Speculating on who exactly John McCain is going to announce as his running mate on Friday is a bit of a fool's errand. The tightly held nature of the process means the details of it often don't leak out until months or years afterward...if that. And of course, John McCain is famous for making decisions on his own.
Nonetheless, we can deduce a few conclusions based on where things stand today:
1) The Republican VP nominee better be a good debater. Joe Biden is a lot of things, but when he's on his game he can wield a verbal knife like Davy Crockett could use a Kentucky long rifle. Look out. Of course when he's not on his game...
2) Biden was not a gutsy, avant garde selection. That frees McCain from pressure of having to do likewise. Concurrently, the fact the race is a statistical dead heat going into the conventions (imagine saying that in the spring!) means McCain is likewise absolved from the need to throw a long-shot, hail mary pass with his pick.
3) Frequent reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the main proponents of Joe Lieberman for the VP slot simply seals the deal that the GOP base will never trust Graham again. It's not like he had much of a reservoir to begin with after his conduct during the immigration debate in 2007, but there is absolutely none now.
4) Speaking of Lieberman, it seems clear that a notable portion of the pundit class, including some conservatives (see Kristol, Bill) really don't understand how poorly received a pro-choice nominee would be at the Republican Convention. Under any circumstances such a move would cause problems. Given that McCain is the nominee, that's a bridge too far for many conservatives.
5) Say or think what you will about Mitt Romney, the guy has been doing the job of the VP nominee for months now: raising money, speaking at GOP events, and serving as a mega-surrogate in the press for the McCain campaign. And he's doing it well. Whether McCain picks him or not is, however, a separate question.
6) Just as some observers seem to be missing the boat on the potential damage of a Lieberman pick, some will probably be surprised at the reaction to a Romney pick. Much of the conservative and Republican establishments will be very pleased. Many prominent leaders in those communities - including a healthy number of Evangelical and social conservative stalwarts - will have plenty of good things to say in support of such a move.
But a vocal minority of the Evangelical community (read: some ardent Mike Huckabee supporters) will be intensely angry - and they'll be loud about it. Granted, those same folks really don't seem to grasp why it was that a much larger majority of conservatives and Republicans didn't embrace Huckabee in the primary season to begin with, but their reaction to a Romney pick will still be visceral.
7) Tim Pawlenty is still the safest pick. Only question now on that score: can he handle a debate - and constant indirect media sparring over the course of the campaign - with Biden? That's not an unimportant question to answer.
8) Besides Pawlenty and Romney, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, seem to be the only options that meet McCain's needs while still mollifying enough of the GOP base. The latter two, however, remain less likely because of issues that are by now already much discussed.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 27, 2008 08:24 AM | Email ThisIf you aren't aware, take a look at these resources:
http://www.palinforamerica.com
http://mccainpalin2008.blogspot.com ( my blog)
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
If you do like Palin - I would strongly encourage you to do everything you can to contact persons of influence and let McCain know.
http://www.johnmccain.com/contact
http://gov.state.ak.us/govmail.php
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/palinforvp/ (3400+ strong and still growing)
Posted by: Paul on August 27, 2008 08:50 AMThe real danger is, of course, that a Graham pick could alienate conservatives who will only support McCain if he picks a "conservative" running mate.
I put "conservative" in quotes, because Graham is a damned fine conservative, and frankly, one of the best advocates that conservatism has in this country, especially on legal matters, as well as social and fiscal matters. Go back and watch the Alito hearings. Few people today, including the editors of NR and The Weekly Standard, can match him.
But because Graham sticks to the law on torture, and because he believes in comprehensive immigration reform (just like Bush and many other conservatives do), and because he believed it would be a worse thing for our country and party to change the rules by fiat rather than come to agreement to not filibuster, he is branded as not-conservative.
To this I say: nuts!
At least his supporters think so!
Posted by: MittVP on August 27, 2008 09:02 AM1. Colin Powell (highly unlikely, I realize) :)
2. Sarah Palin
3. Mitt Romney
I'm a Romney fan, but I also have to grin at the idea of rubbing identity politics in the face of democrats with a female VP pick.
Posted by: Andy on August 27, 2008 09:46 AMColin Powell (highly unlikely, I realize)
(NO-WAY)
Schwarzkopf YES!
Spoken like a true dem/lib.
Yet you don't like Kay??
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 10:11 AMKay is yet another social-security candidate.
Posted by: Duffman on August 27, 2008 10:18 AMWhy do you think so? He's served in Congress and as governor of LA. And any attempts to paint him as "not ready" by Democrats will only point to comparisons of Obama's slim resume for the top job.
Posted by: Palouse on August 27, 2008 10:22 AMLindsey Graham is no conservative.
The man called those that want to enforce the law on illegal immigration "bigots and racists" and he pandered to the Mexicans that are breaking the laws in this country. For God sakes, the man pandered to La Raza!
The people in his own state know he is a RINO.
Charlotte Conservative News
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/lindsay-graham-countdown-clock/
Defeat Lindsey Graham
http://lindseygraham.info/
A blog dedicated to dumping Graham
http://dumplindseygraham.blogspot.com/
A Youtube video by local conservative blogger
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqxvgxDHDI
And to make matters worse, a Democrat, Bob Conley, is running against Graham in November and he is pro-life, anti-amnesty, fiscally conservative and fits the bill for a "Conservative" moreso than Graham does.
LG would be as bad as Lieberman if you asked South Carolinians.
Look Obama didn't even get a jump in the polls for picking Biden.
Go back to Obama and plead to him to not raise your taxes and rethink the Biden mess.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 10:29 AMYou say we (rep) should pick Powell.
I say nope.
Then you say (I want an African-American, or a Woman or a Mormon.)
So I say what about Kay Balley. You answer is.
(Kay is yet another social-security candidate)
Dude, didn't you notice who Obama picked? He's not 21 anymore, even with his hair plugs.
So let me guess. You think that Americans only care about the color of a persons skin or if they are a woman / 21yrs old.
Shallow duffie, real shallow. I now see why your a dem. )-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 10:49 AMAlso, this article misses the point that it is a very large number of Huckabee supporters, not a minority, who will be very dissapointed. There were more than 4,000,000 who voted for Mike Huckabee and supported him.
Another correction, NOT EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR HUCKABEE IS EVANGELICAL. He has a tremendous number of people supporting him from every group so please get the facts straight before writing articles like this.
thanks
Posted by: A on August 27, 2008 12:18 PMI also think Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal would be very strong picks. Both reinforce McCain's reformer brand, both are telegenic and are "out of the box" GOP picks, and both are good on the stump (I take this on faith with Palin, but Jindal does great TV). But both of them come at a cost -- either Alaska or Louisiana would lose popular GOP governors. At a time when the GOP brand isn't all that strong, having a couple of two-term governors as standard bearers for the party -- and future national candidates -- is pretty valuable. Maybe too much to squander as VP for a ticket that has a tough slog to win. The question is: is the added value of either on the ticket (historically, VP picks haven't had an outsized effect) greater than the loss to the state and, by implication, to the national party? As a (former) Republican, I'd say no. Why waste two of your leading lights for this cycle.
I think McCain should double down and pick someone with crossover appeal. Like pudge said, if the base came around for him, they should come around pretty quickly for his vp. That being said -- Lieberman would be a pretty bad choice.
Posted by: zeeb on August 27, 2008 12:36 PMLindsey Graham is no conservative.
Yes, he is.
The man called those that want to enforce the law on illegal immigration "bigots and racists"
No. In fact, that never happened. He said SOME of them are, and, well, that's true.
The people in his own state know he is a RINO.
If Graham is a RINO, then so is McCain, so are both Bushes, so were Eisenhower and Nixon.
So he's in pretty good company.
And to make matters worse, a Democrat, Bob Conley, is running against Graham in November and he is pro-life, anti-amnesty, fiscally conservative and fits the bill for a "Conservative" moreso than Graham does.
No, he doesn't. Graham is all of those things, too (unless you define "amnesty" to be something it isn't, since "amnesty" means to forget an offense, and every bill Graham has supported including penalties for illegal immigration that preclude it from being properly called "amnesty").
LG would be as bad as Lieberman if you asked South Carolinians.
False. That's only if you ask the anti-comprehensive-immigration-reform South Carolinians. He will win VERY easily in his Senate race. He won 2/3 of the primary vote this June, and will win handily in November.
Unfortunately, my guess is McCain won't make the logical choice. He is so ill-focused on trying to win over Hillary voters (instead of shoring up solid Republican voters), my guess is Sarah Palin or the former (booted-out) HP head will be his choice.
Posted by: tc on August 27, 2008 12:53 PMThere is a reason Biden only got 1-2% of the Democrat votes.
Romney seems the only clear choice. He has been to battle and battled well when the odds were 2-1 against him in the tag team known as McCain and Huck. But, I have gotten over his pretty looks and professional demeanor, which is usually a deal killer for me.
Posted by: swatter on August 27, 2008 12:56 PMOne more time: This is why you're an idiot, Duffman. Voting for the 'person' is just begging for a disaster - personally, politically and nationally.
At the very least, that 'person' will say/do/wear something stupid, lose the primary, and you'll get disappointed and stay home (funny - happening to you right now). Worst-case scenario: cult of personality created and 'persons' are placed above the law.
If you are smart (big IF), you'll read the RNC platform, DNC platform, compare them to your values (weigh the pros/cons) and then vote.
Note to SP folks: Duffers is not an independent (yadda yadda). Most likely, he's in the McCain troll army
At least you can now say you 'served' your country, right Sgt. Similac?
Posted by: mercifurious on August 27, 2008 01:01 PMAmnesty very well could be the undoing of this country; no conservative would ever get near amnesty.
And, clearly, G W Bush is no conservative.
Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, Ted Stevens , and to some extent Bush, are exactly why the GOP is in a slump. Forgot who they used to be.....
Personally, even being a Washingtonian, I will gladly sent $$$ to Lindsay Graham's primary opponent, and maybe even his Dem opponent.
I know garbage when I smell it......
Posted by: Hank on August 27, 2008 01:05 PMLindsey Graham is no conservative.
Pudge: "Yes, he is."
One what basis? The guy pandered to La Raza. . .then again, so did McCain.
"If Graham is a RINO, then so is McCain, so are both Bushes, so were Eisenhower and Nixon."
History recognizes that Bush Sr. was no Conservative, and his son is an even bigger spender. Remember the massive government program "No Child Left Behind"? Since when did Conservatives start endorsing massive government programs like this? Neither of those two will be remembered as a Conservative. As for McCain, of course he's a RINO. Just look at the conservative commentators and what they have had to say. Remember Coulter saying that she'd campaign for Clinton if McCain were the nominee? There's a reason why Clinton thinks that McCain would be better than Obama, and its not because he's Conservative!
I suggest you look at those websites I posted again. Those sites talk about more than just amnesty, Pudge. We'll wait and see what happens in November.
If McCain picks Lieberman for VP, I'll wait for your writeup in support of it Pudge. You will write about how Lieberan is what the Republicans need and will shore up McCain's weaknesses, right?
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 27, 2008 01:15 PM(Most likely, he's in the McCain troll army)
McCain is hammering Obama on lack of experience. What people translate this into is: Obama's too young. It's not the same thing, but that is how it is simplistically perceived. Jindal is younger than Obama, ergo McCain's argument against Obama is undercut.
Also, and this is the bigger problem, this election will be decided by independents, since both R's and D's are going to be highly motivated and mobilized. One thing most independents have in common is a hand-off stance toward religion. Jindal has spoken fondly of having participated in an exorcism. All it will take is one YouTube ad or a few quotes from this event jumping around the MSM to turn off 60-75% of independents, who will view this as abundant reason to reject someone who will be a ticky heartbeat away from the Presidency.
I like Jindal. But he would doom the ticket.
Romney would be better than Huck, again because most independants tolerate soft-pedaled Mormonism (which they see as mostly silly and harmless) more readily than full-on fundamentalist Baptism (which they see as a vehicle for jackboot-through-the-door social fascism, justifiably or not). Evangelicals will be angry, but if you think they will vote for Obama or even fail to vote in large numbers, I think you are mistaken.
With McCain and Romney, you have military experience, legislative/deliberative experience, executive experience, private sector experience, independant/bipartisan street cred, and a VP whose age and image is right in the "electoral comfort" sweet spot, who is well-spoken and avuncular enough to weather whichever Biden shows up to a debate--either the pissy stentorian or the smarmy narcissist.
Posted by: Barnstable on August 27, 2008 01:51 PMI haven't researched his Lt Governor, but I'm sure s/he could do that job with the billions of federal dollars that have been flowing into Louisiana the past few years.
I just don't see the negatives of a Jindal pick. He's a minority. He's conservative. He's popular in LA. He brings youth to the ticket. And the Democrats can't use his experience as an issue because their presidential candidate's experience isn't any better. McCain/Jindal has a nice ring to it too. :)
Posted by: Palouse on August 27, 2008 01:56 PMFalse. Unless you believe the office of the President has the same power, responsibility and requirements as the Vice President, which of course, it doesn't.
One thing most independents have in common is a hand-off stance toward religion.
Your proof of this is what?
who will view this as abundant reason to reject someone
This assumes that a vast majority of these independents are athiests or agnostics, which I'm not convinced is true. And if it is true, they wouldn't be voting for either McCain or Obama, who are both religious men.
Posted by: Palouse on August 27, 2008 02:27 PMLikey, if it turns out to be a McCain/Romney ticket, we should just call it by it's name the "Flip-Flop ticket". I would expect the GOP convention to be marched on by thousands of people in Dolphin costumes. That is of course assuming New Orleans is not struck by Katrina II during the convention. =P
As to my "proof" of independents' wariness about religious fundamentalism: ya got me, my post largely reflected my opinion. I guess I've missed the footnotes and annotations in your posts.
But I can find support for my opinion. Overall, Americans are still quite religious, but Dems and especially Indies are less so:
"Democrats and independents also are less likely than Republicans to identify with a particular religious tradition, and the gap has widened over the past two decades. Currently, 5% of Republicans say they are atheist, agnostic, or decline to state a religious preference, which is the same percentage that did so in 1987. But the number of Democrats in this category is now 11%, up from 7% in 1987; currently 17% of independents are classified as secular, an increase from 9% in 1987."
Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/614/religion-social-issues
I think it's reasonable to assume that, as R's and D's appear to take ever more extreme stances, those who distrust the intrusion of church into state are drawn more to the indie camp.
Despite your mild strawman, it's not necessary for indies to be athiests or agnostics; they simply need to feel suspicious of those whose faith clearly influences their political decision making. I think that both Jindal and Huck have all but loudly proclaimed that this influence pertains with them, whereas Romney has taken more pains to assert that his secular and religious lives will be separate. Whether he is sincere is another matter, of course.
Posted by: Barnstable on August 27, 2008 03:09 PMAs to my "proof" of independents' wariness about religious fundamentalism: ya got me, my post largely reflected my opinion. I guess I've missed the footnotes and annotations in your posts.
But I can find support for my opinion. Overall, Americans are still quite religious, but Dems and especially Indies are less so:
"Democrats and independents also are less likely than Republicans to identify with a particular religious tradition, and the gap has widened over the past two decades. Currently, 5% of Republicans say they are atheist, agnostic, or decline to state a religious preference, which is the same percentage that did so in 1987. But the number of Democrats in this category is now 11%, up from 7% in 1987; currently 17% of independents are classified as secular, an increase from 9% in 1987."
Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/614/religion-social-issues
I think it's reasonable to assume that, as R's and D's appear to take ever more extreme stances, those who distrust the intrusion of church into state are drawn more to the indie camp.
Despite your mild strawman, it's not necessary for indies to be athiests or agnostics; they simply need to feel suspicious of those whose faith clearly influences their political decision making. I think that both Jindal and Huck have all but loudly proclaimed that this influence pertains with them, whereas Romney has taken more pains to assert that his secular and religious lives will be separate. Whether he is sincere is another matter, of course.
Posted by: Barnstable on August 27, 2008 03:10 PMPeople need to get over Romney's religion (read your bigoted stance towards Mormons)and understand he's more qualified than any of the current 3 horses (McCain,Biden and bringing up the rear and pulling up lame, Obama)still in this race.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 27, 2008 03:14 PMTWO rich white guys would be fodder for the 'up by their bootstraps' to whine about. And that would be in addition to using ugly primary words against them both.
McCain needs fresh. Jindal said no, he wants to finish his job in Louisiana.
Sarah Palin is certainly fresh, as are Carly Fiorini, Meg Whitman, Michael Steele. M Jodi Rell and Ken Blackwell.
Huckabee seems nice enough but I'm afraid he's actually has earned the nickname Huckster. No thanks.
Santorum is not a newcomer and has a bit of baggage but also brings along strong conservative bona fides.
Please NO Kay Bailey Hutchison. I like Kay, but choosing her seems contrived: 'Nyah! Nyah Joe! you can't pick on the noce old Southern Lady.' I don't think so.
If he picks Lieberman it will be a modern day Romeo and Juliet: a suicide worthy of Shakespeare.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 03:15 PMSorry as I mention it again, a dark horse is
Heather Wilson from NM. She could really take on Joe.
Romeny just makes it the Flip-Flop ticket, and he's certainly given the Dem's plenty of good stuff to make ad's out of.
Care to explain?
Is 50 "washed up"? You might want to mention that to Biden and Hillary... and Gregoire.
Or is it that he's massively impressive that worries you?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 03:29 PMSo now you speak for how everyone votes for a VP? I think he'd be a swell VP and would be fine stepping in too. But even if I didn't believe the latter, it doesn't make the argument that Obama lacks experience for the top job any weaker.
I guess I've missed the footnotes and annotations in your posts.
I didn't make a broad assumption like that to make my point, so why would I need one?
currently 17% of independents are classified as secular
You do realize that this figure contradicts your argument more than it supports it, right?
First, it proves that "most independents" are not secular which is contradictory to your previous claim.
Second, you argue that Jindal participating in a religious ritual will turn off 60-75% (another made up figure) of "independents" because most of them are secular. This is again, false, or at best, made up as well.
they simply need to feel suspicious of those whose faith clearly influences their political decision making.
How do you know the 83% of religious (in some form) independents don't view that as a good thing?
I think that both Jindal and Huck have all but loudly proclaimed that this influence pertains with them
I have seen no such quote regarding Jindal. Please post it if you can find one. Regardless, it doesn't prove your point regarding independents.
Posted by: Palouse on August 27, 2008 03:35 PMThat is the reason I like Wilson. Air Force Academy grad, Rhodes Scholar, worked at NATO, 5 terms in Congress, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health, Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department and Private sector experience. Mom and 60's baby (47)
Posted by: WaFlyGuy on August 27, 2008 03:51 PMNo more so than Barrack makes the Democrat ticket a Flip-Flop ticket. I'm sure Biden will be flip flopping very soon too on his comments about BHO not being ready to be President, and the country being better off with McCain.
Posted by: Palouse on August 27, 2008 04:20 PMIf you folks pick Bobby Jindal, I will be laughing myself to death on Friday. The fellow is just too young, and has only been Governor of Louisiana for a few months.
As for Sarah Palin, I think it hurts her being from Alaska. Ted Stevens is under indictment and fixing to get his ass kicked in November. And it looks like Palin fell a bit short in her efforts to have her Lieutenant Governor unseat Don Young.
Of course, I could not have imagine Barack Obama picking Joe Biden as his running mate. I think Biden is well-qualified to serve as Vice-President or even President. I just don't see the political strength that Obama gains from picking Biden.
I think McCain gains a lot of political strength if he picks Romney. McCain loses a good bit by picking Jindal. Palin would probably help McCain some. Pawlenty might also be a good choice -- McCain could probably at least pick up Minnesota!
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 27, 2008 05:29 PMThe best choice for McCain is clearly Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Ryan on August 27, 2008 05:38 PMHe's a long term loser!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 05:57 PMKay Bailey Hutchison is probably going to be off the table for pro-life voters.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 06:25 PM
I'll put Jindals history and on-the-job experience up against barry's any day of the week.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is probably going to be off the table for pro-life voters.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 06:28 PMAs I have repeatedly stated, I will not be voting for McCain. The primary basis for that position is he completely sold out on the issue of amnesty... and if, as Pudge tells us, McAmnesty is the position of many conservatives, then I am ashamed to call myself one.
Posted by: Hinton on August 27, 2008 06:38 PMI think they'd both be great picks, but let's drop these weird obsessions with "experience" for Vice President (VICE President!)
Posted by: AD on August 27, 2008 06:41 PM"Lindsey Graham is no conservative."
One what basis?
Fiscally, socially, legally.
As for McCain, of course he's a RINO.
Um.
Again.
If Graham is a RINO, then so is McCain, so are both Bushes, so were Eisenhower and Nixon.
I am showing that your use of the word "RINO" is completely stupid. If they are Republicans In Name Only, then so are both Bushes and Ike and Nixon, and how could it make ANY SENSE AT ALL for all but one of the Republican Presidents of the last 50 years to be Republicans In Name Only?
Your definition of "Republican" needs adjustment in order to fit reality.
Just look at the conservative commentators and what they have had to say.
No, I do not give a damn what any conservative commenter says. Especially Coulter. She's a moron.
If McCain picks Lieberman for VP, I'll wait for your writeup in support of it Pudge.
Then you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I've consistently said Lieberman would be a terrible pick because other than on abortion and Iraq, he disagrees with the Republicans on most other issues. And further I think he wouldn't do anything to help McCain politically.
I never did.
Take your blinders off for Romney. Eric, you say the selection has to be a good debater - Romney LOST all the debates. Huck won them all! That's the end all.
If you are looking for economics and are proposing another rich white guy to grace the silver spoon ticket you might as well select the best rich white guy based on economics and take Steve Forbes.
The best selection that McCain could make is likely Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
Now is the time to rip the Democratic party in half. Running with a female anti-abortion VP would put an end to democratic dominance of the women voters and would likely spell the beginning of the end of the pro-choice movement as we know it.
The media love affair with Obama would then be split, shall we elect the first female VP or the first black Prez - jump ball. History is made and the Republicans, after trouncing Obama will be the party of 57% of the female vote for decades.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2008 07:57 PMThe worst political VP picks for McCain?
... Tie between Huckabee and Lieberman
Intriguing names?
...Palin (might as well be from Canada) and Pawlenty (not enough time left to introduce him to the electorate).
Future star?
...Jindal is a lock, but keep him in the wings to vie against the Clinton/Obama hydra in 2012/2016.
According to your logic the McCain campaign shouldn't have been using Romney as a surrogate, with media appearances galore, in the last couple months.
But, according to your logic Huckabee won all the debates - which of course explains why he won over conservatives across the country and became the nominee...
Oh.
One other thing: Kay Bailey Hutchison is not pro-life (including this notable vote). That doesn't pass the purity test you've held Romney to, among other candidates, in the past. It certainly doesn't make her "anti-abortion."
I think you would agree selecting someone not firmly now in the pro-life camp would not be a wise move for McCain.
Meanwhile, I don't think McCain will actually end up picking Romney. My money is on Pawlenty if I had to wager on it. But Hutchison is a no go.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 27, 2008 08:23 PMAs for Hutchison, she is a non-issue as far as abortion. She supports Roe v. Wade in the same manner Rudy G. did, yet whenever there has been abortion restriction legislation to vote on she has sided with the conservatives. I don't see her on the VP slot or as President, changing the court to favor more the pro-abortion stance.
Basically, she's a perfect choice for VP, the women will find her an attractive alternative to Hillary yet she will act as a conservative.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2008 08:39 PMLast time I checked, spending 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW didn't exactly rise to the level of "silver spoon" material, Doug. Funny how those that have never stepped in McCain's shoes are quick to dismiss someone that has endured such personal and physical agony as being somehow "pampered" in life.
...But thanks for making an ass of yourself.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 27, 2008 09:17 PMAs for Hutchison, she is a non-issue as far as abortion. She supports Roe v. Wade in the same manner Rudy G. did
Your first sentence is contradicted by your second.
I know, you think you explained why it is a non-issue with the rest of your second sentence, which was:
yet whenever there has been abortion restriction legislation to vote on she has sided with the conservatives.
But no, that's not enough. She believes in maintaining the "right to choose," which means she will be rejected by the very conservatives McCain must fear losing with his VP pick.
Posted by: pudge on August 27, 2008 09:49 PMThat is what is so damned disgusting with politics in today's era. An empty suit from the sewers of the south side by way of the Chicago political machine can ascend to the brink of "leader of the free world" in less than 5 years without any discernible executive experience whatsoever under his belt...only empty, rhetorical sputterings of "hope and change" that belie any substantive direction or visions for the future of our country.
I'm not holding out much hope for this nations future if we continue this trend of "cult of personality" politics swayed by the media deification of an individual like we are witnessing with that of the Jr. Senator from Illinois.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 27, 2008 10:58 PMHe also has stellar credentials on healthcare and medicare/medicaid from his time spent saving Louisiana's department of health and hospitals.
Also, the AFL-CIO hates him, which means he's probably a pretty good guy.
If Obama loses in November, Jindal is probably the safest bet for the first non-white president. I figured he'd be running for President in 2012 or 2016.
Posted by: blindman on August 28, 2008 12:24 AMI think the "reduced" role of the VP is perfect for a young, rising star who shows talent in solving tough problems. Jindal's healthcare/medicaid credentials alone would quickly dash any fears of inexperience. I think people will more naturally accept a younger, "protoge" in the VP spot than as President.
Besides, if you were to put Jindal head-to-head with Obama, Jindal actually has a better resume in my opinion. Demonstrating sound fiscal responsibility and recovering failed government programs like Jindal has, must be the toughest thing a politician can do. (This is also the main reason why I strongly support Dino.)
Posted by: blindman on August 28, 2008 12:36 AMAbout to pull off the foreign policy coup of a lifetime within 30 days of the November election.
Posted by: MC on August 28, 2008 01:15 AMAnd Rick Dees: would you please stop with the "anti-Mormon bigotry" stuff? It's just dumb. Or can we assume that everyone who voted against Mitt did so because of bigotry?
That doesn't make much sense for New Hampshire, as they're aren't many Huck supporters up there. Then came Michigan; I guess the bigots were told to shut up there. Then South Carolina and Florida where John McCain's bigot supporters stopped Romney in his tracks. Finally on Super Tuesday, Huck must have cast an Anti-Mormon spell or something to get Romney to lose California by 20 points.
But, contrast that with Utah and Nevada where the non-bigoted Mormons only carried Mitt to victory by a 10 to 1 margin or so. Surely they must have been only considering his experience and personality, etc; they were certainly not taking into account his faith; therefore, they can't be called bigots. Only Huckabee's "rabid" supporters can be bigots.
Face it, this guy won no competitive primaries, and it seems clear that the more people get to know him, the less they like him. Does that have to do with his religion? Perhaps, but neither you or I know for a fact. In the end, he'd be a disaster for the ticket.
Again, I don't want Huckabee on the ticket, but neither do I want Romney; I cannot trust him, based on his poor performance in Massachussets and his own statements.
p.s. Nobody converts to Pro-Life from the stem-call issue. No one. If anything, the reverse is true where folks are against almost all forms of abortion, but make allowance for stem calls, e.g. McCain.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on August 28, 2008 09:10 AMYou would not believe the amount of people i've come into contact with that have based their opinion of Romney on one issue.....His religion of Mormonism. So yeah, I'd say that is a pretty bigoted stance upon which to judge someone in the 21st century. I've met plenty of practicing mormons and find them if anything, the most normal people you'll come into contact with.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 10:22 AMThese are the two groups McCain most needs the support of right now.
He cannot possibly be a good pick for McCain.
Huck would be a good President, his govt. executive experience was far better than Romney's. He would fit the bill best as being qualified to take over the Presidency, but you are right in that he would offend the suburbans just as Romney would offend the rural voters, neither would be a good choice.
Kay Bailey has a relatively strong (albeit not perfect) rating from the right-to-lifers. Comparing her to Rudy in that if Rudy was appointing a Supreme Court justice he wouldn't pick a pro-choicer just to pick a pro-choicer - neither would Kay Bailey. It's my understanding that she has just publicly denied that she is the choice, so we'll be looking elsewhere....still a chance it could be.....Rudy.
Posted by: Doug on August 28, 2008 12:43 PMThe ever increasing noise and condemnation of Pelosi and her big mouth now makes it an issue a BIG one. Another bishop came out today. That's over 3 days of virulent condemnation about a pro-abortion stance by Catholic politicians.
I don't know if Hutchison Catholic, but quite frankly it doesn't matter. Catholics are watching, knowing their votes are pivotal to this election. A pro-choice candidate will make them say there is no difference betweent the 2 campaigns and they will fall back on their Democrat tendencies.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2008 12:46 PMYou either believe something or you don't... abortion is a subject that does not allow for a grey area.
Personally I don't care about Roe being overturn. I care about loudly announcing that abortion is such a shameful, ugly vile thing that no one will support it.
I can't do that by pretending a "pro-choice" (read PRO-BABYKILLING) candidate is acceptable.
Nor should you.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2008 01:29 PMNow, Ragnar, you can yell as loudly as you want, let the Rick Warrens, Catholic Priests and everyone yell as loudly as they want....are the people's who minds need changed going to seriously listen to you all? They need a voice telling them those things, a voice that they will listen to. When Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy, that was completely and utterly against the anti-war establishment of the Democratic party - but because it was one of their own that was saying it needed done, they were okay with it. If the war in Iraq was undertaken by Clinton instead of Bush, then the complaints wouldn't be coming from the Democratic side.
Posted by: Doug on August 28, 2008 01:49 PMHow will overturning Roe convince pro-borts that abortion is wrong, how willl it change their minds?
How will choosing a pro-bort convince voters we mean what we say when we say we are pro-life?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2008 01:58 PMPudge: Please re-read my post. I made it clear I don't want Huckabee on the ticket; I meant that. Unlike Romney-esqu politicians, I mean what I say. For one thing, it may hurt his chances in 2012 or '16. However, I made it clear that I won't accept Romney, and for the same reasons you dismiss Huckabee. I don't believe moderates and independents will be attracted to the party with Romney on it. Heck, I'm not sure the base will even turn out. McCain will lose the image he's built up if he panders to the establishment on this one.
Given the names I've heard from our worthless media, I favor Pawlenty. However, Medved makes a good point about putting a conservative woman on the ticket. But, if what you say is true about Hutchinson (I didn't know this), maybe Palin or another would be best.
I certainly agree with you and Ragnar, we need a firm Pro-Life candidate who both opposes Roe and will actually influence McCain to do something about it. Certainly not one who would appoint a Planned Parenthood rep to help oversee a mandated health care plan and provide for $50 abortions.
Posted by: Lynnwood E. on August 28, 2008 03:14 PMSo you won't accept him because other people won't accept him ... ?
Talk about peer pressure!
I'm not saying this as a sign of support for either one. I would just like to hear a few people's thoughts about them.
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on August 28, 2008 07:33 PM...and the difference being that 9 out of 10 people that actually had heard of both of them would refer to Reid as: "That old guy in charge of the Democrats, you know the majority leader of the house.", While referring to Romney as: "that Mormon guy that used to be the Governor of Massaschussetts"
Stark contrast don't you think?
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 08:00 PMI suppose so and, believe me, I get what you're saying. But, the fact remains Romney had all kinds of down sides--besides his religion. I hope you can appreciate that, at least.
Pudge: I'm not sure what you're talking about, but okay. I will take this as a friendly jest. I don't remember talking about "peer pressure." And look, I can feel anyway I want. The fact is every single person who considers him/herself a Republican should darn well be concerned about those 30 million or so swing voters think!
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on August 28, 2008 09:03 PMThat, to me, is dangerous. And, this kind of identity politics was something I'd never encountered among Republicans. In short, this defensiveness was as strong from the Romney camp, as any "bigotry" was from the rival camps.
Posted by: Lynnwood E. on August 28, 2008 09:27 PM...which just shows exactly how pervasive the perception/stereotype has been cast upon Romney...As I said before, I don't care for identity politics personally. I just want the most qualified person for the position...and Romney fits that bill more aptly than any other name I've seen discussed on this board by a wide margin. In my estimation, he is everything the GOP is looking for right now in a VP candidate. I would not be forlorn if Pawlenty is picked but it's too late in the game to introduce an unknown to 98% of the public.......any other choice is guaranteeing a second term of Jimmy Carter in the form of Barack Obama. My $0.02 for what it's worth.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 29, 2008 12:29 AMMy two favorites, who actually might bring something to the ticket in terms of firing up the conservatives in the GOP, would be two dark horse names almost no one has mentioned in this whole process. One, Peter Fitzgerald, US Senator from Illinois, 1999-2005. Solidly conservative, didn't take any crap from anyone, relatively young (late 40s), went after corruption in Illinois politics whether it be Republican or Democrat. Would help in the Midwest/Great Lakes region and would freak the Obama campaign out, as they couldn't run against his experience...since he served in the Senate twice as long as Obama has up to now!!!
Two, Pat Toomey, three-term Congressman from Pennsylvania who almost beat Arlen Specter in the 2004 GOP Senate primary and is now the President of the Club For Growth. Would fire up the conservative base and would likely steal Pennsylvania from Obama without all the national downsides that Tom Ridge would have doing that same thing.
Okay, those are my two favorites--we'll see in a few hours, I guess !!!
Posted by: Greg Yoest on August 29, 2008 01:26 AMPerhaps I should have been a bit more specific, but I don't lump all Huckabee supporters into what I described in the my original post.
There are many people who supported him, such as yourself, who have passionate and understandable reasons for doing so. At the same time, a number of those folks have a very limited and incomplete definition of what conservatism means. They view things almost exclusively through the lens of social conservative issues rather than understanding that modern conservatism includes economic and national security thought as well - and that the Republican party coalition requires assemblages of all three, especially at the national level.
From what you've posted thus far, I don't count you in that group. You have your reasons for not liking or trusting Romney. I don't agree with them or your conclusion, but I respect your point of view and the fact there are other conservatives that share your view (which has been part of my public discussion of some concern if Romney were to be the VP pick).
Either way, I'll probably spend some time in a full post on the rift I noted above because I noticed it long before this Presidential cycle and believe it's not going away. Moreover, there are economic and national security conservatives who can be just as blind to other parts of the Republican coalition as some - I repeat, some - Huckabee supporters have been with understanding Republicans who don't view themselves as social conservatives above all else. All sides of that equation deserve to be chastised.
Now, to some of your other points, you simply have a number of your facts flat wrong.
1) Mitt Romney did not lose California by 20%. The results were McCain 42% and Romney 35%. The only 20 point spread in that state was the 23% behind 2nd place that Huckabee finished in 3rd.
2) Take a look at the Nevada caucus entrance poll. Note these religious groups:
Protestants were 29% of the attendees, they went for Romney over McCain 42% to 18%. Catholics were another 18%, they backed Romney with 35% to McCain's 22%. Romney also bested Ron Paul 30% to 23% among "other Christians," comprising 14% of attendees. The only religious group Romney lost was the 7% reporting "no religion," which Paul won 42% to Romney's 24%.
Meaning: if not a single Mormon had attended the Nevada caucuses Romney still would have won with a huge margin.
3) You imply Michigan was not a competitive primary. Yes, it sure gets an asterick because of Romney's hometown connection and the way in which he campaigned there like he was running for Governor (much like McCain did in NH). But polling leading into Primary Day was entirely mixed. Observers widely viewed the race as highly competitive - especially after McCain's won in NH the week before (and his victory in '00). And McCain spent gobs of time campaigning there after the Granite State; even Huckabee made a couple high profile swings through the state.
Michigan was competitive. Only Romney's larger than expected win changed people's view of the state's contest after the fact.
4) We're never going to agree on Romney "that the more people get to know him, the less they like him." He wouldn't have done as well as he did do in the primary season before dropping out (2nd in the delegate count to that point) and still have notable support in many conservative/GOP circles (with indicators like this) if that was the case.
More importantly, I don't accuse you of anti-Mormon bias. I don't think that issue actually affects the majority of Evangelicals (which I count myself one of). But, the issue does keep coming up and some Evangelical leaders have been quite clear that they believe some rank-and-file believers do have a problem with the Mormon issue. Thus, I wouldn't be as quick as you to brush it under the table.
Thanks for posting here. I do look forward to hearing more from you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 29, 2008 07:25 AMFor my part, I'm thrilled with the final pick! I just made my first gift to the McCain campaign.
Heck, we might, even, have a chance to win in Novemeber.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on August 29, 2008 10:52 AM