It is always enjoyable watching one loser campaigning for another. Perhaps Strickland can wear Romney's special underware for good luck.

I have never been able to determine if a V.P. nominee makes the ticket more effective. Some say it does, but the majority of pundits I have read/seen lately say only the top spot matters.

But as for Mitt Romney, a little digging into the practices and procedures of the Mormon church will show that it is a very bizarre, out of touch religion filled with selfish and benighted leaders and members. Yes, it's members, including Mr. Romney, make money, but that is a result of their extreme selfishness.

I ask, what would Jesus do if Jesus had amassed a $400 million fortune? Would he keep it for himself? Would he spend $45 million of it on a political campaign for himself? If you answer those questions, you get a good idea of where Mr. Romney stands as a true Christian.

I have had two conservatives (including a relative) tell me this week that Mitt Romney wouuld be a good VP candidate. I disagree. It came to me this week, that if John McCain is the man I believe him to be, he will select a person very much like himself. This is because it's a possibility, due to his age, that he may only serve one term. He will surely want to put someone in place that can carry on his principles and legacy. If he goes too far right to "shore up" the conservatives, he will not only put into place someone who has probably fought him in the past, but McCain will also lose the moderate Democrats and independent voters he needs to win.

I question Strickland's wisdom in having Romney campaign for him, in a race where the 18% undeclared swing voters who are largely fiscal conservatives but social moderates will decide this race. Having Romney campaign in a primary would be smart, but not necessarily for the General.

The difficulty Obama could have in selecting a running-mate would be merging a campaign for change, with the need to add experience. Good candidates like Joe Biden might look too "old school," but would add weight to the ticket.

George W Bush selected Cheney for his foreign policy experience, and to reassure those that thought Bush too "young" or inexperienced in that area. It worked for him in 2000.

Leslie Cornejo offers some interesting points, but on his contention that McSame "surely" wants to put someone in place that can carry on his principles and legacy, I think the larger concern and greater "want" of McSame is to win the General Election. As of now, it does not appear that McSame has the luxury of thinking about the Republican nominee for 2012.

Lastly, Leslie, do you have any documentation that a V.P. nominee actually helps the ticket? I do not think that persusasive evidence of that kind exists. Everything I have seen is just anecdotal or conclusory.

I would say in reading history that most times a VP does not help a candidate much, but there are few times when one really did so significantly as with LBJ as VP for JFK in 1960.

My guesses:

McCain's pick - a Southerner with whom Evangelicals are comfortable; but not Huckabee.

For Obama - Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

I think that damage can be done with a bad pick for VP, and a good choice gives the ticket another campaigner/fund raiser. Going Southern evangelical could hurt McCain by turning off those fiscal conservative Dems that didn't get their pick (whichever it was) and the independent voters. A Southern moderate like Florida Governor Crist would be a better choice.

Leslie,

you write of a "good choice," a "bad pick," and "a better choice," but what are your standards for good, bad and better?

Also, were the following good or bad picks?

Nixon in 1952 (remember disclosure of his slush fund?)
Agnew in 68 and 72
Quayle in 88 and 92
Mondale in 80
Ferraro in 84
Dole in 76
Lieberman in 2000
Edwards in 2004

Romney and Strickland? HAHAHA!!!! What a couple of losers! Don't forget that besides paying off Strickland to work on his failed Presidential campaign Romney also had Larry Craig and David Vitter on the payroll. They all deserve each other! I think I will make a big donation to HBJ in honor of Flip-flop Romney!

Romney and Strickland? HAHAHA!!!! What a couple of losers! Don't forget that besides paying off Strickland to work on his failed Presidential campaign Romney also had Larry Craig and David Vitter on the payroll. They all deserve each other! I think I will make a big donation to HBJ in honor of Flip-flop Romney!

Is the Romney fundraiser for Strickland, or is it for the Ventura County Republican Party or is it for an independent expenditure committee that will be able to spend lots of money outside Strickland's campaign FOR Strickland?

If the Strickland campaign is directing the money that goes to either of the other two, that's illegal.

It will be a great event. A room full of losers, the ugliest right wing nut on the planet and pots of money from lobbyists and Indian tribes. A fun evening for all.

Talk to you all in November when Tony reigns once again...

Reigns? He wasn't able to accomplish anything when he was in the Assembly and he will do worse this time around if elected.

Reigns? He is so far removed from the majority in the District that he will sit in a corner, further enriching himself, taking advantage of financing loopholes, and not getting one piece of legislation through the process.

Dream on Mongo. Strickland and his cronies are losers, no matter what happens in November.

Hey, this is off topic, but what do you folks think about the governor's May revise? From my perspective, it's phenomenal that he's not whacking K-12, but I'm sorry to see he's proposing even deeper health and welfare cuts.

Then there's the measure he wants on the November ballot to loosen restrictions on the state lottery, which is supposed to improve its performance, and allow the state to borrow $15 billion over three years against increased revenues from the games. If the measure is defeated -- or if the lottery does not perform to meet expectations -- a one-cent increase in the sales tax would kick in for three years.

I didn't think he had any more credit tricks up his sleeve.

Once again Schwarzenoggin is prepared to add another big chunk of interest payments to our State deficit. This time it could be as much as ANOTHER $1.5B each year (that'll make $4.5B in interest payments he'll have added to the budget).

Yeah, it sounds like the Governator is following Gray Davis's lead in terms of running up the State's debt to solve ongoing cost of government operations. That would be like you or I taking out a line of credit on the equity in our homes to buy groceries. He's learned well from his predecessor...

I agree with Mongo. Strickland will win big in November. Jackson simply just doesn't have the name recognition in the district. What was it Mongo called her? A Santa Barbara limousine liberal? Hilarious!

Attacking Mitt Romney because of his religion isn't classy.

You do know that Simi Valley is home to many Mormons. Attacking them when trying to argue against a candidate is only going to hurt your candidate.

Why is it that the assets of the LDC church is up for discussion but not any of the local churches or other churches?

Try to debate the merits of a candidate and not engage in personal attacks. It convinces more readers.

By the way, did I mention some of my close friends and family members are LDS?

Offended people for fun isn't a smart political tactic. Attacking a candidate's ( or their supporters) looks is even making me less interested in this campaign.

Good points all, Brian. Attacking someone for his or her religious background is pretty low.

Some of my close friends are Mormon, too, Brian. It's a very misunderstood religion. Go ahead and criticize Romney for the crummy attack ads he ran, but don't smear people who share his faith.

Do not take it the wrong way. Romney ran a bad campaign, flip flopped on critical issues, and spent millions on attack ads. But McCain did attack him too.

I would not vote for him. But it isn't because he is LDS.

Ah shucks, some bloggers lack sensitivity training. Religion and looks are both off topic and inappropriate items for discussion. Can a couple of blogs really make anyone less interested in this campaign? Interest level must be very low if that is the case. How about getting that level of interest back up by simply looking at what Strickland tried to do while in the Assembly to the environment? Perhaps simply look at what he and his wife have done with personal enrichment with campaign funds? The issues important to peoples' lives should raise your interest in the campaign. I can't believe a couple of blogs can really make the difference.

That is the point. I am interested in campaign finance and I am interested in our environment. But I am not interested in attacks on religion or looks.

If this was about a religious extremist trying to impose their church's will on the rest of us that would be different.

Democrats are not the godless party. But attacking someone's practices that don't impact politics makes it look that way.

I will campaign for candidates I support 24/6.

And maybe on an occasional Sunday...

I usually agree with you Brian, but giving Mitt a free pass on the issue of his church (which is overtly political and whose original leader prophesized that the Constitution of the United States would "hang by a thread" and that some Mormon would become President and save this country) is dead wrong. Mitt's values stem directly from those promoted by the Mormon Church; to know the church is to know Mitt. He would not even disagree with that.

It is also perfectly appropriate to judge Mitt according to the precepts set forth in what he has described as his favorite book, the Bible.

That religion is part and parcel of this man is further evidenced by his original statement identifying “Battlefield Earth,� a novel by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, as his first favorite book.

Offering a raw conclusion that an attack is not classy was just that, a raw conclusion; it was just your grunt of disapproval, nothing more. And you should know better.

Work with the merits; work with premises.

As for familiarity with Mormonism, I have you beat in every way. I have many many friends who are Mormons, members of my immediate family are Mormons, and I spent over 20 years in the Mormon church, holding leadership and teaching positions for many of those years.

I know the Mormon church inside and out. When you want to really learn something about the Mormon church and its politics, let me know. I will be happy to share the truth with you.

Lastly, I am not looking to persuade you or anyone else who is not willing to open their eyes and mind.

Well said Skeptic1968. It is all part of the person and no different than the Republican dogma of "family values" and "pro law enforcement". Mitt and Strickland can and should be evaluated based on everything about them. It is ridiculous to remove key issues from the evaluation table.

Yesterday the House and Senate sent a veto proof Bill to Bush ordering him to quit putting 70,000 barrels a day of oil into the strategic reserve which is already at capacity. You may remember that I brought this up a few months ago and Mongo and other claimed Bush was not putting oil in the reserve. Looks like I was right and Mongo and others were lying or just ignorant. Of course Bush is a hand puppet to big oil and the republicans want high prices at the pump because big oil then buys more crooked politicians like Tony S. If we could read the secret minutes from the meeting Cheney had with the oil companies when they wrote the energy policy I bet adding oil to the reserve to drive up pump prices is in the minutes as was the war in Iraq. If Mongo has any integrity he will now apologize for his earlier comments when he claimed Bush was not putting oil in the reserve, or perhaps he is still in denial!

You hit the nail on the head, Gopher's Daddy. Bush and Cheney have accomplished so much for those that paid them; all to the detriment of America.

Skeptic,

It started with making fun of the clothes Mormons wear.

Most Mormons believe the exact some basic beliefs about the role of faith in government, the direction of our nation, and what is the proper basis of laws as conservative Christians.

So, why single out LDS members?

Brian-
Because if the LDS leadership had their way you, as a gentile, would be excluded from any decisions. The group think is all about church first. Look at history and look at Utah to see the closed society they prefer.

As far as looks, the country has been electing on that basis for years. The classic example: Kennedy/Nixon. If it were not important then why do we have Tony dressing up like Halloween in his 'I'm a controller' or 'I'm a cool beach guy' costume depending on what position is open?
Honesty would be a panhandler with a sign "Will be ineffective for payroll."

Brian,

I think you have me confused with someone else. I NEVER wrote about the clothes Mormons wear. All my comments were directed to the politics of the Mormon church, Mitt's 100% acceptance of "the faith of his fathers," Mormon selfishness, and WWJD if Jesus had amassed the fortune that Mitt has.

What does "some (sic) basic beliefs about the role of faith in government" mean? If you meant "same beliefs about the role of government," along with "what is the proper basis of laws as conservative Christians," we would have an issue as to whether you are concerned with the beliefs of Mormons as individuals who are frequently ignorant of official church positions (which beliefs are likely different than those of the church general authorities) and the old and/or newly proposed position of the church general authorities from Salt Lake City.

As to why single out LDS members, I was responding specifically to your question as to whether Mitt would make a strong VP nominee.

I could help you with your LDS history if you want. For the moment, consider Joseph Smith's White Horse Prophecy and the numerous quotes at
http://www.ils.unc.edu/~unsworth/mormon/whitehorse.html

Also, please read what the Mormon "prophet" Harold B. Lee said in 1942:

"I want to ask you to consider the meaning of that prophecy, in the light of the declaration of the prophets of the Book of Mormon times, who declared that this land was a choice land above all other lands, and would be free from bondage and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of this land, even our Savior, Jesus Christ."

It is obvious to those who know the Book of Mormon and LDS history that the Mormon Church truly believes that the United States will only be "free from bondage and captivity" if its citizens will serve God and Jesus Christ.

Does that change your mind just a bit? Does it make you afraid of Mitt Romney who has aligned himself on all matters with his church? I hope so.

If you're now curious, I have a whole lot more for you. You need only ask. Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

Hunter!
Are you inferring that the Church of LDS is supporting Strickland and other Cal candidates as part of a strategy to influence the state legislature, to sway future legislation for, say, the gaming industry?

OK Brian, I apologize to you for suggesting that Strickland should perhaps wear Romney's underwear for good luck. I too have great friends and a major client who are Mormons. Many of those folks also joke back and forth about oddities of various religions. That said, I'll not mention Strickland's odd underwear again. Let's stick with nonreligious issues then. Romney was a quick and major loser with out of mainstream views and we are fortunate that Strickland has chosen Romney to be his frontman. One thing good to be said about Romney is that he did make it in business. Strickland has never worked and has certainly never been in the business world. Romney had substance, while Strickland is an empty beachcomber shirt.

There is no larger religious agenda here. This is pure and simple a case of collecting on a political IOU by Strickland. In political campaigns, this is almost as common as forgotten promises or withdrawn endorsements.

That is probably the case but what are we to make of a political creature who, under pressure from his/her party's central committee, withdraws his/her endorsement of the better candidate? Is that the sort of personal values we want representing us in Sacramento? And what if this sort of pressure is applied again by, say, the gaming industry, in an effort to force that person to vote against the better interests of the people?

GS,

Would it bother you if both candidates took money from casino interests?

HBJ doesn't have anything listed under her donors from the gaming industry. Strickland has plenty:

Casinos:
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians
Pechanga Band Of Mission Indians

Horse racing:
Los Alamitos Race Course
Hollywood Park Land Company
Bay Meadow Land Company

Yes! Even though I've been known to gamble in Vegas or at the track on occasion I would not support ANY candidate who takes casino money or who supports the gaming industry agenda.

Look it up,

I didn't say she did take money from casinos but I would guess that she will be offered contributions as the campaign goes on. Has she pledged not to take their money?

I would guess she will not be offered any Indian gambling money. Strickland is their boy, plain and simple.

Guess again, CAP-608. The Indian gaming industry usually spreads its wings pretty widely when it comes to elected officials.

Mongo,

Does that bother you when politicians take money from gambling interests that aren't a part of their district?

Brian,

No, not at all. It happens all the time in political campaigns where candidates receive contributions from people or organizations outside of their districts.

Even on the level of local politics, city council candidates often take contributions from developers and development interests that often have no projects that are pending or proposed within the city boundaries.

It's just part of the process, as far as I'm concerned.

Does the amount casinos are donating to government officials in California upset you at all?

Actually, it does concern me to some extent that they are having a disproportionate influence on the political process by their "generous" donations to candidates & government officials.

But, it is no different than the influence Las Vegas casinos have on the political process in Nevada.

Is it enough to cause you to alter who you support?

No, especially if you're talking about the 19th Senate District, which has very little opportunities or chances of a casino being proposed.

hello i like that idea of leave comment for election in ush and usa

Maria who is the Rental Agent at Sahara Palms Apts. Protect Rapist Daniell Grant, for some unknow reason.Thier relationship is unknow at this time. She was over heard laughing at how The Victim was tormented and RAPED she thought it was funny how Grant talked about victim.Ms Grant who resides at the apts. Danielle Grant 23, of Las Vegas is a RAPIST, she and another man used a date rape drug on Victim at Sahara Palms Apartments 2900 El Camino ave. apt 170, Danielle L Grant sodomized the victim with a plunger. She is lite skinned 4'6 to 4'7 and she drives a Black Ford Focus, She works as an dental assistant during day. STOP her please. Victim is too ashamed to tell Police. Memory just now coming back. Danielle L Grant MUST BE STOPED. She is a drug addict and dealer ( Lortab and Meth,weed ) sometimes works as a Vegas Escort/Prostitute when she needs money. If you have information on her criminal activities Please contact the Las Vegas Police Dept.

Gracias por el buen trabajo y por traer algo nuevo a la Internet!