who ya votin' for and why?

[Mike]

Hee's the deal:

Huckabee - way out of his league; more or less a nice guy
Guiliani - yankee mobster. limited national skills & appeal
McCain - might be the best choice. fighter. old. maverick.
Romney - arrogant SOB

Obama - inexperienced; VERY liberal; nice (enough) guy
Hitlary - my wish, most likely to be beat by Republican candidate

O'Hara - my man; local guy like Brett Favre

[kevin]

I thought it was too late to vote?

[dollfus46]

Romney. I think he's the most talented Ex-governor we've elected recently.
McCain is too liberal. He'd make a good Secretary of Defense perhaps.
Giuliani- I'm not voting for a freakin' Mayor
Huckleberry - just won't be there at the end and he's too liberal for me.
Ron Paul - Just won't be there at the end, and he's got too much Libertarianism in him.
Hillary - known to be a liar and generally a dispicable person. Socialist. Strong advocate of redistribution of wealth. Some call it Robin Hooding, I call it stealing. 35 Years of experience though.:laugh:
Barack Hussain Obama - Enough said. But no experience. Freshman senator who's been campaigning since he got to Washington. Votes "present" on everything because he has no idea what the hell is going on. Charisma is no reason to vote for anyone. Ahmadinejad won't be impressed with his charisma.

[geezumpete]

Leaning hard toward a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

I'm confused by those who say they want to vote for the first woman president, doesn't anybody remember Jimmy Carter

[thornton04]

Ron Paul because he is different and I am ready for change. If he doesnt get it then it doesnt really matter who does... all the others running arent gonna do anything to make this country any better. And NONE of them are gonna pull the troops out of Iraq in time for my husband to be able to stay home with me and our baby boy next summer.

[Baloo]

Huckabee - Doesn't have a clue

Guiliani - Still here because he is riding the coat tails of 9/11

McCain - Has my respect for being a hero, would make a strong leader, but not quite with him on all of his ideas (of course, not fully with any of the candidates ideas) Would love to have him as Secretary of Defense

Romney - Strong businessman and leadership qualities, not too sure about the immigration ideas he has, but overall, is the one who will get my vote.

Paul - I love his economic ideas, not his National Defense ideas.

Obama - waaaayyyyy to liberal, inexperienced and clueless on National Security and the economy, but will win friends and votes with his personality.

Hillary - Completely without a conscience, single goal is to be the first female President and does not have a clue about what our country really 'needs'! Will scare the h--- out of me if she wins. She and Bill are crooks and cons of the worst kind.

O'Hara - Gotta give him credit for standing up for what he believes in and for trying to make a difference instead of just talking about it.

[kevin]

I'm going With Romney!

[dreamhippy]

Ron Paul will get my vote for President. No other. RINOs and Demos aren`t for me.

[Mike]

Obama slamma-dunked Hitlary in SC!

WHAT'S IT MEAN? Will the poor guy end up at the bottom of a canal in New Jersey the same weekend Bill and Hitlary are in Colorado? Sounds possible to me.

I'm not sure we wouldn't rather face Hitlary next November, tho...

[Conveyor Belt]

Huckabee-How old is the earth? Fix your teeth, man.
McCain- He's just on this side of coherent. Give him a few more years and he'll be stumbling along in la-la land
Romney- The guy's too polished for me.
Guiliani- He'll never make it past super tues.

Hillary- She needs Bill to run interference for her, and it's not working
Edwards- Blinky is done.
Obama- I do like the guy. I think he'll try to push us in a more socialist society, but I also think he's willing to listen.

Who am I voting for? I donno. I don't know if I have the guts to push the button by Obama's name. I think I'll go vote in the primary just to do it and see what it feels like.

[hburgguy06]

Romney-.. ditto "very arrogant SOB", flip flopper, will spend and/or do whatever it takes to win... NOT a REAL conservative as he claims to be..

Guiliani- He was finished a long time ago...

McCain- very much on the wrong side of immigration, too old, may be a repeat of Bob Dole...

Paul- a little TOO libertarian for me..

Huckabee- while he may come off as a joke to some.. I have to go with him...and if he doesn't win the nomination or VP slot.. i hope he or SOMEONE else will make an independent bid..

Obama- nice guy.. but way too liberal
Hillary- she should be the socialist nominee..
Edwards- poor thing.. you have to give to him for hanging in there..

I'm obviously going to lean toward the Republican nominee unless there is an independent to support.. but the Republicans have used the social conservative and us "evangelicals" as long as we didn't wnat to actually have a say in the nominee....I'm sick of it.. The Republicans cannot win without the south.. and we should have a say so in who the nominee is.. (our legislature should have the foresight to move our presidential primary up earlier)...

all that being said.. I support huckabee and will consider mccain (although i would have to do as his mother said and hold my nose while i do it)...I will NOT vote for Romney...

[dollfus46]

Ron Paul because he is different and I am ready for change. If he doesnt get it then it doesnt really matter who does... all the others running arent gonna do anything to make this country any better. And NONE of them are gonna pull the troops out of Iraq in time for my husband to be able to stay home with me and our baby boy next summer.

If you know all this in advance I'd like some inside info on who's going to win the Super Bowl. No one is going to pull the troops out Thornton. No one. The Dems won last Nov campaigning on pulling the troops out didn't they? All puff. They realize we need to be there or they had the votes to pull them out or cut off funds. They did neither. Pelosi lied to you.

[dollfus46]

Huckabee - Doesn't have a clue

Guiliani - Still here because he is riding the coat tails of 9/11

McCain - Has my respect for being a hero, would make a strong leader, but not quite with him on all of his ideas (of course, not fully with any of the candidates ideas) Would love to have him as Secretary of Defense

Romney - Strong businessman and leadership qualities, not too sure about the immigration ideas he has, but overall, is the one who will get my vote.

Paul - I love his economic ideas, not his National Defense ideas.

Obama - waaaayyyyy to liberal, inexperienced and clueless on National Security and the economy, but will win friends and votes with his personality.

Hillary - Completely without a conscience, single goal is to be the first female President and does not have a clue about what our country really 'needs'! Will scare the h--- out of me if she wins. She and Bill are crooks and cons of the worst kind.

O'Hara - Gotta give him credit for standing up for what he believes in and for trying to make a difference instead of just talking about it.

Who is O'hara?:oops:

[dollfus46]

Edwards is hanging in hoping for enough delegates to give him a VP spot I think. He's got to know he can't win now. Why else stay in?
If McCain is the nominee, I think he'll pick Lindsey Graham as his running mate. But it'll be Romney vs. Clinton at the end, I think. But remember what a stupid political prognosticator I am. I predicted McCain wouldn't get a vote in SC. Heh heh heh.

[dollfus46]

Romney-.. ditto "very arrogant SOB", flip flopper, will spend and/or do whatever it takes to win... NOT a REAL conservative as he claims to be..

Guiliani- He was finished a long time ago...

McCain- very much on the wrong side of immigration, too old, may be a repeat of Bob Dole...

Paul- a little TOO libertarian for me..

Huckabee- while he may come off as a joke to some.. I have to go with him...and if he doesn't win the nomination or VP slot.. i hope he or SOMEONE else will make an independent bid..

Obama- nice guy.. but way too liberal
Hillary- she should be the socialist nominee..
Edwards- poor thing.. you have to give to him for hanging in there..

I'm obviously going to lean toward the Republican nominee unless there is an independent to support.. but the Republicans have used the social conservative and us "evangelicals" as long as we didn't wnat to actually have a say in the nominee....I'm sick of it.. The Republicans cannot win without the south.. and we should have a say so in who the nominee is.. (our legislature should have the foresight to move our presidential primary up earlier)...

all that being said.. I support huckabee and will consider mccain (although i would have to do as his mother said and hold my nose while i do it)...I will NOT vote for Romney...

You talking about the primary? Spose it gets to the election and it's Romney vs. Clinton and her 35 years of experience.:bowrofl:

[jill1179]

I'd support Ron Paul over any of them. I like Obama, too. Can't stand Hilary. McCain would be my second Republican choice.

[dollfus46]

I'd support Ron Paul over any of them. I like Obama, too. Can't stand Hilary. McCain would be my second Republican choice.
Wait, wait, wait, wait wait. I'm not disrespecting your choices, but I'm dying to hear your reasoning.:ohnoes:

[Baloo]

Who is O'hara?:oops:

O'hara is a local guy who runs in nearly every local and state election that there is and never wins, but always puts forth his best effort. :smt023

[firefly]

Who is O'hara?:oops: Dollfus, he is a nut job who runs for everything under the sun! I think he lives in the "Burg".:smt105

[Mike]

Baloo was correct although so was firefly. It's kind of sad really IMHO.

dollfus46 - he's an interesting character that has run in every statewide race for quite a number of years. He attempted to qualify for every statewide office (and maybe a local one or three) this past election and some Mississippi court ruled that a candidate could only pursue one office at a time. Somehow, he was relegated to running for Secretary of State.

Needless to say he typically gets between 1-3%, which represents a portion of the folks in this wonderful state that really shouldn't take the trouble to vote.

[Baloo]

I was just trying to be nice... he is nuts, but I've got to give him credit for following his dreams...

[Reason]

Huckabee - Wants to amend the Constitution to agree with the Bible. Doesn't believe in evolution. Great populist platform. Probably the dumbest person to ever win a primary.

McCain - Used to criticize Bush, now loves him. Wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. Switched religious faith to get elected. Despite all that, still the best choice on the Republican side, which isn't saying much.

Romney - Wears magical underwear and believes Jesus lived among the American Indians. Bloodsucking CEO who lies about lying while lying. Wants to double Guantanamo and turn America into a sweatshop/police state. Possibly a cyborg from the future sent back to ruin the country.

Giuliani - Total asshole. Corrupt. Crossdresser.

Clinton - Decent ideas across the board. Decent platform. Used to be a Republican and has many ghosts in the closet. Gender is irrelevant.

Edwards - Best choice of all the candidates. Great platform, great message. Getting a raw deal from the media.

Obama - Criticism of his experience is bullshit propaganda. Great platform, great message. Far better choice than anyone other than Edwards. His middle name and his skin color are irrelevant.

Paul - His libertarian ideas are refreshing and more in tune with the Republican party than any of the other candidates. It is doubtful he could actually follow through on all that refreshing thought thanks to opposition from the status quo. Doesn't believe in evolution.

I would vote for Obama or Edwards over all the others. Between Clinton and McCain, I would be ambivalent.

[dyates]

None of the above

[lamarrebel]

Well...as far as the primaries go, it doesn't really matter who we are for...the dang thing will be settled long before the Mississippi primary arrives in March. A good piece of legislation would be to require the primary to be held in early February along with other Super Tuesday states.

I'm all for Huckabee although I don't agree with every economic position of his. Giuliani is a social liberal. McCain is a maverick, who hangs out with liberals like Joe Lieberman. Romney is a flip flopper, and I can't quite accept the logic of a good friend of mine in the GOP who told me, "he's going to hell, but I want to use him while he's here!" And Ron Paul is just an idiot!

Duncan Hunter was probably the truest conservative in the race. We should only feel comforted by the choices on the Democratic side.

In reference to last night, did anyone hear BILL Clinton's spinning of Obama's victory in South Carolina? His first comment was well "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988". If a Republican engaged in race baiting like this, there'd rightfully be hell to pay. However, as usual, Bill Clinton gets almost a free pass.

While ideologically I don't think there's a great deal in difference between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, I think it is clear Obama has taken great pains to avoid running as the "black candidate" versus Jackson, Sharpton, et al in the past. But, of course, while the Clinton's efforts at making Obama the "black candidate" clearly backfired last night, they may well work in many of the Super Tuesday states on February 5th, as the BVAPs are much lower in most of the states (Georgia, Alabama nothwithstanding).

[firefly]

Hey, Hubbarrister! Where have ya been??? Missed you around here! Glad you're back!:-D

[Beauregard's Daddy]

Ok so I have not done my homework and am letting my ignorance show. But how does Hillary claim to have 35 yrs of experience?

Eight yrs living in the White House, "X" number of yrs in the govenor's mansion in Arkansas. What else?

Only thing she has experience in is one term or two as Senator from New York and in saying "Yes, Bill is over in the office now and will be right with you as soon as he is finished with that nice girl in the blue dress."

[dollfus46]

Huckabee - Wants to amend the Constitution to agree with the Bible. Doesn't believe in evolution. Great populist platform. Probably the dumbest person to ever win a primary.

McCain - Used to criticize Bush, now loves him. Wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. Switched religious faith to get elected. Despite all that, still the best choice on the Republican side, which isn't saying much.

Romney - Wears magical underwear and believes Jesus lived among the American Indians. Bloodsucking CEO who lies about lying while lying. Wants to double Guantanamo and turn America into a sweatshop/police state. Possibly a cyborg from the future sent back to ruin the country.

Giuliani - Total asshole. Corrupt. Crossdresser.

Clinton - Decent ideas across the board. Decent platform. Used to be a Republican and has many ghosts in the closet. Gender is irrelevant.

Edwards - Best choice of all the candidates. Great platform, great message. Getting a raw deal from the media.

Obama - Criticism of his experience is bullshit propaganda. Great platform, great message. Far better choice than anyone other than Edwards. His middle name and his skin color are irrelevant.

Paul - His libertarian ideas are refreshing and more in tune with the Republican party than any of the other candidates. It is doubtful he could actually follow through on all that refreshing thought thanks to opposition from the status quo. Doesn't believe in evolution.

I would vote for Obama or Edwards over all the others. Between Clinton and McCain, I would be ambivalent.
Wait a second, while I wipe the surprised look off my face.:smt118 And all this time Fuzzis thought I was the master of hyperbole.:confused:

[Conveyor Belt]

I wondered who the people were who were supporting Edwards. Now I know.

[dollfus46]

I don't understand why we can't just disagree with each others' choice of candidate without calling everybody who disagrees with us, "Stupid". That's what you just indicated everyone who is for Ron Paul is. They don't have enough sense not to vote for an idiot. He's not my choice, but he has some dayum good ideas. I said he was too Libertarian for me. May not be for others, but I respect the right to choose someone other than my candidate. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way but to me it disrespects everyone who votes for Ron Paul.

[dollfus46]

Anybody hear Teddy The Red Nosed Lake Swimmer endorse Obama this morning? Impressive. I'm changing my vote. I'm voting for Obama after that ringing endorsement. According to Teddy, Jesus Christ actually IS black, He walks among us and He's a Democrat candidate for President. How can I go wrong?

[thornton04]

If you know all this in advance I'd like some inside info on who's going to win the Super Bowl. No one is going to pull the troops out Thornton. No one. The Dems won last Nov campaigning on pulling the troops out didn't they? All puff. They realize we need to be there or they had the votes to pull them out or cut off funds. They did neither. Pelosi lied to you.

The patriots will win because doesnt it always seem like the cheats and liars win everything?

[hendrixfreak70]

If you know all this in advance I'd like some inside info on who's going to win the Super Bowl. No one is going to pull the troops out Thornton. No one. The Dems won last Nov campaigning on pulling the troops out didn't they? All puff. They realize we need to be there or they had the votes to pull them out or cut off funds. They did neither. Pelosi lied to you.

Actually they realized all along that it was a matter of political wrangling. They did not ever care about getting the troops out because that idea appeals to many. In essence they played politics with it and will continue to do so until it is no longer an issue. Geez Mike you are giving them too much credit by saying they saw the need to say. Pelosi is a liar as is McCain as is Reid, as is Obama, as is the whole lot.

[hendrixfreak70]

I thought Reason was on the side of Paul.... damn man what happened?

[dollfus46]

Actually they realized all along that it was a matter of political wrangling. They did not ever care about getting the troops out because that idea appeals to many. In essence they played politics with it and will continue to do so until it is no longer an issue. Geez Mike you are giving them too much credit by saying they saw the need to say. Pelosi is a liar as is McCain as is Reid, as is Obama, as is the whole lot.

If you're going to quote me give me the credit.:smt023 I really resent what Pelosi said about Bush today. I know we get our panties in a wad over decisions by our President, but, I guess being from the old school, I just hate to see the President or the office disrespected. It cheapens us all as a people and a country. Just my opinion.

[daisy]

I will wait and see after the finalists are announced. All is talk until then.

Has my Mom all in a dither.:smt102

[Baloo]

You are a smart lady Daisy!

[Comments 2]

Pleezzzz don't vote for "Billery" Gals, don't vote for her just because she's a woman. I feel that a woman could be Prez, but not her...wait for the right one. Come on, look at her history with Bill....I recall the interview with her "by his side" after the Jennifer Flowers scandal, then I think some other things came out and THEN the Oval Office for pete's sake...and she hung in for only one reason...POWER. I would have more respect for her if the minute he was out of office, she said DIVORCE...I stayed with you for the country but now I am moving on and you can go blow your horn...or get someone to do it for you.

Also, remember that they didn't go home to Arkansas as all past presidents have done....hummmm.

[Echo Four Bravo]

Just slightly off-topic here, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. As someone posted earlier in this thread, by the time it's our turn to vote in the primaries, it's very likely that our candidate of choice may have dropped out due to lack of support in earlier contests. It occurs to me that if primary rules were established as follows, it would help level the playing field.
1. Divide all of the primaries into five weeks worth of contests, by region, ie; start with 10 adjacent New England states. Both parties vote in each state. Next week, move West to the next 10 states, so on and so forth.
2. No candidate may advertise/call/mail flyers etc. until 3 months before the first primary.

Using the above parameters, theoretically, by the time the west coast was in play, most cadidates would still be viable, both in finances (since they didn't have to criss-cross the country, or spend a fortune in advertising) and support-wise since it is less likely that one big state determines who's in and who's not. Bonus; we aren't subjected to a year and a half's worth of campaigning. It's over in just over four months!
I of course know that none of this will ever happen, I wanted to see what y'all thought. Have I missed anything, or gotten anything wrong?

[Baloo]

Just slightly off-topic here, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. As someone posted earlier in this thread, by the time it's our turn to vote in the primaries, it's very likely that our candidate of choice may have dropped out due to lack of support in earlier contests. It occurs to me that if primary rules were established as follows, it would help level the playing field.
1. Divide all of the primaries into five weeks worth of contests, by region, ie; start with 10 adjacent New England states. Both parties vote in each state. Next week, move West to the next 10 states, so on and so forth.
2. No candidate may advertise/call/mail flyers etc. until 3 months before the first primary.

Using the above parameters, theoretically, by the time the west coast was in play, most cadidates would still be viable, both in finances (since they didn't have to criss-cross the country, or spend a fortune in advertising) and support-wise since it is less likely that one big state determines who's in and who's not. Bonus; we aren't subjected to a year and a half's worth of campaigning. It's over in just over four months!
I of course know that none of this will ever happen, I wanted to see what y'all thought. Have I missed anything, or gotten anything wrong?

That sounds like a great idea to me Echo 4 Bravo

[dollfus46]

I will wait and see after the finalists are announced. All is talk until then.

Has my Mom all in a dither.:smt102

You Know, Daisy, it's going to be what it's going to be and we will live with whatever the outcome. What are our options? I'm not going to shoot myself and my family to keep them from having to endure the election results. Unless Hillary wins.:smt118

[firefly]

You Know, Daisy, it's going to be what it's going to be and we will live with whatever the outcome. What are our options? I'm not going to shoot myself and my family to keep them from having to endure the election results. Unless Hillary wins.:smt118 Dollfus, Hubby & I were discussing a possible move to Canada if either one of them gets it!:ohnoes::smt118

[Reason]

Wait a second, while I wipe the surprised look off my face.:smt118 And all this time Fuzzis thought I was the master of hyperbole.:confused:

What?

I thought Reason was on the side of Paul.... damn man what happened?I still like Paul's ideas, and he is certainly a better choice than all the other Republican candidates. He wins every debate hands down, but he doesn't believe in evolution, and I can't vote for someone - not even a former physician - who places religious beliefs above scientific evidence.

Also, reading through his old newsletters was depressing.

None of this really matters for us. Mississippi's participation in the primary elections is meaningless, especially after Feb. 5. Hopefully Huckabee will drop out by then, because he leads in the polls down here, which is embarrassing.

[dollfus46]

What?

I said you were a deep thinker.

[hendrixfreak70]

What?

I still like Paul's ideas, and he is certainly a better choice than all the other Republican candidates. He wins every debate hands down, but he doesn't believe in evolution, and I can't vote for someone - not even a former physician - who places religious beliefs above scientific evidence.

Also, reading through his old newsletters was depressing.

None of this really matters for us. Mississippi's participation in the primary elections is meaningless, especially after Feb. 5. Hopefully Huckabee will drop out by then, because he leads in the polls down here, which is embarrassing.

I am not sure he does or doesn't believe in evolution. At the first debate he didn't raise his hand when asked the question of rather he believed in it. However, I find it hard to imagine someone wouldn't vote for someone else based on their beliefs (or lack of) in science. I guess I could equate it to me not voting for someone based on the fact they are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (Edwards, McCain, Thompson, Obama, Clinton's husband!). I see this organization as more of a threat than someone who doesn't believe in evolution. Just my opinion though.

[Reason]

Link to video of Ron Paul explaining his position on evolution...

[Reason]

...I find it hard to imagine someone wouldn't vote for someone else based on their beliefs (or lack of) in science...

Hey, that's just how I roll.

The president shouldn't have "beliefs" when it comes to scientific evidence. It's not a matter of faith or morals. You can have faith (or lack of) in the scientific method, but that's a different matter than choosing not to believe in something for which there is overwhelming evidence - like, say, an asteroid headed for Earth.

I will admit, that video really threw me for a loop. Before I saw it, I was 100 percent for Paul.

Ron Paul's politics and record are both incredibly appealing, and he probably wouldn't let his religious views get in the way of his job. If he could persuade me of that, I'd likely vote for him.

[dreamhippy]

Just slightly off-topic here, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. As someone posted earlier in this thread, by the time it's our turn to vote in the primaries, it's very likely that our candidate of choice may have dropped out due to lack of support in earlier contests. It occurs to me that if primary rules were established as follows, it would help level the playing field.
1. Divide all of the primaries into five weeks worth of contests, by region, ie; start with 10 adjacent New England states. Both parties vote in each state. Next week, move West to the next 10 states, so on and so forth.
2. No candidate may advertise/call/mail flyers etc. until 3 months before the first primary.

Using the above parameters, theoretically, by the time the west coast was in play, most cadidates would still be viable, both in finances (since they didn't have to criss-cross the country, or spend a fortune in advertising) and support-wise since it is less likely that one big state determines who's in and who's not. Bonus; we aren't subjected to a year and a half's worth of campaigning. It's over in just over four months!
I of course know that none of this will ever happen, I wanted to see what y'all thought. Have I missed anything, or gotten anything wrong?

Of course it is a great idea. That might even be one of the reasons that it would never be adopted. The main reason; however, is probably that the the two main Parties would disagree about having the Parties vote in the same states on the same days in every state like that. They would just naturally want to be different. Appeal to that desire, and then maybe you could devise a better way that is also workable. You`re on the right track!

[jojobeans1120]

anyone but Hillary.....
because.... duh!!!!

[dollfus46]

Hey, that's just how I roll.

The president shouldn't have "beliefs" when it comes to scientific evidence. It's not a matter of faith or morals. You can have faith (or lack of) in the scientific method, but that's a different matter than choosing not to believe in something for which there is overwhelming evidence - like, say, an asteroid headed for Earth.

I will admit, that video really threw me for a loop. Before I saw it, I was 100 percent for Paul.

Ron Paul's politics and record are both incredibly appealing, and he probably wouldn't let his religious views get in the way of his job. If he could persuade me of that, I'd likely vote for him.

Seems to me that if there was "overwhelming evidence" there wouldn't be as many who don't believe in evolution as do. And there are a bunch of seriously smart scientists who aren't buying in to it. How could they possibly deny it if the evidence was overwhelming? Don't want to get into discussion of evolution again, but your statement caused my brain to hiccup at that point.:smt102
This is NOT to say you shouldn't vote as you damn well please for any reason you damn well want. I'll encourage that. Your reasoning is fine if you just don't like his ties. It's the "overwhelming evidence" that bothers me a bit..Could there be some really stupid scientists? How do they still have jobs? I can't imagine a time when I poo pooed overwhelming evidence and these guys are a helluva lot smarter than I am.

[58ford]

I can't make up my mind who the lesser of all the evils is.

[Conveyor Belt]

I can't make up my mind who the lesser of all the evils is.

Well, Hillary is the greatest of all evils, so that should help some.

[Fire Extinguisher]

I may have to write in my favorite.... BUGS BUNNY

[Comments 2]

I may have to write in my favorite.... BUGS BUNNY

And his VP will be Elmer Fudd