AmSpec has more details on the McCain BBQ:
Despite the hype around the Memorial Weekend gathering in Sedona at Sen. John McCain’s ranch, only Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is being given serious consideration for the vice presidential nomination, say McCain insiders with knowledge of the ongoing vetting process. And even that serious consideration can only go so far.
“Jindal is the only one, but there seems to be general agreement that we need him to be the best governor he can be and a leader of the Republican Party more,” says one McCain campaign adviser. “McCain has gotten a good look at [Mitt] Romney as a competitor and as someone who is running in support of his candidacy, and frankly he can’t tell the difference. It’s been a very educational process. Let’s just leave it at that.”
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is not considered a serious candidate, for much the same reason as Jindal.
“People shouldn’t forget that great policy ideas that are the strength of the Republican Party rose from the state level back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, guys like [then Michigan Gov. John] Engler and [then Wisconsin Gov. Tommy] Thompson. Guys like Jindal and Crist, and women like [Sarah] Palin in Alaska, we need them to be the next great party leaders long after McCain is gone,” says an RNC political consultant.
McCain intends to hold at least two more “Sedona Getaways” with potential McCain Administration candidates before the GOP convention at the end of August.
Looks like McCain is just sizing up his guests for spots in a McCain White House. All of that makes me wonder whether he’s already pretty much decided on a running mate.
From the roundtable discussion on Sunday morning’s This Week:
George Will: [Hillary Clinton's] supporters are going to be rallied by, among other things, John McCain. Probably a substantial majority of Americans do not know that John McCain is pro-life.
George Stephanopoulos: Big time. Yes.
George Will: And when they start advertising that, the Hillary Clinton cohort is going to rally around Obama.
George Stephanopoulos: I think that’s exactly true, and the Obama campaign is counting on that.
Hence the reason McCain’s real VP short list, to the chagrin of single-issue pro-life voters, probably looks something like this:
Considering Rudy Giuliani is the only of these four to support the following restrictions on abortion:
…and has said that strict constructionist judges could overturn Roe on the grounds that “it was wrongly decided.”
The question becomes: Does Giuliani thread the needle for McCain, sufficiently assuaging the concerns of pro-choice women who presently support Hillary Clinton, but are leery of Barack Obama, and would be receptive to voting Republican in November, provided the GOP ticket didn’t commit to taking away a woman’s existing right to choose…while, simultaneously, satisfying social conservatives who are terrified by the thought of Obama having several Supreme Court nominations that would put the overturn of Roe permanently out of reach?
To pro-life Republicans who’d prefer not to have a pro-choice vice president, which of these prospective running mates is the lesser of four evils?
Click here to watch the roundtable discussion in full. The excerpted segment begins with 7:02 remaining in the video.
How else do you explain the complete lack of coverage regarding a candidate knowingly and repeatedly making false statements regarding the military service of a family member:
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic.
The only problem, of course, is that anyone who has ever watched the History Chanel for more than 5 minutes knows that American troops did not liberate Auschwitz. Soviet Troops liberated the death camp on January 27, 1945. American soldiers did not enter it until after the war had concluded. This is not the first time that Obama has claimed that his uncle had a role in the liberation of Auschwitz, either.
Ask yourself what the MSM’s reaction would be if Sen. McCain was repeatedly making false statements regarding his son’s service in Iraq. Or his father and grandfather’s performance in WWII?
Think back to the media’s treatment of Dan Quayle. With Obama’s verbal gaffes set to eclipse Quayle’s at any moment, we have yet to hear a single peep from the MSM regarding the fitness of someone to serve as CiC who believes there are 57 states like we did with Quayle.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9267FBfsM[/youtube]
In November, Americans will have two choices.
On one hand, they will have a candidate that promises an immediate surrender to al-Qaeda in Iraq which may lead to the death of millions in Sunni Muslims in genocide, increasing Iranian hegemony, and general chaos in a region of critical importance to the economic stability of the world.
On the other, they will have a candidate who possesses the vision, experience, and courage to bring our troops home as victors during his first term.
I know which one I am betting the American People will choose come November.
Hat-tip: Gateway Pundit for the video
Don’t be… Check out the partisan breakdown of the “Veepstakes” polls they have released so far:
The bottom line? There is no way that the Dems will enjoy the kind of advantage among actual voters on election day that they do in these SurveyUSA polls.
SurveyUSA may have been king during primary season, but I would look to Rasmussen for how things will shake out on election day.
SurveyUSA Iowa General Election Poll, conducted May 21st-22nd, 2008
- Barack Obama 47%
- John McCain 38%
Here’s the match-ups with Veeps included:
- Obama/Edwards – 50%
- McCain/Huckabee – 38%
- McCain/Huckabee44%
- Obama/Sebelius 38%
- McCain/Huckabee – 44%
- Obama/Rendell – 36%
- McCain/Huckabee – 42%
- Obama/Hagel – 38%
- Obama/Edwards – 52%
- McCain/Romney – 37%
- McCain/Romney – 41%
- Obama/Sebelius – 39%
- McCain/Romney – 39%
- Obama/Rendell – 39%
- Obama/Hagel – 40%
- McCain/Romney – 38%
- Obama/Edwards – 56%
- McCain/Pawlenty – 30%
- Obama/Sebelius – 40%
- McCain/Pawlenty – 35%
- Obama/Rendell – 39%
- McCain/Pawlenty – 35%
- Obama/Hagel – 41%
- McCain/Pawlenty – 34%
- Obama/Edwards – 53%
- McCain/Lieberman – 32%
- McCain/Lieberman – 37%
- Obama/Sebelius – 37%
- McCain/Lieberman – 37%
- Obama/Rendell – 37%
- Obama/Hagel – 39%
- McCain/Lieberman – 36%
Rasmussen Kentucky General Election
- John McCain 57%
- Barack Obama 32%
- Hillary Clinton 51%
- John McCain 42%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports May 22, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
If this result isn’t crazy enough, get a load of the Kentucky Senate race:
- Bruce Lunsford (D) 49%
- Mitch McConnell (R) 44%
This poll means that the Democrats are leading in 6 different Senate races: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Kentucky. They are within just two points in both Minnesota and North Carolina and mid single digits in Mississippi and Oregon. To put this in perspective, this time in 2006, the Democrats only led in 2 states, while they went on to win 6 seats in the Fall.
All of this means that we have to redouble our efforts to get John McCain elected President. The only thing more terrifying than a President Obama, is a President Obama with 60 Democratic Senators.
Then I wholeheartedly recommend my wife’s book, Trespassers Will Be Baptized: The Unordained Memoir of a Preacher’s Daughter. As its title implies, it is a book about growing up a Southern Baptist’s daughter in the South. If you’re expecting a biting tell-all, this isn’t your book, but if you’re looking for an entertaining coming of age story about growing up in the South, it might be for you. And if enough people pre-order before June 4 (only takes about 2,000), this will go up on the NYT best-seller list in its first week, and I can quit my day job and blog full time (how’s that for incentive?!?).
The Amazon summary and Kirkus review are below:
Growing up Southern and Baptist in Eastern Kentucky, Elizabeth Hancock’s world revolved around Sunday School, foreign missions projects, revival meetings and of course, the Kentucky Wildcats, who “glorified God through their goal-shattering, soul-shattering play.” Hancock chronicles her childhood misadventures with sardonic wit, detailing her and her sister Meg’s mischievous – if harmless – abuses of power (stealing Guess jeans from the Africa donation box, or hawking backyard swimming pool baptisms during her neighborhood’s annual yard sale) and lovingly recalling the wisdom imparted by her long-suffering parents as they ministered to their unruly flock. TRESPASSERS WILL BE BAPTIZED marks the arrival of a talented new voice in a coming of age story that is by turns comical and affecting.
Humorously irreverent look at life as the eldest daughter of a Southern Baptist preacher whose philosophy, he once told her, “rests largely on the principle that all God’s glorious, perfect children are also dumb as dirt.” That pious but realistic comment framed Hancock’s childhood attempts to understand the church people around her as well as her own special role as the PK (preacher’s kid) in 1980s Kentucky. Her experiences will ring true for anyone long involved in a church, as she sardonically tells of busybodies and holier-than-thou congregants while keeping the main focus on the sincere believers who were her true beacon, none more so than her parents and sister. A large portion of the memoir pokes fun at the silly and often maddening people found in any congregation, prompting many a good laugh. But [the author] goes deeper, delving into her own spiritual journey. [Her] experiences are the true crucible of anyone’s faith, and they certainly shaped Hancock. The reader comes away hoping that this rueful autobiographer will tap more of her memories in the future. Expressive and thoroughly entertaining.
- Barack Obama 53% (52%)
- John McCain 38% (38%)
- Hillary Clinton 53% (47%)
- John McCain 38% (42%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Barack Obama 59% / 39% (+20%)
- Hillary Clinton 55% / 44% (+11%)
- John McCain 52% / 48% (+4%)
Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted May 22. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 22 are in parentheses.
Long-time readers of the comments section should enjoy this video, which accurately sums up how I feel about the race at this point in time:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oyXBSgwjQo[/youtube]
You thought I’d forgotten the magic of the sled? You underestimate me, folks!
Just a little humor on this nice Sunday night.
The AP is reporting:
BEIRUT, Lebanon – Michel Suleiman was sworn in as Lebanon’s president Sunday after parliament elected him in long-delayed vote following an 18-month political stalemate that brought the country to the brink of another civil war.
The Hezbollah-led opposition and Western-backed government agreed last week to elect Suleiman as part of their deal to end the political crisis. The presidential vote had been postponed 19 times since November when the last president, Emile Lahoud, left office.
Major victory for Hezbollah
The Arab-mediated deal reached in Doha, Qatar was a major victory for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and its allies, who got their long-standing demand for veto power over all government decisions.
It was a setback for the U.S., which had strongly backed the Lebanese government for three years and is concerned that Iran’s influence is spreading in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the U.S. has welcomed the political agreement in Lebanon.
“I am confident that Lebanon has chosen a leader committed to protecting its sovereignty, extending the government’s authority over all of Lebanon, and upholding Lebanon’s international obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions,” President Bush said in a statement.
Suleiman, a compromise candidate, ran unopposed. He won 118 votes of the 127 living members of the legislature, according to parliament speaker Nabih Berri.
There were six blank ballots. Two legislators voted for one-time presidential hopefuls and one was in the name “Rafik Hariri and the martyred legislators” – a reference to the slain former prime minister and five other lawmakers killed in bombings in the last three years.
Some objected to vote
As the session got under way, four lawmakers objected to the vote, saying the constitution must be first amended to allow a sitting army chief to run for the post. But Berri rejected their requests.
Lebanon’s constitution bans serving top government officials, including army commanders, from becoming president. Parliament should have to amend the constitution but experts said this time around is an exception because the president’s post is vacant.
A U.S. delegation of congressmen – including Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Rep. Ray Lahood, R-Ill., and Rep. Charles Melancon, D-La. – were in attendance at the vote.
Representatives from both sides of the Middle East’s Sunni-Shiite divide came: the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran, which support Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia, a strong backer of the government.
Other dignitaries on hand were French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki told reporters at the Beirut airport that he was carrying with him a “sea of support” for Lebanon.
Kouchner, in a veiled comment aimed at Hezbollah, said he had hoped the solution would come in a more “democratic” way. “But this is Lebanon,” he added. Kouchner had for months tried to mediate between feuding Lebanese politicians to no avail.
As the flashing lights and sirens of 9/11 fade further in the rear view mirror, the temptation to accelerate back toward the dangerous Faustian bargain we call realpolitik seems to be returning in full force, as strong as ever. It’s precisely this misguided policy prescription that will only serve to expedite the path to war between Iran and Israel; unless, of course, the U.S. were to place principle above the facade of “stability” and sought to prevent the escalation of a wider conflict throughout the Middle East by pre-emptively attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and overthrowing the terror-sponsoring regime before the Israelis felt compelled to act alone in self-defense as a result of American failure to take the initiative and act responsibly.
Bush was pretty pissed off at Dennis Ross for telling Obama to promptly denounce the president’s warnings to the Knesset of the danger of practicing the “false comfort of appeasement”, as Neville Chamberlain naively and cowardly advocated towards Hitler. And now, just days later, in light of the revelation of back-channel discussions between Israel and Syria via Turkey, it appears President Bush is suddenly acquiescing to the very same counterproductive position of militant pragmatism proposed by Dennis Ross, himself, in Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.
First off, let me apologize for my light posting lately. The illness of a close family member has taking up nearly every free moment of my time for the past few days.
I will hopefully be back in full swing come Tuesday. Until then, I wish everyone a pleasant holiday weekend.
I would like ot take this opportunity to extend my most sincere thanks to any Veteran, or any family member of a Veteran, who may be reading this post for their service.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all of your sacrifices so that I may live free in the greatest nation in the world.
Whoa! This is one story that I hope that Novak is completely wrong on. Mark Warner is the one Democratic politician that I can easily see being elected President one day. Until he dropped out of the Democratic race in late 2006, I thought that he was the strongest contender of the entire pack. A wildly popular Southern governor, who governed as a moderate, technocratic New Democrat, he’d be able to win over the blue states while winning over a lot of traditionally conservative voters in the South (essentially replicating the Bill Clinton coalition).
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate. He did not indicate whether he would be receptive to such an offer.
Removing Warner from the campaign for the seat now held by retiring Republican Sen. John Warner (no relation) would turn a sure Democratic takeover to a question mark. Mark Warner is heavily favored against the Republican nominee, former Gov. Jim Gilmore, but no substitute Democratic candidate is at hand.
Although no Democratic presidential nominee has carried Virginia since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats see the state as being in play for the 2008 election and would like to see a Virginian on the national ticket. Both current Gov. Tim Kaine and freshman Sen. Jim Webb have been mentioned, but neither possesses Warner’s prestige.
If this is true and Barack Obama does end up selecting Mark Warner, the chances of Obama becoming President are greatly increased.
Update: One of MyDD’s frontpage posters relates this fascinating tidbit from a Warner fundraising event:
In the brief 60 seconds I had talking to the former governor, I asked him if he still stood by the previous statement he made when he announced his bid for the U.S. Senate, at which time he categorically stated that vying for the VP position was a non-issue. He asserted that there was definitely “some wiggle room” from his earlier claim.
Later that evening, when his aide was introducing him to the small crowd of about 100 attendees before the question and answer session, the aid remarked that, “you can ask him anything, including if he wants to run as VP!” Questions proceeded, but none regarding his VP aspirations. The crowd must have thought that Gov. Warner’s aid was being facetious. As they closed up the Q&A, the aid said something to the effect, “And no one wanted to know if he would take the VP slot? Well….” The aid then shouted verbatim, “Yes, he’d take it in a nanosecond!”
Gov. Warner smiled and clarified that “maybe not a nanosecond”, but that we might hear more about it in the future.
These polls are going to make my head explode.
Civitas North Carolina General Election (pdf)
- John McCain 44%
- Barack Obama 39%
Survey of 800 registered voters.
- Barack Obama 47%
- John McCain 40%
- Hillary Clinton 43%
- John McCain 40%
Survey of 705 registered voters was conducted May 20-21. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.
Politico catches up to what many of us have been saying here for several months: the electoral college landscape is more amenable to John McCain than to his likely opponent:
At first blush, McCain’s recent rough patch and the considerable financial disadvantage confronting him make such predictions seem absurd. Indeed, as Republicans experience their worst days since Watergate, those same GOP strategists are reticent to publicly tout the prospect of a sizable McCain victory for fear of looking foolish.
But the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004. Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes.
By post-war election standards, that margin is unusually small. Yet it’s considerably larger than either Bush’s 2004 victory or his five-electoral-vote win in 2000.
“A win by 40 or 50 electoral votes would be an astonishing upset, just a watershed event with all the issues that were stacked against him from the very beginning,” said David Woodard, a Republican pollster and Clemson University political science professor. “But it could happen. I know this seems like wishful thinking by Republicans. I’m thinking that Republicans could win by 40 electoral votes. But I dare not say it,” he added. “Certainly what is possible could come to pass.”
A top strategist with the Republican National Committee, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, explained that by his own examination, “we’re actually sitting pretty well in most states.”
What I write next will get me roundly pilloried here, but I can wargame a realistic scenario under which McCain garners as many as 338 electoral votes. It is one in which McCain wins in Pennsylvania (where he narrowly trails today) and states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan (each of which he narrowly leads currently). Surely, Gary, you can’t be predicting a McCain rout! Yet that is often exactly what happens in these national referenda. There are a lot of young ‘uns on this site for whom razor-thin victories are the seeming norm. Yet history shows nail-biters to be more the exception than the rule.
In both mid-term and presidential elections analysis is often focused on a state-by-state examination that often misses the national zeitgeist. Harkening back to the 1980 presidential election, most thought Ronald Reagan to be a narrow favorite. But once the national collective consciousness determined that Reagan was not a trigger-happy cowboy there became a unspoken consensus that it was o.k. to fire the incumbent. The nation did so in dramatic fashion. The same has been true in mid-term elections like 1986, 2002 and 2006. In each of these mid-term cycles a race-by-race analysis would indicate a scenario in which one party was slightly favored. What often happens, however, is a collective verdict is rendered and one party scores a dramatic sweep.
Such may well be the case in 2008. I maintain the extended Democrat primary season has afforded working-class, culturally conservative Democrats in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin the opportunity to weigh Obama’s cultural elitism — and find it wanting. McCain’s unabrasive conservatism gives them a plausible way out. In such a scenario “battleground” states like Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada are swept along in the national consensus.
Ridicule my hypothesis all you want, but the real story here is that Politico and other members of the chattering class now acknowledge that John McCain is a modest favorite in the only game that matters — the electoral college.
K-Lo asks an interesting question — why not find a running mate for John McCain who is both distinctly conservative and who will help and not hurt the ticket?
Where does that put conservatism in the White House? If there’s going to be a Republican there, wouldn’t it be worthwhile, policywise, to have somebody who gets us in the White House? A Romney. A Jindal. An Eric Cantor. A Sarah Palin. A Paul Ryan. Someone who is given a domestic portfolio, some real responsibilities, and the ability to do some conservative staffing? Why the heck should conservatives take a Joe Lieberman when they can have Eric Cantor? I don’t see why any of the aforementioned names – all smart, youngish, competent (who happen to be conservative – would hurt McCain. There’s no good reason a conservative couldn’t make a winning ticket. It sure might help rally a dismayed base.
Unfortunately, this question has already been asked and answered by people like me. Ultimately, many of the potential veeps that K-Lo suggests are indeed “New Conservatives” who probably have a bright political future and who could help reinvent the Republican Party in the years to come. The most impressive names on the list, in my view, are Palin and Jindal. Make no mistake, in the very near future, these two individuals are going to rock the political world. Can you imagine how the conventional wisdom will implode when Palin rides in from the North, a smart-government conservative who has zero tolerance for corruption, who is intensely interested in Alaska’s economic development, who runs government like a business, who hunts, belongs to the NRA, is an ardently pro-life feminist, and who signed into law domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples? The red/blue template will be utterly shredded by such a candidate.
Or take Jindal. He’s Gen-X, he’s Indian-American, he’s a non-Caucasian who won a statewide election in the deep south. Also a champion of smart/clean government, Jindal only lags behind Palin in my estimation due to his personal beliefs that could become political liabilities on the national stage. Jindal’s view that Roman Catholicism is the true version of Christianity, for example, isn’t going to play well in a majority Protestant nation. And his no-exceptions position on abortion is definitely outside the mainstream. But Jindal’s smart, because you have to be smart to break the sorts of barriers that he did, and because Jindal’s smart, I’m not even close to writing him off.
But despite all of that, there is simply no way that either of these candidates can be selected as McCain’s running mate without seeming like a token pick and without neutralizing the experience argument that McCain will make against Barack Obama. Truth be told, all of the potential New Republicans on the horizon are too green to put on a ticket with McCain. And sure, there are conservatives that could be added to the ticket that wouldn’t actually hurt it — Cantor, Portman, etc — but in a year like this, the goal is to strategically select a veep who will help the ticket, not just avoid hurting it. If McCain had a ten point lead over Obama, I’d say go for the policy-oriented pick that K-Lo is suggesting. Because McCain is facing an uphill climb, he needs a strategic pick.
Incidentally, Pawlenty is probably the one potential New Republican that also serves as a strategic pick for McCain.
By now, we’ve all heard Hillary Clinton’s remark that she won’t drop out of the race because “we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”. The pro-Obama media have been endlessly hyperventilating for hours now, insinuating that Senator Clinton meant to imply that Obama may be assassinated (because he’s black) and that Clinton was out-and-out stating that she’s still in the presidential race because there’s still a possibility that her (black) opponent might be assassinated (because he’s black).
This says legions more about the media than it does about Hillary Clinton. If we’d care to look at her remarks in context, she was merely explaining that presidential primary seasons have historically dragged on for months, citing the (erroneous) example of her husband’s campaign and then Mr. Kennedy’s. It was, perhaps, in poor taste to mention the assassination, given Senator Ted Kennedy’s recently-discovered malignant tumor, but it was hardly an “x-ray into a very dark soul“, as Michael Goodwin so hyperbolically put it.
Is there anyone among us that thinks that Hillary Clinton is so stupid as to methodically and ungracefully state that she is in the race because her opponent might be assassinated (because he’s black)? And, by that measure, imagine that Hillary were running against, say, John Edwards instead at this point and she’d said the same thing. Would anyone be as outraged?
No, of course not. The outrage over the remark simply illustrates the fact that the media believe that there are really people out there waiting, at any moment, to assassinate Barack Obama because he’s black. They write shady undertones into Hillary Clinton’s remarks because they genuinely believe that people that oppose Barack Obama are inherently racially divisive and that any allusions to assassination must be meant to whip up fear that he’ll be killed (because he’s black!).
I mean, really: this outrage is utterly nonsensical. If you honestly evaluate her remarks in context and then witness the outrage with that in mind, you can’t help but sympathize with her. What must be running through her head? It was a simple explanation; I can’t believe that the media have so turned on me that they’re reading my remarks in this manner! This election has been a series of firsts, and my ongoing sympathy for Hillary Clinton (on a personal, not political level) is one of ‘em.
Something tells me Jonah Goldberg has been reading R4’08:
As the parties have become less coalitional and more ideological, the No. 2 slot on the presidential ticket is increasingly seen as an opportunity for national marketing rather than regional deal-making. Bill Clinton picked Al Gore not to win a specific state or constituency, but to shore up Clinton’s image as a youthful, moderate reformer. George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney for any number of reasons (though, contrary to rumor, none of them have to do with Cheney making Bush an offer he couldn’t refuse on a hunting trip), but capturing Wyoming’s three electoral votes wasn’t one of them.
…
Meanwhile, a national-unity ticket would, among other things, expose Obama’s fraudulent claims to be a post-partisan uniter and reformer. The party-line, left-wing Democrat has done almost nothing in his short political career to support either claim. He is a product of the profoundly corrupt Chicago machine, not an enemy of it. And his definition of bipartisanship amounts to welcoming the unqualified support of Republicans who support his liberal agenda. The most liberal member of the Senate in 2007, according to National Journal, wasn’t even a member of the bipartisan gang of 14.
Such a daring move on McCain’s part would also signal that the country might enjoy a timeout from partisan rancor. Even the Obama-sycophantic mainstream press would have to admire such a profound gesture.
The benefit for Republicans might be substantial. The party could rightly claim to have the bigger tent and the stronger commitment to serious reform. And for movement conservatives, the next four years could be a time for much-needed rebuilding. Obviously, a Joe Lieberman or Sam Nunn would not be the presumptive front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2012. And the lack of an heir apparent would encourage a healthy and vigorous debate for the future of the party.
To counter Obama’s post-partisan nonsense with a non-partisan, quasi-independent unity ticket is tempting, which is why it’s one of my preferred routes for McCain to take. The problem lies in actually finding a Democrat who fits the bill. Joe Lieberman seems the logical choice, but I’m not aware of a single poll demonstrating that Lieberman would be a game-changer for a McCain-led ticket, while I’m aware of nearly half a dozen polls showing Lieberman performing about as well as a generic Republican on the ticket. What’s really interesting is that Lieberman seems to actually drive away Democrats, which seems to indicate that even Hillary Democrats who don’t want to support Barack Obama are unable to channel their angst into Lieberman, who was pushed out of the party by the same leftists who are nominating the senator from Illinois for president. I can think of several reasons that this may be the case. Perhaps Democrats are psychologically over Lieberman, who they now consider a de facto Republican, similar to the way Republicans view Jim Jeffords. Perhaps Lieberman is the wrong kind of Democrat to join the McCain ticket; maybe a fiscally populist cultural conservative whose main issues are domestic instead of foreign would bring more unhappy Dems into the GOP column, as Mike Huckabee seems to be doing across the nation if the SUSA poll dump is to be believed. Whatever the case, it’s becoming clear that Lieberman may not be the best choice for a McCain unity ticket.
But if not Lieberman, then who? This is where the plan begins to fall apart. There really aren’t a lot of Democrats who could both appeal to the working class Hillary voters of the Rust Belt and Appalachia and who would actually be willing to join the ticket. Zell Miller is probably considered more of a traitor by Democrats than Lieberman. Sam Nunn seems to be more interested in joining an Obama ticket than McCain’s. John Breaux has been off the radar for years, and there’s no reason to think that he would accept a McCain invite. Democratic officeholders and old war horses see the coming triple play this fall — House, Senate, and White House — and they’re preparing to feed from the trough of unbridled Democratic power, not sabotage the whole operation by electing President McCain. Truth be told, the chances of a unity ticket are plummeting as we speak.
If a unity ticket turns out to be too smart by half, McCain should instead embrace one of two alternative strategies for his selection of a running mate. McCain either needs to select a running mate who will help him to win the swing state of Pennsylvania, without which Obama cannot become president, or McCain needs to find someone who will attract nationwide a constituency that voted for Hillary in the Democratic primaries. If McCain pursues the Keystone strategy, the obvious veep possibilities become Rudy Giuliani and Tom Ridge. If McCain decides to go with the latter strategy, Tim Pawlenty makes the most sense to up McCain’s numbers among working class whites.
At the end of the day, though, McCain will ultimately have to win this election on his own merits. McCain is a known quantity; it is extremely unlikely that any running mate will add or subtract more than a couple of points in a few states from McCain’s level of support. But a couple of points could be game in this election, and with the prospect of President Obama and a Democratic Congress, McCain needs to do what it takes to “just win, baby!”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8&eurl=http://jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-admits-democrats-lied-about-being-able-to-end-war-in-iraq[/youtube]
Rep. Paul Kanjorksi (D-PA): “I’ll tell you my impression. We really in this last election – when I say we, the Democrats – I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet – didn’t say it, but we implied it – that if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody who’s a good student of Government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts…and people ate it up.”
The ever-insightful Charles Krauthammer points out Obama’s efforts to cover his foreign policy mishaps:
Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure — then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration’s refusal to do so not just “ridiculous” but “a disgrace.”
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.
Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives — i.e. preconditions — have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don’t negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?
There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.
Obama pretends that while he is for such “engagement,” the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world’s superpower.
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he’s seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin — and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
…As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran’s nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?
Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations — and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle — Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
That’s the very next day, mind you.
There’s still hope for McCain…
As everyone (at least in this realm of the media) goes absolutely bananas over Hillary Clinton’s latest remarks, one thing is clear.
After years and years of playing the game, she finally gets caught up in one of her own mistakes that might very well seal the coffin (probably not the best choice of words on my part) on her candidacy, and probably any possible VP consideration for her.
Did she intend for her comments to come off the way they did? Was she implying that Obama might be assasinated, so she must continue her candidacy? I doubt it.
However…
What does it say about her, and her history, that even many in her own party wouldn’t put it past her to say something like that? Quite frankly, she has been playing this game for years and she finally says something that is completely tasteless.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithe just said to a group of reporters in South Dakota — including Memoli — that this is “one of the more ridiculous” issues that has come up in a long race.
No sympathy from me. The media has put words into the mouths of every major candidate throughout the entire election process, so why should Hillary be immune to this treatment? Fred Thompson was hounded for misspeaking on Meet the Press. Barack Obama has had to defend his own comments, as well as comments made by practically anyone who he has ever met. Mitt Romney had to clarify his intentions of remarks on a weekly basis. So why should Hillary get a pass?
I don’t recall Mrs. Clinton or her supporters being particularly outspoken when other candidates were given this treatment from the press, so why in the hell should they expect others to give her the benefit of the doubt?
She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake…
SUSA was in the field from 4/11-4/13 and from 5/16-5/18. Both polls were taken after the Ohio primary. During that time, we went from a 2-point McCain advantage to a 9-point Obama advantage.
I can believe that there were substantial shifts in the Ohio electorate before and after the Ohio primary. The campaigns were in full force, registering people, and the Democrats were especially excited.
I do not believe that much has shifted since then, at least not significantly. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I believe it is fair to say that the Ohio electorate today should look pretty much exactly how it did a week after the Democratic primary (if not less Democrats).
So to summarize, to believe that the new SUSA poll is accurate, you have to believe:
This says nothing of changes within those segments (a month ago SE Ohio was 50-38 McCain and now it is 37-33 McCain??).
I can believe the Ohio electorate changed this much before and after the Dem primary. I don’t believe it changed this much after the Dem primary. And again, these are RV polls, so this has nothing to do with intensity or LV screens or anything like that.
It’s reported today that Hillary Clinton has alluded to the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 on the night of the California primary as a reason for her not to pull out of the race.
Hers is probably one of the most tasteless comments I’ve ever heard uttered by a candidate other than a screwball no-chance third-party type, and is almost too tasteless to post, but it’s another indication of how desperate she’s become, and how her connection with sanity has become more tenuous. One has to wonder what kind of Freudian process is going on in her head to even suggest that the assassination of the frontrunner would change the entire nomination picture, and hence that possibility justifies her staying in the race.
Oh, by the way, she apologizes “if” anyone (like the Kennedy family) was offended by her comment. No mention by her of an apology to the Obama family.
It is well known that so-called “Big Oil”, the sector of the American economy that everyone loves to hate, posted 8% profit margins, much to the chagrin of liberals across the land. This, in the face of $4/gallon gasoline is greedy, money-hungry profiteering at the expense of the American people – according to the lefties.
To fix this problem, they propose a “windfall profit tax” a la Jimmy Carter that will cause the oil companies to pay additional taxes on any profits they take in. Somehow, this is supposed to discourage oil companies from making these “excess” profits, knowing they’ll have to pay taxes on them… and of course, will not result in oil companies simply doing everything they can to increase profits in order to keep as much as they are currently keeping. Riiiiight…
But there’s something deeply troubling about calling for an additional tax on the profits of a specific industry that causes great pause. Since when was punishing a company for being good at business helpful in any way, shape, or form to the overall American economy? And furthermore, if “Big Oil”, why not these other industries – all of which exceed the oil companies’ profit magins (profit margins in parentheses):
- Periodicals (19.1%)
- Railraods (13.9%)
- Resorts & Casinos (12.0%)
- TV Broadcasting (9.7%)
- Machinery Companies (13.1%)
- Industrial Electrical Equipment (9.0%)
- Cement (8.4%)
- Wineries (14.1%)
- Breweries (10.3%)
- Soft Drink Companies (10.0%)
- Footwear (9.8%)
- Toys & Games (8.7%)
- Software (22.1%)
- Internet Providers (12.1%)
- Long Distance Carriers (15.2%)
- Business Software (9.8%)
Next time someone starts talking about a windfall profit tax on Big Concrete or Big Footwear, I might start to take more seriously the attacks on “Big Oil.”
Let’s just call a spade a spade: a windfall profit tax is a ridiculous, emotion-driven political pander that will only serve to harm the overall economy — and, by extension, the American consumer.
…if this keeps up, it will be completely pointless to vote for him.
Have you guys seen this?:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP8eDdVzy9s[/youtube]
Just…please, someone say something to reassure me. This is mind-numbing stuff.
The bad news keeps coming from Survey USA:
Survey USA Ohio General Election Matchup
- Obama – 48% (45)
- McCain – 39% (47)
With all the usual Veep matchups:
- Huckabee – 39%
- Edwards – 51%
- Huckabee – 42%
- Sebelius – 42%
- Huckabee – 42%
- Rendell – 40%
- Huckabee – 42%
- Hagel – 41%
- Romney – 38%
- Edwards – 51%
- Romney – 40%
- Sebelius – 42%
- Romney – 39%
- Rendell – 42%
- Romney – 40%
- Hagel – 42%
- Pawlenty – 35%
- Edwards – 53%
- Pawlenty – 36%
- Sebelius – 43%
- Pawlenty – 36%
- Rendell – 42%
- Pawlenty – 36%
- Hagel – 41%
- Lieberman – 38%
- Edwards – 50%
- Lieberman – 40%
- Sebelius – 41%
- Lieberman – 39%
- Rendell – 41%
- Lieberman – 39%
- Hagel – 41%
- Barack Obama 45% (43%)
- John McCain 43% (44%)
- Hillary Clinton 50% (47%)
- John McCain 39% (42%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Hillary Clinton 52% / 47% (+5%)
- Barack Obama 51% / 48% (+3%)
- John McCain 49% / 47% (+2%)
Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted May 21. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 24 are in parentheses.
In related news:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of Democrats now think Clinton should withdraw from the race. That’s down from 38% who wanted her to exit the race just ten days ago. A month ago, 34% thought she should leave the race.
Among all voters, including Republicans and unaffiliated voters, 33% now say Clinton should leave the race; while 26% say Obama should drop out. An earlier survey found that 29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House. Clinton supporters are evenly divided on the question.
As for Barack Obama, 23% Democrats say he should drop out. That number has remained quite consistent through all surveys on the topic.
Three percent (3%) want both candidates to drop out and 48% aren’t ready for either to leave.
Overall, Democrats are evenly divided as to which candidate would be a better general election candidate against John McCain. Forty-six percent (46%) view Clinton as the stronger candidate while 44% say Obama will do better.
The national telephone survey also found that 81% of all Democrats now believe it is at least somewhat likely the Democratic nomination will remain unresolved until the Democratic convention in August. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all Democrats believe that a decision at the convention is Very Likely. That’s up seven points since the previous survey.
There’s been a considerable lot of silly myths tossed around as of late about vice-presidential candidates — ones that come around every election season – that deserve a sharp rebuke. This shouldn’t be necessary, as the candidates themselves tend to do this through their actions, but those of us that like to comment from the sidelines could use a few reminders.
These are the ground rules for VP selection. If it’s not on this list, it’s probably only a minor factor.
1) Do No Harm
Vice-presidential candidates, first and foremost, shouldn’t have a net drag effect on the ticket (and I’m not talking about you, Rudy). If you’re pulling down the candidate’s numbers, expect to be axed from the list immediately. If you’ve got issues that will distract from the top of the ticket or take the candidate off-message, you’re not going to be chosen.
The goal, at the end of the day, is still to win. There are plenty of politicians out there, each one as willing as the next to accept the vice-presidential slot. It would be utterly disastrous to pick someone, due to hard-nosed principle, that harms the ticket, when there are so many equally reasonable alternatives.
2) Allay Concerns
Is the candidate at the top lacking, say, foreign policy experience? Maybe he should go with a former Secretary of Defense. Is he suffering from an acute case of Clinton Fatigue? Maybe he should select the most prominent Democratic member of the Senate that spoke out against Mr. Clinton. Maybe he’s feared to be too conservative, and would like to select someone that would balance out his image.
Candidates are almost never chosen for geographical reasons. Certainly Dick Cheney wasn’t chosen so that George W. Bush could be helped in the key state of Wyoming, nor was Joe Lieberman selected in order for Al Gore to pick up those hotly contested Connecticut electoral votes.
What they did do was allay concerns. Targeting a specific region or swing state is narrow-minded and short-sighted. (If there’s a candidate that can perform both duties, however, then that’s lovely. Some would argue that Tim Pawlenty does.) Strong candidates know that their appeal needs to be enhanced overall, not just in one state. People that felt uncomfortable with Al Gore because he represented a continuation of the melodramatic Clinton Era saw the selection of a man that repudiated him early on. People that felt uncomfortable with an unabashedly conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan saw moderation in George H.W. Bush.
These picks weren’t just to pick up one state: they were smart choices meant to make the ticket’s appeal more widespread nationwide. Outside of John Edwards in 2004 (an incredibly dumb selection, if you ask me, and the exception that proves the rule), I can think of no vice-presidential choice in modern history made exclusively to target a specific state or region.
3) Bolster the Message
If there is no serious problem with the candidate at the top of the ticket, then he should bring out the message full-force with a candidate that’s just like him. There is only one example of this in modern history: Bill Clinton, the ‘New Democrat’, the young, moderate Southerner ready to show America a Third Way, selected another politician that fit a profile just like his, and it paid dividends.
Regardless of whether the presidential candidate is seriously flawed or not, though, all nominees were selected for a reason: they have considerable strengths that can be exploited. The vice-presidential candidate, at a very minimum, must not detract from those strengths. John McCain would do well to pick someone that isn’t considered a hardline conservative, for example, as one of his key strengths — especially in this cycle that is so toxic for the Republican Party — is the fact that he’s considered a ‘maverick.’ A typical GOP pol simply will not do.
(As an aside: Moderate Southern Democrats are still what America is most comfortable electing, but shh! — no one tell the Democrats!)
- – -
Those are the ground rules, given modern history. Could they be rewritten? Absolutely. But I think that it’s fair to evaluate successful tickets, both winning and losing, given the terms that modern political history has laid out for us. And there are a lot of candidates that can be immediately crossed off of the list, given these rules, that, if held true, all point to a McCain-Pawlenty ticket being announced at the end of August. Get your bumper stickers ready…
(EDIT: How embarrassing! Quite a gaffe for the self-appointed spelling-and-grammar cop to use ‘alloy’ instead of ‘allay’! Haha. To those that pointed it out: thanks!)
