A few comments here!
1) People deeming the vice-president as important.
In an election? It certainly can be so. Look at Sarah Palin's affect on McCain in 2008, or how LBJ helped Kennedy in the South in 1960, for starters. Also, the office of the VP itself gained a lot of powers under Cheney.
It's an overly simplistic argument, to be sure, but it has some logic behind it; someone calling to send American soldiers to war seems a lot less credible, IMO, if they never served in the military themselves.
There isn't really any point in promoting partisanship for its own sake. Besides, I routinely vote in the GOP primary at the local level (because it's the only time my vote really counts here
)
He's well intentioned, sensible and funny, if nothing else. More than you can say about almost any other minor party candidates.
When I'm visiting family, we always talk politics and such at the supper table. Might be different than most people, I dunno.
I can't think of many politicians I admire in the slightest, but I don't see what's wrong with it compared to admiring other people you don't personally know.
But, but, but, it's an amusing news story!
Eh, you're entitled to your own two cents of course, but I find SNL to be funnier around election season, generally.
It's not really intended to be funny, I think, it's more to point out the fact that Romney is a guy who did that to his dog. It
was a bit cruel.
I use the term sometimes (interchangeably with Paulista, and maybe a few other words), and know plenty of Paul-supporters who use the adjective to describe themselves. Don't really see the problem with it at all.
What if they're gay?
Gotta differ with you there, certainly, I'd love to see a Presidential inauguration in person. I love the feeling of taking part in something "historical."
