or professional past continue in his present? Inquiring minds who want to know the truth will look for it.

Those who don't will continue to use the assigned derogatory talking points and catch words in an attempt to personally destroy him.

Intriguing. And quite the thought process of sticking to one's principle...with foresight...

 

[Cecilie1200]

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

Which ever of them wins? Should have the other at least as an advisor...or in the Cabinet somewhere. That is the way to attack this.

My suggestion of Carpet bagging you understand, was an attempt at humour.

I would like to see them continue to work together, although you understand that I think Gingrich brings a lot more to the table than Cain does.

 

[The T]

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

Which ever of them wins? Should have the other at least as an advisor...or in the Cabinet somewhere. That is the way to attack this.

My suggestion of Carpet bagging you understand, was an attempt at humour.

I would like to see them continue to work together, although you understand that I think Gingrich brings a lot more to the table than Cain does.

And you are well within your right as Gingrich knows the process AS a politician...been there, done that got the proverbial 'T Shirt'...

But as to Cain? He's a businessman, succeeded outside the Beltway, unlike Newt...and more to the taste of those that prefer Citizen Statesmen as the Founders' Intent dictated...

BOTH are good principled men that called the shots thier way and are beholden to none other than thier God, Thier families, and wish to take this nation down a better road than the one the Statists have led us to.

 

[francoHFW]

In the Pub/Dittohead alternate universe, maybe...talking point lunacy, Obama 57-43.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which ever of them wins? Should have the other at least as an advisor...or in the Cabinet somewhere. That is the way to attack this.

My suggestion of Carpet bagging you understand, was an attempt at humour.

I would like to see them continue to work together, although you understand that I think Gingrich brings a lot more to the table than Cain does.

And you are well within your right as Gingrich knows the process AS a politician...been there, done that got the proverbial 'T Shirt'...

But as to Cain? He's a businessman, succeeded outside the Beltway, unlike Newt...and more to the taste of those that prefer Citizen Statesmen as the Founders' Intent dictated...

BOTH are good principled men that called the shots thier way and are beholden to none other than thier God, Thier families, and wish to take this nation down a better road than the one the Statists have led us to.

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of political maneuvering, since as Cain points out any businessman above a certain level of success can't afford to ignore politics or play it defensively.

I was actually thinking in terms of ideas and grasp of the issues, the facts, and the history. I think Gingrich has a lot more on the ball overall as a leader, while Cain has got business and that's it.

 

[The T]

I would like to see them continue to work together, although you understand that I think Gingrich brings a lot more to the table than Cain does.

And you are well within your right as Gingrich knows the process AS a politician...been there, done that got the proverbial 'T Shirt'...

But as to Cain? He's a businessman, succeeded outside the Beltway, unlike Newt...and more to the taste of those that prefer Citizen Statesmen as the Founders' Intent dictated...

BOTH are good principled men that called the shots thier way and are beholden to none other than thier God, Thier families, and wish to take this nation down a better road than the one the Statists have led us to.

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of political maneuvering, since as Cain points out any businessman above a certain level of success can't afford to ignore politics or play it defensively.

I was actually thinking in terms of ideas and grasp of the issues, the facts, and the history. I think Gingrich has a lot more on the ball overall as a leader, while Cain has got business and that's it.

OK. You have a point there. But Cain does have a grasp on issues better than most will grant him as he did host his own show for awhile on radio, and subbed for Neal Boortz from time to time, and has gotten to know the American public. (And oddly Newt has subbed for neal as well...)

 

[Foxfyre]

So . . . I've been reading some reviews of the Gingrich-Cain debate, and it certainly seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's a damned shame they're from the same state, so we probably wouldn't be able to put them on the same ticket.

I found the suggestion of tax credits to doctors for providing documented charitable work, as opposed to our bloated bureaucratic nightmare - or, God forbid, Obamacare - intriguing. I was also fascinated by the notion of abolishing the Congressional Budget Office entirely and finding another, more realistic way of measuring government performance and predicting the outcome of policies.

I was bothered, however, as reviewer after reviewer seemed to dismiss Gingrich - after pointing out that he clearly has the better grasp of information, statistics, and history - as "too pedantic and lecturing" and decided Cain was better because he was "warm and inspiring". Dear God, this country is in trouble if that's really the priority.

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

There is an interesting discussion on the President and Vice President being from the same state on Snopes here:
snopes.com: President and Vice-President Must Be From Different States

Apparently there is nothing in the Constitution or other law to prevent it, but it would make for some interesting activity in the Electoral College.

 

[The T]

So why can't ONE of them 'Carpetbag' to a neighboring State much as the Hildebeast did to become the Senator from New Arkansas?

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

There is an interesting discussion on the President and Vice President being from the same state on Snopes here:
snopes.com: President and Vice-President Must Be From Different States

Apparently there is nothing in the Constitution or other law to prevent it, but it would make for some interesting activity in the Electoral College.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

____________________________________

Before the 12th it was Article II Clause 1, Section 3:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

_______________________________

From Answers.com


According to usconstitution.net, "A. The Constitution doesn't say that they cannot be from the same state. However, the 12th Amendment does say that electors may not vote for a President from their state and a Vice President also from their state. This issue came up in the 2000 presidential campaign when Texas Governor George W. Bush chose fellow Texas resident Richard Cheney to be his running mate. Cheney, who had served in Congress as a Representative from Wyoming, quickly changed his legal residence back to Wyoming to avoid the possible conflict for electors from Texas. Court challenges to Cheney's change of residency were denied.It is unlikely that two people from the same state would ever be nominated by a major political party. It is constitutionally possible however. If it ever came to pass, the party that won the ticket's state would likely suggest to the electors that their votes for the President go to the presidential nominee and that the votes for the Vice President be given in honor of a party official. Electors in all other states, as mentioned above, would be free to vote for both of the party's nominees."

 

[Foxfyre]

Not enough time. I believe establishing residency for a Presidential election takes a while.

I have to wonder, though, if a ticket with the two of them might not do well enough to get away with throwing a few electors Obama's way. Not sure I'm clear enough on the inherent problem with "same-state candidates" to say one way or another.

There is an interesting discussion on the President and Vice President being from the same state on Snopes here:
snopes.com: President and Vice-President Must Be From Different States

Apparently there is nothing in the Constitution or other law to prevent it, but it would make for some interesting activity in the Electoral College.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

____________________________________

Before the 12th it was Article II Clause 1, Section 3:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

_______________________________

From Answers.com


According to usconstitution.net, "A. The Constitution doesn't say that they cannot be from the same state. However, the 12th Amendment does say that electors may not vote for a President from their state and a Vice President also from their state. This issue came up in the 2000 presidential campaign when Texas Governor George W. Bush chose fellow Texas resident Richard Cheney to be his running mate. Cheney, who had served in Congress as a Representative from Wyoming, quickly changed his legal residence back to Wyoming to avoid the possible conflict for electors from Texas. Court challenges to Cheney's change of residency were denied.It is unlikely that two people from the same state would ever be nominated by a major political party. It is constitutionally possible however. If it ever came to pass, the party that won the ticket's state would likely suggest to the electors that their votes for the President go to the presidential nominee and that the votes for the Vice President be given in honor of a party official. Electors in all other states, as mentioned above, would be free to vote for both of the party's nominees."

The Georgia votes for vice president could easily be designated for the Libertarian candidate or Constitutionalist Candidate or any third party candidate and would not necessarily be automatically transferred to President Obama.

If a Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain ticket is the way it turns out, I think it is doable. And fully electable. Though one of my personal ideological heroes, Dr. Walter Williams, is convinced that Obama will be re-elected even if the Republicans were to run Jesus Christ returned.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you are well within your right as Gingrich knows the process AS a politician...been there, done that got the proverbial 'T Shirt'...

But as to Cain? He's a businessman, succeeded outside the Beltway, unlike Newt...and more to the taste of those that prefer Citizen Statesmen as the Founders' Intent dictated...

BOTH are good principled men that called the shots thier way and are beholden to none other than thier God, Thier families, and wish to take this nation down a better road than the one the Statists have led us to.

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of political maneuvering, since as Cain points out any businessman above a certain level of success can't afford to ignore politics or play it defensively.

I was actually thinking in terms of ideas and grasp of the issues, the facts, and the history. I think Gingrich has a lot more on the ball overall as a leader, while Cain has got business and that's it.

OK. You have a point there. But Cain does have a grasp on issues better than most will grant him as he did host his own show for awhile on radio, and subbed for Neal Boortz from time to time, and has gotten to know the American public. (And oddly Newt has subbed for neal as well...)

True, and I'm not saying that Cain has NO clue on other issues. It just seems to me that Gingrich is the only one of the GOP candidates who's thinking on many different levels and topics at the same time, rather than just "economy, economy, economy", "jobs, jobs, jobs". It's certainly acutely important at the moment, but there's a lot more to running the United States than just that.