With the VP nomination talk rapidly escalating and with this blogger about to depart for a short Memorial Day adventure, let's open things up to hear your thoughts on the prospective partner for John McCain on the GOP ticket.
First, some observations on names currently being bandied about, viewed in part through this excellent filter for the VP selection process (where the first rule above all is always "do no harm"):
Tier 1
Tim Pawlenty - the ubiquitous short-lister for VP talk this cycle. Republican Governor of a blue state - Minnesota. He appears to be universally respected by conservatives and moderates, though one never knows what pragmatic choices made as Governor while working with an opposition legislature might surface later to cause heartburn with the base. Either way, he might be the least well-known of those on the short list. Republicans will want to learn more about him ASAP should he be the choice.
His ability to win election in Minnesota shows clear ability to woo key demographics across the Midwest. The trick is that his own state might be the toughest of the currently discussed swing states to flip to the Republican column. Bonus: he recently trimmed his mini-mullet (no joke, he used to have one).
Mitt Romney - clears all the above-linked filters to be a quality VP pick, though the obvious issue of McCain's comfort level with him has to be addressed and may remain a substantive and understandable hurdle. He's a proven fundraiser and tireless campaigner, seasoned on the national trail and already vetted by the media. Plus, he's already being utilized heavily by the McCain camp for media appearances, fundraising, and speaking at GOP gatherings.
Romney left the nomination race with goodwill from many conservatives, though a vocal minority in the religious conservative community (especially some Mike Huckabee supporters) would object mightily to his selection. Even at that, a McCain/Romney ticket has potent ability to turn Michigan and New Hampshire red. Furthermore, Romney's primary season success in the Rocky Mountain West offers hope for maximizing GOP turnout in the battlegrounds of Colorado and Nevada, plus perhaps New Mexico.
A Romney selection would also be an interesting storyline for McCain, countering the stubborn/bad temper perception that periodically crops up in the press. It is an open question, however whether Romney would be a drag on the ticket with rural voters given his primary showings (and if so, does Barack Obama's nomination solve that problem?).
Bobby Jindal - Would probably receive the most initial enthusiasm if selected, given all of his obvious strengths - including a breathtaking public service resume for someone so young. His youth, however, might actually be a drawback.
He fails the "no rookies" test as the first year Governor of Louisiana. And despite the many benefits of having him on the ticket, it's conceivable he wouldn't pass the basic Commander-in-Chief filter through which voters assess modern VP offerings. McCain's age makes that issue even more relevant. The perception that Jindal might not be ready to step in on a moment's notice could mitigate the same argument being made against Obama. Indeed, a VP choice nearly half McCain's age could hang a negative lantern on the issue rather than alleviating voter concern.
Either way, Jindal's presence on a national ticket is likely a question of "when" rather than "if." Should it be this time it would be tough to underestimate the resulting buzz factor in an otherwise gloomy looking year for the GOP.
Tier 2
Charlie Crist - An exceptionally popular Governor of a large state - Florida - traditionally listed as a "battleground" for Presidential politics. And his endorsement helped give McCain a huge victory during the primary season. Thus, he's an obvious choice for consideration...even before one considers he has a reputation as being one helluva campaigner.
He is, however, widely viewed as a moderate within the party. McCain can't afford to dispirit the conservative base much more, which puts a significant damper on a potential Crist selection.
Lastly, just like there was no good way for Dan McLaughlin to state rule #9 on his "Don't" list provided above, there is no good way to say Crist is in that rumored category, no matter how unfair that might be or the merits of that factor. And yes, private vetting for VP does get down to that level of laying it all out on the table.
Don Carcieri - another blue state Governor (Rhode Island) who evidently holds solid conservative credentials. He has good insider credibility but does he have the charisma for a national ticket? The same issues applies here as with Pawlenty: any major compromises with a Democratic legislative body that will irritate conservatives?
Overall: he seems like a safe pick if vetting for other prospects turns up any significant problems. Not to be ignored: McCain/Carcieri is an audibly rough sounding verbal combination; just like in another way respected former Congressman and current SEC Chairman Chris Cox was never going to be a good match for a ticket with George W. Bush (...think about it).
Mark Sanford - a fellow reformer like McCain, but with a stellar reputation among conservatives. Yet, as much as this shouldn't come down to an affirmative action pick, does the GOP really want another white guy from the South as a party leader given the current political climate? That's not fair to Sanford, but it is what it is. Like Carcieri, he nonetheless seems like a solid safe pick should such a need arise.
Tier 3
Carly Fiorina - the former head of HP has received a goodly amount of mention in VP talk thus far. She fails the "no first time candidates" test utterly, however. Cabinet possibility? Sure. First run for public office being conducted on a Presidential ticket in a tricky election year? Not a wise choice.
Tom Ridge - He's pro-choice; end of discussion. McCain can't afford to stick a red-hot poker in the eye of social conservatives. Other than that Ridge would actually be a great selection.
Mike Huckabee - a patently obvious fit to be an essential and vocal leader for religious conservatives in the coming years. His primary performance, however, particularly outside the South, indicates he would bring little to the ticket electorally. He's anathema to economic conservatives while his glib performance on the national stage before and after dropping out of the GOP race raises real questions about the aforementioned Commander-in-Chief test given the times in which we live (even though that same quality makes him a TV talk-show favorite).
For all that, Huckabee should most definitely be utilized as a McCain surrogate in rural areas and Heartland states - where he could double-down by campaigning in Congressional races too.
Conclusion: in all probability there may be some additional wildcard candidates in the process. Meanwhile, significant portion of the VP selection process - and all the information at play - is not always public, adding further complexity to the process. Then there is the simple, personal, yet critical test of the comfort level of the Presidential nominee himself.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours? You have the long weekend to hash them out.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 22, 2008 09:53 PM | Email ThisRomney is a one-term Governor (hence if you took your blinders off you would see he doesn't clear the hurdles) with dubious 'achievements' while governor and could help lose more states than he helps win.
Crist isn't needed, McCain will take Florida. Jindal isn't ready yet. Tom Ridge and Mitt Romney would equally turn off social conservatives, however Ridge could bring an electoral college victory where Romney couldn't.
When I read the 'filter', Huckabee made it through the 'don'ts' and half of the 'do's' but I still don't think he's the one, better off with someone from the Midwest or PA if you are going with a politician. If the polls in the South show Obama actually beating McCain in a couple of the Southern states, then he'll have to turn to Huckabee or Gingrich, otherwise he won't need to.
Lieberman, Rice, and those ilk, could be turned to, if polling shows that ticket crushing Obama. They could do the job and the down-ticket coattails would more than offset the few liberal stances they would take.
If I thought Michael Steele would be a good President, I'd seriously consider throwing him in the mix.
Lieberman is my second favorite. The reason being that the only people it would give heartburn more than conservatives is the nutroots left. Think of how much hateful energy they put into the Ned Lamont campaign (ned who?? yeah, i know). And they're still bitter from that humiliation. Lieberman on a GOP ticket would put most of them in the ER (or the psych ward -- probably both, in that order).
Posted by: AD on May 22, 2008 10:32 PMIf you'd like to accuse me of having pro-Romney blinders, perhaps you'd be kind enough to first acknowledge your own set of anti-Romney constraints? It wouldn't be a post around here mentioning Romney without you having something bad to say about him in the comments.
By the way, you said Romney doesn't clear the hurdles at the discussed link, yet the author of the post says at the end of his text that Romney does and shouldn't be ruled out.
Thus, you might want to re-read the #4 under the "Don'ts." It says no one in their first term, it doesn't rule out people who have completed a 4 or 6 year term in a given office. Moreover the point is "it has to be someone who has more experience and credibility than the Democrats' presidential nominee." Whatever one thinks of Romney, and we obviously hold different views on that, he passes that test.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 22, 2008 11:03 PMThat way when the geezer croaks, we'll have a real president who would fulfill the duties outlined in the Constitution and follow the oath of office to the letter.
Posted by: blindman on May 22, 2008 11:15 PMBut just consider the fact that you gave him more paragraphs than most anyone else with little negatives to say about him.
For my part, I would have a tough time swallowing voting for a ticket with him on it. And no, it has nothing to do with his Mormon faith. It has everything to do with a deep distrust about his changing positions on seemingly every issue.
A rose by any other name may smell as sweet. No amount of words can convince me that Romney is anything other than a liberal. That's because I look at the man's actions. He's a slimy salesman and smells like one too.
Posted by: Interested on May 22, 2008 11:22 PMRomney clearly deserves to be in Tier-1: He probably has the best combination of high-level experience in both government and business; definitely helps in MI; plausible case he helps in NH, CO, NV, NM. That's a serious consideration, given that denying those 5 states to Obama starts to make it hard for Obama to win the EC.... Is that enough reason to pick Romney ??.... Well, I'm not sure. But he's definitely on my short list.
Jindal: Young, really smart, dynamic, a leading reformer, a rising star, great American success story with Indian heritage, BUT... well:
Michele, TrueSoldier, and Richard Pope already pretty well covered the ''BUT''....
OTOH somehow can't bring myself to totally dismiss him either. But the ''BUT'' is pretty strong.
Doug and TrueSoldier both mentioned Michael Steele. All the times I've heard him on the tube I've been very impressed and really liked what he said. Contrary consideration is that he lost his 2006 Senate race in MD to Ben Cardin by 54 - 44 percent; that's uncomfortably close to the start of landslide proportions. But he's still on my personal wish-list, if not the short-list. In any case: Even if not VP, hope he gets a cabinet job.
Doug and AD both mentioned Lieberman. He's my favorite national semi-(D), BUT:
Pick him for VP and the social conservatives will indeed go high order. Plus to put a recent (D) VP candidate on the (R) ticket for same job. . . . nah; that's being just a bit TOO inclusive in my book. Give him a cabinet job.
TrueSoldier also mentioned Duncan Hunter: Good guy; totally knowledgeable on national defense issues; great on border security; has (or recently had) a son serving on active duty in Iraq. BUT: Enough to turn CA ?? Don't I wish, but sadly: Don't think there's much chance. If anyone can make even a semi-rational case to the contrary, I'd love to be convinced. If McCain could take CA the fat lady has sung; turn out the lights; no matter what happens elsewhere.
Think I agree with Doug that Christ isn't needed to take FL; or perhaps a better way to say it: Help is needed more elsewhere.
Carcieri ?? . . . Outside of RI, or at least more than one state away, nobody knows him. And just like Pawlenty in MN, RI is awfully Blue.
Mark Sanford: Unfair to a good guy as Eric said, but: Eric said it.
Carly Fioina: It's hard for me to be objective. Why ?? . . . Because while she was CEO of HP I was Chairman of something called SigIMAGE, the user group for those running the HP TurboIMAGE database management sytem (DBMS) on the HP e3000 computer (O.K.: Already more than U want to know on this one; I'll try and wrap it): She was in charge when HP killed the DMBS and the computer I worked on for 25 years. grrr. . . Guess I need to recuse myself due to conflict of interest.
Tom Ridge: Eric and Doug already correctly noted that he would be radioactive with social conservatives. But they also both noted that otherwise great pick. And Doug zeroed in on a key point: If Ridge could deliver PA, where without him McCain is really stretching to carry that state, if everything else stays on a relatively even keel with PA in the McCain column it would seem real hard for Obama to put together a win in the EC. If Ridge can deliver PA, I would not cross him off the list. Answer to the those who would scream: Yeah; O.K.: You would rather have Obama, who totally supports abortion on demand and does not even oppose partial-birth abortion ??
Huckabee: He's making nice with McCain now, BUT:
Trying to be objective: Seems like the states where he would help the most, are already the states that McCain is most likely to win anyway; and the states where he would help the least or even hurt, are the states where McCain needs the most help. Doesn't fit.
Colin Powell would most likely have gotten the nomination in 2000 instead of President Bush if he had really wanted it. Even though he violates the ''not-from-Bush-team'' rule, I would argue that he is a special case. McCain - Powell would make a terrific team. . . . But he probably still does not want it.
IMO you can also make somewhat of an exemption-2-the-rule case for Condi Rice; and even though she has said she's not interested she MIGHT take it if McCain really pressed her with a ''your country needs you'' pitch.
SUMMARY: I will be considerably surprised if Senator McCain picks somebody who has NOT been mentioned on this thread: I think we've seen the name.
Ahhh: But which one ?? I predict we will know quite a while before the (R) convention in September.
McCain/Romney is the only viable ticket for the Republican party in November.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2008 06:06 AMOne - Negative: It's not just about him being pro-choice. He's not well liked by a large part of foreign policy conservatives either. His record on defense issues while in Congress was extremely mixed, angering some of Reagan's FP people.
Two - Positive: He may anger some social conservatives, and I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't much matter if he actually was enough of a draw in Penn to drag McCain over the finish line. If McCain wins Penn, it's hard to see him losing the White House.
A Ridge VP would give me major heartburn. It's a gamble. But it's a gamble that could potentially pay off.
Oh, and slightly off topic: I think Lieberman would be another high-risk-high-reward pick. Strangely, I think he'd actually cause less heartburn for social conservatives then Ridge or some others with social conservative questions because nobody would ever actually expect him to become President, they'd know he's going to be a Cheney like VP.
Posted by: cliff on May 23, 2008 06:23 AMMy 2nd choice would be for a solid conservative from the '94 days, like John Kasich or Dick Armey. There are precious few Reagan conservatives at the top of the Republican ranks these days.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 23, 2008 07:20 AMI also took a look at Mark Sanford and I must say I think he would make a pretty good pick. Tough on crime and immigration, great on taxes and national security. He appears to be a solid COnservative that could help offset McCain's lack there of.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 23, 2008 07:26 AMI think Crist was offered the VP in a time of need and now McCain wants Crist to not hold McCain to the promise, IMHO.
McCain needs money; Romney as the VP would bring more money in than Romney acting as finance chairman of the McCain Campaign. And I still can't get over the TV pans at the rallies. McCain surrounds himself with the geriatric group (me) and I don't see a whole lot of young. Romney, Jindal or Pawlenty would provide that.
Rumor is that the DalaiBama may pick George Mitchell, who has more cred than McCain. McCain needs a dynamic younger person who won't choke on the national stage (for sure) and that is Romney.
Funny thing, where is the talk of Giuliani or Thompson as VP candidates?
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2008 07:35 AMAs for all the "no name recognition" folks like Mark Sanford/Pawlenty, etc. I may want to remind you that the election is only 5+ months away and we don't have time to introduce these names to the American people. Go with Romney (or some other high profile name besides M.Huckabee) and we stand a better shot in November.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2008 07:46 AMThe only problem I could forsee with Romney is his being Mormon. I say this for one reason only (as I am a Mormon myself). With all the pastor problems on both sides the last thing McCain would want to do is to add one more religous thing to the battle. If you remember, the media tried to make Mormons, and Romney, look like a cult (which Romney did a fairly good job of making it a non-issue). The media would jump on this as a way to attempt to sway evangelicals to stay home (I doubt they think they could sawy them to vote for Obama) and also as a way to turn the talk away from Obama's pastor problems.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 23, 2008 08:13 AMMcCain/Romney 2008
"it's in the bag, if the dems don't go with the hag"
Dude you have a REAL problem.
Report to the VA asap!
Further, consider that whether it's bigotry or not (It doesn't matter!), Romney will have a very negative effect on the ticket. We can argue all day about which of you, I, or Doug are the biggest bigots; at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because what we do know is Romney is the only candidate with a lower likeability rating than Clinton herself.
I think this is going to turn out much like the primary election itself...several factions have their candidate and will not be happy with the others; result? No one will get their way. Five months is plenty of time.
Speaking of primaries, wasn't Romney the only top tier candidate in the primaries to not win a competetive one? Can we really assume he'll help turn out voters when all he was winning were low turnout caucuses?
Posted by: Interested on May 23, 2008 09:41 AMThe Liberman strategy also comes to mind.
Add LC Rice to Tier 2-3- although she has stated many times she doesn't want anything to do with it.
If any of the current tier 3's were on the ticket... you could probably expect pitch forks and torches from the sheeples. I think a re-branding of the republican party should include getting back to conservative values---not pandering to the left. If I wanted that crap I would have choosen the democrat party in the first place.
Posted by: Andy on May 23, 2008 09:43 AMHow does that constitute hatred for Mike Huckabee, Interested? Huckabee has put his foot in his mouth several times already (changing the constitution to fit the bible, joking about Obama getting shot at, etc). These gaffes combined with an ultra heightened sense of christophobia warranted or not amongst the electorate with Bush Jr. in the whitehouse for 7+ years make Huckabee a lousy V.P. choice. a McCain/Huckabee ticket is a guaranteed loser in November no matter which Dem is the nominee. Perhaps you're just not politically savvy enough to know the field day the press would have with Huckabee if he were selected. It would be game, set, match for the Dems.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2008 10:52 AMLet's take up a collection.
An eye exam is about $150 and he can get glasses at Costo for about $200... let's round up and shoot for $500... we'll buy him a book, a button a bumper sticker... or two... and THERAPY!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 23, 2008 11:14 AMYep. they're calling it the "empty suit summit"
As for Fred Thompson....um , No.
I like Fred and he was my candidate until he bugged out. Having 2 old tired white guys on the ticket isn't going to further the future of the GOP and would get absolutely annihlated in November.
Nice work @ 32 Ragnar!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2008 11:53 AMBut why is nobody talking about former congressman JC WATTS?
Posted by: Eric on May 23, 2008 01:06 PMA female VP candidate would help peel off disaffected democrats in critical states like Ohio and Colorado. The long battle between B. Hussein Obama and Monica Lewinsky’s Ex-Boyfriends Wife has left a lot of unhappy women in its wake (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=clinton+sexism&btnG=Search+News).
McCain should seize on that.
Posted by: Llama John on May 23, 2008 01:12 PMRon Brown
Hey Duffman~ Nothing like breaking the ice before the big "Summit" this weekend eh? HAHAHAHAHA
Should be an interesting weekend unfolding in the two camps with the summit. I hear they're shooting for a reconcilliation.....
uh, errr, I mean aiming for a truce....
oh forget it! Have a good weekend.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2008 03:35 PMAmong those would be Gov. Crist or Colin Powell (long shot), Sen. Tom Coburn or Gov. Pawlenty, I'd also be happy with either JC Watts or Steve Largent. Largent may give him an outside shot at winning WA.
Posted by: KS on May 23, 2008 09:41 PMI agree with Bob to go moderate. Do not scare off independents taken aback by Wright, Ayers, inexperience etc. etc. 100% of the 30% of people who say they are Republicans could support you and you still lose if Obama wins independents by 10 to 15%.
I will take up Swatter's challenge and support Giuliani as a moderate that meets most of the assets and all but two of the don'ts in the referenced article. But I disagree with the one assertion that two pro-lifers on the the ticket are required if the top of the ticket is pro-life. A pro-choice veep could sway independents and give credibility to claims of not having litmus tests for judges other than that they interpret rather than legislate the constitution.
I think Pawlenty has little chance of pulling in Minnesota. Giuliani has appeal to Italians which helps in lots of places (PA, NJ, MI etc.) but no one will see him as just an affirmative action token. He also is at least in his mind, a Catholic which can help balance on religion. Giuliani drew well in the Cuban community in Florida as well as retired New Yorkers there.
Above all else though, unlike Romney, Giuliani is a friend of McCain from before the race began. He will get listened to in a cabinet about how to deal with an opposition legislature like Rudy had in NYC and how to get a moribund economy going again.
If Democrats point out his prior marital problems, just call it a "distraction" and move on. What can Obama say to that?
OK, I guess pathetic mismanagement of a large company is just as good a path into politics as any other. On the other hand, do we really want the entire current and former employee base and stockholders of HP voting en masse against the Republican ticket?
Posted by: Kirk Parker on May 24, 2008 10:42 AMWith Obama heading the democratic ticket, the urban areas are going to have a much, much, higher turnout than normal in the upcoming election - across the country.
It just might be a strategy to put someone on the ballot that will turnout the rural votes in a big way. While I don't believe (and most people would agree) that Huckabee would seem to be a good fit on a ticket with McCain, quite possibly that is one reason why he would be considered.
Huckabee turns out the rural voters, granted he turns off the urban voters, but maybe the positives would outweigh the negatives with him.
I bring this up because once again the urbanites and suburbanites are begging to get the Metrosexual Romney on the ticket and that's your difference between Romney and Huckabee - just where their votes would come from. Romney would turn off the rural voters (who might already be turned off from McCain being on the ticket), while Huckabee would turn off the Metro Republicans (who might already be turned off from McCain being on the ticket).
Posted by: Doug on May 24, 2008 09:02 PMMetrosexual? I think you've got some sexual identity problems there dougy.
I want Mitt Romney on the ticket because he is far and away the best executive in the race and knows wtf he's talking about, unlike some posters here at SP.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 25, 2008 09:22 AMHate to tell you Republicans, but McCain has almost as long odds of winning against Obama as the Libertarian candidate does.
Small Govt Steve is right @ 39: focus on Rossi instead. He has a chance.
By the way, do you know who the first woman ever to get an electoral college vote was?
Toni Nathan of the LP, back in 1972. She was the VP candidate to John Hospers.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 25, 2008 10:49 AMIt is my understanding that Romney's was a failed executive experience in Massachusetts. He may have succeeded with executive experience in the private sector, but the government and the private sector are two different animals.
Posted by: Doug on May 25, 2008 01:13 PMIt appears, Bruce, your political prognostications are roughly as thoughtful and deep as most things you say.
Which is to say...not very.
Posted by: Cliff on May 25, 2008 07:26 PMAs I've said before that you don't have a good read on me; I'll say it again. I don't see why I would take issue with you bringing up a legitimate issue with the urban/rural divide. Heck, I alluded to that difference in the original post above - referencing Romney's weak primary performances in rural areas contrasted with the benefit of Huckabee campaigning for McCain in those same areas.
You seem concerned that McCain may already have some problems in rural areas. I don't think that can be construed from primary results for one thing, given that McCain did consistently well (often running first or a respectable second) in rural counties...and quite often running ahead of Huckabee outside of the South.
More importantly, if McCain has problems with rural voters running against Barack Obama then the Republican Party is already completely cooked for the year. We might as well mail it in now. I don't dispute for a second that Huckabee has the capacity to increase enthusiasm and turnout in rural areas if on the ticket. But we're already toast if that's a real issue in November against Obama.
In the meantime, I think we need to get back to a point I originally brought up at the start of this post, about "first, do no harm." McCain has enough problems with the Republican and conservative establishments. Nominating Huckabee for VP would only exacerbate those, while evidently firming up a base that should already be firmed up against Obama.
Now, I know you believe Romney would cause harm - your positions on him have been well covered in the past here. I myself acknowledged three related issues in my original text: McCain's potential personal issues with him, the angst among some religious conservatives if he is selected, and his weak primary performances in rural areas.
Yet, I believe you have consistently underestimated Romney from the beginning. If he is actually half of what you think of him, including "a failed executive" as Governor, then he wouldn't have made it to the point he has now: rising from near zero national name ID to second place in a hotly contested GOP nomination contest at the time he dropped out, and now a serious potential VP nominee.
I have no problem with us disagreeing on that. I expect as much at this point. But please have the courtesy to stop making assumptions about me, especially given how incorrect them seem to be at times.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 25, 2008 08:50 PMI've provided a prediction: Obama will beat McCain in November. I'm not particularly happy about this. Obama will beat my candidate as well: LP nominee and former Congressman Bob Barr (R) GA.
All you provide is ad hominem attacks. I expected better from you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 25, 2008 09:04 PMSo was your asinine prediction that Bob Barr had just as good of a chance at winning as John McCain.
McCain may lose, but saying he's got no better chance then Bob Barr is like saying it's equally likely that either Evander Holyfield or the winner of the Lincoln Nebraska High School Freshman boxing contest will beat Mike Tyson cira 1989 at a boxing match.
Posted by: Cliff on May 26, 2008 09:46 AM"Hate to tell you Republicans, but McCain has almost as long odds of winning against Obama as the Libertarian candidate does."
The key word here is "almost." It is clear from that statement that I think that McCain has a better chance than Libertarian Bob Barr of winning.
What do you say to that? How 'bout an apology if you are up to one?
By the way, Bob Barr's running mate on the LP ticket will be Wayne Allyn Root. A good choice, though I favored Mary Ruwart. I'll be voting Libertarian.
I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. It makes no sense. And all of Washington's electoral college votes are going to Obama no matter how you and I vote. So we may as well vote our conscience instead of holding our noses. It sure feels better to vote FOR someone!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 26, 2008 09:50 PMSo you think child porn should be legal too?
I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. It makes no sense. And all of Washington's electoral college votes are going to Obama no matter how you and I vote.
It's unlikely. It's not impossible.
I'll bet you that Obama gets less then 54% of the vote in Washington.
So we may as well vote our conscience instead of holding our noses. It sure feels better to vote FOR someone!
You think that you should vote based on what makes you feel best, not what is best for the country.
Noted.
Posted by: cliff on May 27, 2008 08:38 AMSecond, it is my belief that McCain needs to balance the ticket based on issues more than geography. He can't help himself geographically (say Huckabee to give extra emphasis in Appalachia/South), without also hurting himself with other core constituents. No pick will help him, more than his own persona, it trying to keep Georgia (because of Barr and higher black turnout possibilities) and Virginia (say if Obama picks Webb or Warner). McCain will have to win this on his own.
Which leads me right now, even though I didn't like him for the presidential candidate, to say that I do think Romney would be McCain's best choice. Romney adds the most viable balance to the ticket because of his strengths (economic issues). McCain is weak on the economic issues. Romney would help here. Romney would shore up the fiscal conservatives. The religious right who don't like McCain, may not have came around anyway, except for Huckabee on the ticket, and with Barr now running, it would be harder to draw them in. Romney also helps in being an attack dog. Romney was very effective in his attacks against McCain and Huckabee. They did register.
Now to your other candidates that you listed and others have mentioned, there are a few that should not be considered:
#1 - Carly Fiorini: Yes, she has business experience, but the fact that she was ousted from HP due to poor company performance disqualifies her. If she had left as the savior and own who made the HP-Compaq merger work, even though most agree it was a wash of a merger, then she would merit consideration. The fact that the merger resulted in poor performance for the combined company and that Carly was dismissed would not speak well in the general campaign. How would it speak to the laid off worker in the rust belt, having a CEO on the ticket? Yes, Romney was also an executive, but also was a governor, and people remember him from saving the Olympics.
2. Fred Thompson: Why put someone on the ticket that wasn't thrilled about campaigning in the first place? Yes, he can have good lines, but his lack-a-daisical attitude on the campaign trail speaks volumes. Plus, it would look like the grumpy old men ticket (McCain = Lennon, and Thompson = Matthaw).
3. Duncan Hunter: Yes, he was vocal on his issue, but his strengths (military) is also the same as McCain. He also can come across as confrontational.
To summarize, even though Barr is now the Liberatarian Candidate and thus putting Georgia in the swing state category (e.g., Barr siphoning off votes, plus high black turnout possiblity), I still feel McCain would be best to balance the ticket based on issues, not geography. To me, this means, even though they didn't like each other in the primaries, that Romney is probably the front-runner. His economic strength and pit bull campaigning style would be the strongest asset that McCain lacks. Additionally, Romney has been vetted (do no harm).
Posted by: tc on May 27, 2008 09:21 AMI'll bet you that Obama gets more than 50% of the popular vote in WA, and that he gets all of the electoral college votes from WA. You wanna take the other side on that one? That was all I had actually said above.
I believe that the policies the Libertarians stand for; limited government, lower taxes and government spending, strong defense of the 50 states without policing the world, less welfare, states rights, and defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property are indeed what are best for this country. Don't you?
If so, why do you still support the GOP, with it's big government, no-child-left-behind, police the world, send welfare to all nations, centralize power, increase domestic spending, rights-violating policies?
I think that MY values are what this country was founded on, and what made it strong, as well as virtuous. Voting for these values makes me feel good. So what makes me feel good and what is best for this country happen to be one and the same.
You keep flailing around, trying to cut me down, but you just keep demonstrating that you haven't been reading what I have been writing. I am beginning to conclude that your only purpose is to make personal attacks. I guess I should just give up with you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 27, 2008 01:23 PMNo, but I wouldn't vote for anybody who believed child porn should be legal, period. And neither would most of America.
I'll bet you that Obama gets more than 50% of the popular vote in WA, and that he gets all of the electoral college votes from WA. You wanna take the other side on that one? That was all I had actually said above.
No, actually, you said he was going to win the entire election, you then tried to spin it into him only winning Washington.
And I wouldn't take a bet on that, but I wouldn't bet the farm against it either.
I believe that the policies the Libertarians stand for; limited government, lower taxes and government spending, strong defense of the 50 states without policing the world, less welfare, states rights, and defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property are indeed what are best for this country. Don't you?
Sure, when you put it that way.
When you then define those words the way Ron Paul does? No. Hell no.
If so, why do you still support the GOP, with it's big government, no-child-left-behind, police the world, send welfare to all nations, centralize power, increase domestic spending, rights-violating policies?
I refuse to be locked into a "when did you stop beating your wife" debate, which is exactly what you are attempting here.
I think that MY values are what this country was founded on,
Believe what you want, but you're wrong in many areas.
Read Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation" for why Ron Paul's interpretation of American History is...pretty much completely wrong.
And don't get me started on Paul's idiotic interpretations of the Constitution. I admire the fact that he actually thinks about if legislation is Constitutional or not before he votes for it, but saying he has a 3rd grade understanding of what it actually says in context is generous.
and what made it strong, as well as virtuous. Voting for these values makes me feel good. So what makes me feel good and what is best for this country happen to be one and the same.
No, you admit that your candidate has no chance of winning, so he could be the second coming of Christ and it wouldn't matter because nothing he thinks will ever be made into policy.
It would be more prudent to vote for the candidate you think has the best chance of winning that you would agree with the most. I don't care if it's Obama or McCain, but you can say whatever you want, one of those two men is going to wind up as President, and not Barr/Paul/Ruart/Whomever. You're just making yourself feel good at the expense of voting for the policies you would actually prefer guide this nation.
You keep flailing around, trying to cut me down, but you just keep demonstrating that you haven't been reading what I have been writing. I am beginning to conclude that your only purpose is to make personal attacks. I guess I should just give up with you.
Actually, I haven't done anything of the sort. I mocked a really stupid prediction you put forth, and you responded by digging yourself in deeper. I responded again and pointed out where you are wrong, something you haven't even really bothered to refute. You've just cited Ron Paul talking points. It's not a personal attack on you, it's an attack on your ideas and poor analysis.
Posted by: Cliff on May 27, 2008 02:10 PMShe advocates other solutions to the problem. What if she were right? What if it were really true that the net effect of child porn laws was to make there be more child sexual exploitation in the world? Would you still advocate it? I doubt it. Now I'm not sure what the net effect actually is. I know that prohibition of alcohol made that problem worse. Perhaps she is right, perhaps not. But in any case, I don't advocate repealing child pornography laws.
Do you advocate repealing McCain-Feingold because it violates our free speech and property rights? How 'bout his general cluelessness about economics? Do you oppose McCain's global warming regulation? How 'bout 100 years of Iraq occupation? I'd never vote for a guy with those positions, but I agree with 98% of what Ruwart advocates. And I don't care if I would be voting with the minority. I'm quite used to that. It doesn't bother me at all. "If all your little friends were jumping off a cliff, would you jump too?" I'm quite content to "take the road less traveled."
Cliff, I think that Obama will win the national election AND that he will win all of the electoral college votes from the state of Washington. That's what I said at the beginning, if you had bothered to read. No "spin" involved.
My definition of libertarianism is probably 99% the same as that of Ron Paul. Why don't you mention a specific point that Ron Paul makes that we can disagree about?
You can evade my arguments by claiming I was asking questions like "when did you stop beating your wife" but I can back up that the GOP really has achieved the points I mention. You are just evading my arguments.
You claim I'm "wrong in many areas." Name one, and tell me why I'm wrong. I'm not going to read any books you suggest any more than you would read one that I suggested. Argue here and now or be silent.
Contrary to your assertion, makes no sense to vote for a candidate just because he or she may have a chance at winning. Why? Because the odds are infinitesimally small that your single vote will make a difference in who gets elected, especially for President, when we can predict with 99% certainty that WA will send all its electoral college votes to Obama. If your vote can't change the outcome, then you should vote based on principles, and not on who is likely to win the popularity contest among the mostly unwashed masses.
And that "stupid prediction" that I put forth was that the odds that McCain would beat Obama were not much better that the odds that Barr would beat Obama. The implication is that they are both pretty low. I don't think you ever really understood what I was saying.
I haven't "dug myself in deeper." In fact, my position is totally unchanged. I'm beginning to question the value of this discussion.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 28, 2008 08:35 PMNo, she hasn't. She's been perfectly clear.
Her point was that child porn laws don't tend to work and that they tend to raise the profits that child pornographers make, thus drawing more to this disgusting "industry."
Correct. A point which is idiotic on its face.
She is not advocating child pornography, she is saying that making it illegal actually makes the problem worse. Talking about the unintended consequences of legislation is downright Republican, isn't it?
Only if you speak in the realm of reality.
The reason people make a lot of money in it is that there is a demand for it and a limited supply. Allowing for it to be legal would be to bust the cap on the supply, which would obviously bring prices down, but would just as obviously lead to more exploitation of children as the market would become wider. Anybody that doesn't see this doesn't understand even basic micro economics.
Drinking went down during prohibition. It didn't stop, but it went down. There is simply no way you can reasonably say you'd have less child porn if you made it legal. If you think so, you are dangerously unbalanced and shouldn't be let anywhere near power.
While I disagree with some of McCain's positions, none of them suggest he is dangerously unbalanced or has a hopelessly warped view of the world. That is exactly what Rewert's position suggests.
Do you advocate repealing McCain-Feingold because it violates our free speech and property rights?
No, but it's practical effects are largely irrelevant and do next to nothing to really hamper anybody from speaking.
How 'bout his general cluelessness about economics?
Considering you supported a candidate who's understanding of economics stopped somewhere around 1800, I wouldn't throw stones in glass houses. He understands more then Paul.
Wanna watch something funny? Watch Ben Bernacke beat on Paul at a House Committee meeting. It's like watching a 5-year-old attempt to lecture his 50 year old uncle who's worked as an engineer for 20 years on how to put together building blocks.
Do you oppose McCain's global warming regulation?
Yes. But Obama is for even worse things.
How 'bout 100 years of Iraq occupation?
No, I favor us being in Iraq as long as necessary to secure our interests and I don't trust anybody as commander in chief who doesn't agree. It essentially says that
And if you actually think he meant 100 years of war like some liberals have suggested, you're an idiot or a liar.
And I don't care if I would be voting with the minority. I'm quite used to that. It doesn't bother me at all. "If all your little friends were jumping off a cliff, would you jump too?" I'm quite content to "take the road less traveled."
That's nice, except your analogy is way off.
A more appropriate analogy would be that you are in a chain gang of 100 people, with one group pulling one way and another group pulling another and you then deciding to break off by yourself and pull in a different direction entirely. Your efforts would be worthless because ultimately you will go in one of the other two directions. There is zero chance you will ever go in your perfered direction, so you mine as well pick the direction you feel is best between the two possible directions.
My definition of libertarianism is probably 99% the same as that of Ron Paul. Why don't you mention a specific point that Ron Paul makes that we can disagree about?
You mean other then isolationism, his laughable dedication to the gold standard, his idiotic assertion that any use of force requires a formal declaration of war under the Constitution, among other idiotic interpretations of the Constitution too numerous to even get started on?
Cliff, I think that Obama will win the national election AND that he will win all of the electoral college votes from the state of Washington. That's what I said at the beginning, if you had bothered to read.
And I denied you said that when?
And that "stupid prediction" that I put forth was that the odds that McCain would beat Obama were not much better that the odds that Barr would beat Obama. The implication is that they are both pretty low. I don't think you ever really understood what I was saying.
No, I understand it perfectly, and it's still braindead.
The chances of Barr winning are, for practical purposes, 0%. The chances of McCain winning are probably close to 40% if you listen to Vegas.
The effort to correct you exceeds the benefits either to myself, or to the chain gang you claim we are bound to.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 29, 2008 02:24 PMThanks for admitting you have no argument.
Posted by: Cliff on May 29, 2008 03:41 PM
