Mark Gardner over at WhackyNation makes the case that Joe Lieberman should join John McCain on the GOP ticket this year. Count this blogger as unconvinced.
At its core, such a suggestion typifies the degree to which Mainstream Republicans, of whom Gardner is a proud member, seem so set on establishing their non-conservative preferences that they forget the actual conservatives that are the core of the Republican Party.
Lieberman has all sorts of favorable qualities ranging from his steely support of McCain's foreign policy agenda, his loyalty to and bond with McCain and, of course, his delightful defeat of Ned Lamont in 2006. That doesn't change the fact, however, that Lieberman disagrees with Republicans on virtually all issues of domestic policy.
If nominating a pro-choice Republican with otherwise sterling VP credentials like Tom Ridge would be a poke in the eye of the conservative base, the selection of Joe Lieberman would be a fierce kick in the groin. McCain has enough problems with the grassroots without taking such action.
It is such advocacy that has caused Mainstreamers grief within the Republican Party at times. It shows the same lack of sensitivity to the rest of the Republican coalition as moderates themselves bemoan when conservative activists demand ideological purity, even in the face of electoral and political reality - let alone personal belief.
Thus, Gardner's post serves as a reminder that all sides of the Republican coalition have to respect each other (the same concept applies within the Democratic Party as well). Moderates can't ignore conservatives, and conservative can't be so ready to toss aside people bearing the banner of "Republican" who might not also carry the conservative standard in full.
Both sides are guilty of it, and both would be better served to make a more serious effort to avoid it when at all possible.
UPDATE: Alex Hays, Exec. Dir. of the Mainstream Republicans, weighs in at #2, pointing out that Gardner's post is not reflective of the organization. More than fair enough. Here's the rub: Gardner's post is entirely consistent with the rhetoric one often hears from Republicans aligned with Mainstreamers, which can at times ignore - and even on occasion look down upon - the wishes of the conservative core of the Republican Party.
I'm entirely sympathetic to the pragmatism Mainstreamers are trying to bring to the table, just as at the same time I respect and appreciate the principles that motivate conservatives. Both sides need to to a better job of understanding the other. Seriously advocating Joe Lieberman for the Republican VP nod is not consistent with such rapprochement.
Cross posted at the Examiner.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Email ThisWe definitely need someone to help the whole of the party feel good about the ticket.
Only one major R candidate for pres rubbed me the wrong way and so I wouldn't be thrilled by their addition, but I'll still work hard for the ticket no matter what.
I think taking Gardner's post as some sort of defect with MRW is not in order. He's a good guy, glad to have him blogging and active in Mainstream, but he doesn't represent my views on every issue, nor the organization's.
Posted by: Alex Hays on June 16, 2008 10:38 PMThat being said, I think that the difficulty of convincing the average R that Lieberman isn't a total sellout makes it a bad idea from a purely political standpoint.
Posted by: CalvinA on June 16, 2008 11:03 PMIt is just that kind of idiotic, Dem-like thinking that will lose the GOP the election. McCain is the candidate. I'm sorry (for you) that your guy didn't get the nod, but live with it.
Your panties are in a wad because McCain started the Gang of 14 instead of allowing the "nuclear option?" How would you like that nuclear option in the hands of the Dems now?
You're pissed about McCain-Feingold? So, you're saying you've donated the limit to every GOP candidate? You've also written some very fat checks to the WAGOP and the national party? Well, go form a 527 with all of your leftover funds. No? You didn't do those things? Then are you just pissed because someone ELSE can't do the heavy (financial) lifting for you?
How much time have you volunteered on behalf of state and local candidates? How many new people have you brought into the GOP fold? McCain-Feingold isn't holding back YOUR contributions.
Let's see... what else??? Iraq? Are you a Ronulan who thinks we should be out? Well, then you're not really in line with the GOP rank-and-file, so you can stop reading now and go find a Ronulan website upon which to spout.
What else? What else? Constructionist judges? McCain, check. Pro-life? McCain, check.
Aahhh!! You don't like that he pays some attention to the environment. You do realize that "conservatives were the first conservationists," right? Read up on Teddy R. McCain isn't telling you what you can and can't do. He's simply saying that we should err on the side of not trashing the planet. Drilling in ANWR, which I disaggree with him on, isn't going to solve the oil problem. And he is talking about allowing off-shore drilling.
So, where is your problem?
Are you SO fixated on your litmus test -- whatever it is -- that you'd piss away EIGHT YEARS? You sound like a Democrat.
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 16, 2008 11:04 PMI think what John was saying is that McCain appears to be steping over Conservatives and only trying to make inroads with Moderates. Yes McCain is the presumptive nominee and I will more than likely vote for him this Novemebr, but I think he needs to look towards the grassroots efforts out there that could help him boost his numbers. His stance on illegal immigration is no different than Obama's and that right there could hurt him. If he believed more in a secure our border first attitude he would draw far more support from the moderates and the Conservatives than he is now. I believe that he does not have to abandon either Conservatives or Moderates, but he does need to seriously look at how he is distancing his core base.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 17, 2008 12:45 AMMy VP favorites list is probably down to Bobby Jindal, Condi Rice, and Mitt Romney.
My sense is Rice probably means it when she sez not interested (although who knows if McCain personally told her ''your country needs you again''). Jindal has the inexperience problem, but there would be the good comeback that ''our VP candidate has a lot more real-world leadership experience than your PRESIDENTAL candidate''. Romney has the resume and lots of $$, but especially if Obama picks a woman (NOT Billary, me thinks; especially with the (D) VP chief of staff announcement) then there's the ''2 old white guys'' problem; however big that is.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 17, 2008 01:28 AMI don't see McCain turning his back on Conservatives at all. While it is true that he has paid more attention to Independents at the moment, that is sound strategy. Right now, there are 18 million Hillary voters who are PISSED OFF and many are against Obama. Just one of the sites: http://www.Puma08.com .
It is far more likely that Obama can go after the Independents than he can the Conservatives. McCain needs to make a "land grab" in Independent territory right now.
Other than the immigration issue, on which I think you're off a bit re: McCain's position (see his website under "Issues"), what other issues do you have with McCain?
He sure doesn't want to raise taxes. He's definitely a spending-cutter, unlike many of the alleged Conservatives we voted for last time.
On what issues is he not in line with Conservatives?
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 17, 2008 01:30 AMI don't think any of those three will get chosen.
Jindal needs about 4 more years to be ready for prime time. Hey! Just in time for 2012 (since I can't see McCain wanting two terms). VP could give him that experience and set him up for 2012, but it would kill the experience argument against Obama.
Rice would be great, BUT she has two strikes against her in this case: 1.) She's tied to Bush. 2.) She wouldn't shore up the ticket on the domestic issues. More foreign policy cred is not McCain's priority.
Romney... He has some things going for him: executive experience and money, money, money. But he is also SOOOOOO plastic and he and McCain are NOT friends. Maybe that isn't required for a Veep, but it'd be nice. Also, I would worry that Romney could hurt McCain with hardcore Christians (who might just stay home).
I would, personally, rather have pseudo-(R) Michael Bloomberg. He can go toe-to-toe with Romney as an exec and on money and he seems like more of a "real" guy. The knocks on him, in my book, are that he did the D-to-R-to-I shuffle and that he is as much of a maverick as McCain. He even says that he doesn't like the way politics works (vs. running a business).
Charlie Crist? McCain pretty much already has Florida and two white-haired guys on a ticket... Can someone get Charlie some Grecian Formula??
JC Watts? A great choice for young, business-savvy and a good speaker. Christian Conservatives like him, too. However, he decided to step back from politics and choosing him would look like a blatant, Dem-like pander.
Carly Fiorina? Woman. Exec experience. But I think the HP/Compaq thing might hurt her.
Sarah Palin? GREAT option -- female, massively popular, etc. -- but she has the new kid and she lacks serious experience. Could she take the top office in case of emergency?
Christie Todd Whitman would make an interesting choice. She has the experience as Governor of New Jersey and she seems in line with McCain on environment. However, she is now a lobbyist. She also might not want the job and I don't know how she'd fare with strong Conservatives.
It would be interesting to hash out all of the VP options... Who else do you like?
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 17, 2008 01:56 AMHere is a list of some of my issues with McCain:
He is for Amnesty (his actions have spoke enough on this issue), his gang of fourteen that prevented the "nuclear option" (which I believe will come back to bite him in the butt when/if he gets a chance to nominate a judge to the SC), his campiagn finanance reform, and his constant use of the statement "obscene profits" when talking about the oil industry (I have yet to hear any politician use that term when it comes to the abortion industry).
Now I know there is not going to be a perfect candidate out there that I will agree with on every last issue, but it just seems to me that McCain would do better to stick to his Conservative principles on lower taxes, cutting spending, and his belief in a strong national defense and stop pandering to groups like LaRaza that support illegal immigration and these enviormentalist groups that have gotten us into the mess we are in when it comes to the legislation they have helped put in place to stop drilling for oil and the construction of refineries.
McCain has the potential to be a great President, but he can't get there if he continues to assume that Conservatives will vote for him instead of the alternative. All one must do is look at the 2006 elections and see that disgusted Conservatives stayed home in large numbers do to the scandals and the Congress' lack of any kind of fiscal responisibility (and no I am not in any way advocating that people should stay home instead of vote).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 17, 2008 07:43 AMWTF are you talking about? On what domestic policy does McCain not agree with the majority of the GOP?
ANWR... OK, I'll give you that one, but it doesn't make him a Dem. Also, he is FOR offshore drilling. He is also FOR nuclear power.
Immigration? Read "Issues" on his website. He is ALL FOR enforcing the borders.
Judges? Strict Constructionist.
Abortion? Nope.
Gay Marriage? Nope.
Taxation? Read his lips... No new taxes.
Spending? A HELL of a lot better than a lot of the so-called Republicans in office now.
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 17, 2008 09:33 AMSomeone up ^there^ brought up Huckabee as a palatable conservative choice. This Conservative says HELL NO! He has little/no control of his mouth lately. Gee, now why does that sound familiar?
Brownback screwed up on immigration and I just do not like the guy... no good reason, just visceral reaction.
McCain needs to go outside the box and the beltway. He does not need another RINO (Todd Whitman) a conservative on some things but not others (Leiberman, Bloomberg, Huckabee, Guliani). He needs young, energetic, CONSERVATIVE, preferrably with domestic and leadership experience.
Condi Rice as been invisible lately;
Colin Powell has hinted he's supporting Obama;
J C Watts claims McCain can't necessarily count on his vote;
Jindal and Palin are both very high on my favorites list, but I'm almost loathe to waste them politically this early in their bright political futures.
I like Michael Steele (brings Maryland and erases the Obama "race" "advantage"), Jodi Rell (brings far left Connecticut into play and erases gender as an issue) and Ken Blackwell (brings Ohio and erases the Obama "race" "advantage".) I don't think HP would hurt Carly Fiorini (erases gender brings leadership) in politics. I don't know enough about Pawlenty, but he looks promising. Rick Santorum would be promising but that whole huge election defeat carries a ton of ugly unwanted baggage, Rick Perry looks promising, but do we want to be beaten up by the whole Texas thing again? I like J D Hayworth, but do we need 2 from Arizona? I like David Drier, he brings California, strong social conservatism and strong illegal immigration bona fides.
The fact of the matter is that McCain is McCain... who the heck knows what he's going to do or why in God's name he does some of the stuff he does. If there was ever a candidate that plays off the desired script, it is he.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 17, 2008 10:26 AMI was just having fun with the speculation. Lighten up. It's the D's we're fighting; not each other.
Posted by: Mark Gardner on June 17, 2008 10:33 AM''I don't think any of those three will get chosen.''
Note I said Jindal, Rice, and Romney were MY favorites. Not suggesting I expect they are necessarily at the top of McCain's list.
WRT to the rest of Mark's list:
Several but not all have been discussed before:
Bloomberg: Unlimited $$, but to some degree same problems as Joe L. Acknowledge an argument can be made; even though he does not personally excite me.
Crist: As previously stated: If McCain can't win FL without Crist, he's in trouble. Plus maximum ''2 old white guys'' issue.
Watts: Yeah, several positives. But he did ''step back from politics'' pretty far.
Fiorina: I'm still biased because HP killed the computer I worked on while she was CEO. Nobody else cares about that computer, but the Compaq deal is still being talked about.
Palin: Great story; wanted to keep her on my short list; but for reasons Real Mark stated not a good time for her and good case not ready to step into top job (even more so than Jindal).
Whitman: One name that IIRC was NOT discussed much b4. Definitely meets experience quotient; appeals to moderates and (I)s; although as stated has problems with the conservative base.
And I would argue that while technically she can be considered a lobbyist, her ''cause'' should be considered somewhat of a special case; i.e.:
She is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, whose primary cause is the promotion of nuclear power. This fits right in with one of McCain's campaign themes; especially recently.
See:
www.cleansafeenergy.org
and
www.inl.gov
So; yeah: I think Whitman has the background and credits to deserve inclusion on ''the list''; even though she's probably somewhat of a long-shot.
Other than the above, I've mentioned Michael Steele before, and I still like him; even though I expect he can't deliver MD. His name slipped my mind during initial post; I would add him to my list.
Nobody else jumps out to me right now; which of course doesn't mean that there aren't others worthy of consideration.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 17, 2008 10:47 AMCondi hasn't been as invisible as you think and she would still be definitely tied to Bush.
Colin hasn't hinted that at all. He said he felt both were qualified. The press and the Left are the ones blowing that out of proportion. It is possible, though, that he'll keep his mouth shut the entire time and quietly pull the lever for Obama.
I haven't heard that from JCW, but if he said it, I'm disappointed.
You're right about Jindal and Palin. But both also lack the political weight to make in a blockbuster ticket.
You're dead on about Romney and Barbour. Not a fan of Brownback, either.
Steele... OK. Carly Fiorina went through some really rough stuff over the HP/Compaq merger. Santorum is a non-starter at this point. I don't think anyone shy of Ahhnold could "get" California in the GOP column. I don't know Pery or Rell (will look 'em up later). I thought I heard somewhere that the two on the ticket must be from different states. Could be wrong, but...
Overall, I agree that he needs to go outside the box and beltway. I also think he needs to choose someone that is acceptable to the Christian Right, but that isn't a super Evengelical.
So... We need either a woman, a non-white (I think going for both is overkill) or a white guy who is a "rock star" for the GOP... Probably 40 - 55 or so... Private sector experience, but an understanding of politics... Christian cred, but not so much that he'd turn off C/E Christians (that's Christmas & Easter)... THOROUGHLY vetted, with no skeletons... And someone with the cajones to sometimes buck the party when they know they're right.
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 17, 2008 10:48 AMI agree to a great extent. The vast majority of people in this country are NOT either Far Left or Far Right. Instead, they're in the "Center-lean-Left" and "Center-lean-Right" category. The problem is that candidates in those categories are called DINO's and RINO's by the fringes of each party.
But back to the Veep topic... Powell does bring experience, good presentation and "the race thing." However, he is going to take his lumps over Bush and Iraq. Also, he doesn't really help McCain on the domestic part of the equation.
Lieberman might bring some of the "Center-lean-Left" Democrats -- especially the fiscally conservative ones and/or the hawks -- but you risk damaging what little cred McCain has with the Far Right. They could just stay home and be willing take their lumps (as "martyrs") for the next 4 or 8 years. Lieberman could actually fire up the Dem base and nutroots. The otherwise unreliables (vocal, but not voting) could get up the gumption to vote just to make a point.
I really think McCain needs someone whose domestic / business / executive cred + popularity trumps party litmus tests.
You know I mentioned Christie Todd Whitman, but there's another Whitman to consider (as a dark horse): MEG Whitman of eBay.
Posted by: The Real Mark on June 17, 2008 02:56 PMSecond, I find it funny that Eric would critize others for supporting liberal GOP candidates.
Posted by: Lysander on June 17, 2008 05:36 PM