*We use the PC-term, "writing," for the task on this very PC blog. All commenters who use the "B-M" word WILL be censored. Wow, it's kind of fun to be Thought Policeman. Hmmm.....
First of all, we have to assemble the field. So far, I've got:
HUCKABEE
LIEBERMAN
GIULIANI
RICE
LOTT
T. DAVIS
LEACH
McCALLUM
SANFORD
GILMORE
HUNTER
RILEY
K B HUTCHISON
MYRICK
SESSIONS
WHITMAN
SUNUNU
FRIST
PETRAEUS
Please add on and/or tell me why any of these are absurd. And then we'll move on to tomorrow's lesson.
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Christie Whitman: female, moderate, good NorthEast cred
Done
Ok. Based on my own experience in politics, here's my theory on VP running mates. They can't significantly help your campaign unless they can deliver a big electoral college state. They can hurt your campaign much easier. Usually it's better to choose somebody who has been through a run for president because they'll have been through a national test. You don't want to choose a total loser who never got more than 1%, but you also don't want to choose somebody who was a close contender with you. However, sometimes it's better to choose a prominent congressional figure. The idea is to choose somebody who can provide you with some cover on issues where you're not strong with voters who might otherwise go your way.
So what does all that mean for McCain? It means Huckabee would bring him votes from the conservative religious base, but they're going to vote Republican anyway. Huckabee also can't deliver any big electoral states to McCain. Besides, I've heard that they can't stand one another. Lieberman would be a good choice for McCain because he could deliver undecideds and moderates in key electoral states like Florida. Lieberman appeals to middle-age to older moderates who are sick of BushCo, but think both Obama and Clinton are too liberal. So, basically, idiots. Lott won't do much at all for McCain; likewise for Lott. Hunter is too off-putting and polarizing. Giuliani would be a smart choice for McCain because he could help in some key electoral states in the East while also appealing to right of center social moderates who want more war in the Middle East. Whitman would also be a smart choice for exactly the reasons HM gave above.
The rest are a no-go, I think. That's my take.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson has said she is not going to run for re-election and may even leave the senate in 2009 (not sure exactly when her term ends). So she's probably an unlikely candidate for VP in that regard.
Christine Todd Whitman, the pro-choice former Republican governor from NJ, would probably be considered far too 'liberal' for McCain, particularly since there seems to be rumblings around that McCain is, in fact, not conservative enough. He's going to have to find someone who can give him some conservative 'bona fides' and who can communicate on his behalf with the fundies.
Also, Christie Whitman took a really bad fall for George Bush following 9/11 with the whole "who knew what and when" with regard to the air quality at ground zero. She got seriously bruised by that ... and (I believe) all in the name of party loyalty. She, like Colin Powell, should have resigned their posts early on.
Speaking of Colin Powell, why not add him and Condi as potential running mates (they would be on the 'absurd' side of the balance sheet, to be sure.
Anita, very good points about Whitman. She still seems to be popular among GOPers, but I have to concede your point and agree that she might be harmful to McCain.
SuziRiot & Anita:
I don't know what to make of McCain at all. We on the left see him as identical to all the other nutballs, but because of some rather innocuous moves from a far-right perspective on McCain's part (the toothless McCain-Feingold, his "opposition to torture" which was in reality an okey-doke ALLOWING torture, his "immigration reform" proposal which merely matches Bush's plan for indentured servitude, plus all since disavowed complaints about lack of fiscal prudence and the Iraq War), the MSM and even Rush Limbaugh have called him "too liberal."
It's not true, of course, but as we've seen with Obama and the entire McCain legend, the MSM can make anything "true." So, if his campaign feels being seen as "too liberal" is a problem, then Huckabee, Lott, McCallum, Sanford, Hunter, Riley, Myrick and Sessions are IDEAL running mates. Huckabee and Lott also have some populist bite, the latter having "found relgion" post-Katrina. To be fair to Lott, he was way better on the issue than most Democrats were.
Normally, I'd say Riley was a throw-out because McCain doesn't need the Don Siegelman Affair hanging over the campaign, but should Obama get the Democratic nomination, McCain's better off going far-right in that state than trying to peel away some White Independents and Democrats. Such a move would also have the knock-on effect of showing other Southern states that McCain's true to their game. Myrick would play very well if HRC gets the nomination. She could "show" America how a "real American female politician" is supposed to behave. McCallum is not well-known but he's popular in Florida and was a "house manager" so he plays well against HRC.
If the reality you and I perceive, Suzi, wins the day in his campaign then all of the centrists who can help in the Blue States are essential because his Wingnut cred is fine. That argues for Lieberman, Giuliani, Davis, Leach, Cantor, Gilmore, Whitman, Rice and Powell.
Whitman, despite Anita's very valid points, plays good for McCain against HRC. Ditto Powell and Ditto-Squared Rice against Obama. Powell, I believe, is an unofficial part of the Obama campaign but should Obama lose, Powell as another Lieberman or Giuliani works a charm.
KB Hutchison is just a solid conservative woman from Texas and thus would play well for McCain against HRC. I disagree with Anita that retirement necessarily means Hutchison or Lott are OUT of politics. Davis and Leach are also viable choices despite "retirement."
Presidential candidates as a rule don't like big personalities as running mates because it becomes a competition for face time. It worked with JFK & LBJ but was one of the many reasons DUKAKIS & BENTSEN squandered a 19-point lead. I was careful to try to leave out a lot of big personalities for that reason. The only two on this list that could feel threatening to McCaim in that way are Giuliani and Cantor. Giuliani was super-quick to endorse McCain, so I'm guessing McCain would tolerate him. Cantor's probably a throw-out because he's such a rising star in the party yet as a Jewish Virginian doesn't bring that much and isn't yet a national name. Frankly, I like the inclusive list and am really only willing to toss Cantor. It makes the job tougher but what the hell? This is for amusement only, anyway.
Oh yeah, Powell should probably be tossed because of Obama connection, military overkill, and his big personality.
whitman is out -- way too liberal for this party
lieberman is out -- my gut is gore lost a lot of votes due to lieberman's religion. also as conservative as he is -- the coulter's of the world will so gang up on this choice, and they already hate mccain
giuliani -- out -- way too big a personality for mccain, would steal his thunder too often, and too much baggage.
hutchison -- out -- they are NOT gonna pick a woman. ditto on Liddy Dole
i think powell has had enough of these people.
some other thoughts -- John Sununu (east coast etc...), Bill Frist, Mel Martinez (hispanic vote) and how about this one -- Cheney. Or Patraeus.
D-CAPny:
I'm keeping Whitman because she was a loyal soldier and took the heat for Bush despite knowing better. Moreover, McCain may want to peel off some women if Clinton gets nom.
I'm also leeaving Giuiani just because he WAS the front-runner at one point, had gotten Pat Robertson's endorsement and was pretty pleasant in his concession speech and quick to endorse McCain.
I like your Sununu, Frist and Petraeus ideas a lot. Sununu may be as difficult a sell to the Republican base because of his anti-war stance as Martinez will be because McCain is already distrusted enough by the "know nothings," that he doesn't want to shove it in their faces. Sununu, does pick up Eastern Establishment votes and McCain could use his Sununu's economic savvy.
Powell is a very reliable guy for them, except he's with Obama. Powell did their dirty work on My Lai and on Iraq. Powell's no one to be admired. He does what he's told more or less.
And I'm just going to sit here and watch this political masturbation to see what "cums" of it. ;p
Waaaay OT..So what do you think of the deal Santana got from the Mets? Worth the $$?
Spartacus: This was a fucking golpe de estado for the Mutts. First of all, JOHAN SANTANA IS THE BEST PITCHER IN THE WORLD HANDS-DOWN. NOT AN EXAGGERATION BY ANY MEANS. Second of all, let's look at what they gave up: Gomez--an ok prospect; he's got speed and gap power and he's young but he's got a wretched eye at the plate. He's a hacker but he stikes out as much as a pure power hitter does without the walks, Humber: oft-injured, often bad, minor league reliever, and the other two are very young so it's all guesswork. They can't even get embarrassed by this trade if Santana is a total tits-up which he won't be. Finally, as the Mets are a profit-making enterprise or at least a profit-making piece of a larger enterprise, the Veeck U.S. Tax Court ruling makes Santana a bargain at almost any salary. Look, the $20/mm salary for tax purposes is written off as a current expense against current income in each year. Furthermore, the VALUE of the entire contract, plus any ocntingent claims against the contract are discounted to present value at whatever Wilpon LLC's cost-of-capital is, then capitalized into the corporation and discounted over 5-years using the U.S. ACRS. Yes, Virginia, what the owners say is all bullshit. On the 31 or so of 32 teams in MLB which make money, all of the players are PLAYING FOR FREE because of the 2x write-off!
Kelso,
Initially I thought Giuliani was a good VP choice for McCain. But now I think I'll change that to Romney.
McCain can add some good balance his team by picking a VP who is recognized for his knowledge of business, finance and economics.
Rudy's got the goods in that department. But Romney's even better.
No_slappz:
I think Romney would be a good choice for him as well, but he's very stubborn and really hates Romney, so I don't think that'll happen. I think the animus between Clinton and Obama is real, as well, which is why I doubt highly that ticket could get together.
[In some ways, I prefer Romney to Obama, but I'd probably just hold my nose and vote for Obam
a because Romney's rhetoric is just so brutal. A shame, really, because I think the reality on the Republican side is topsy-turvy from the perception. I think McCain is nuts and Romney is a pretty sensible centrist who sizes up situations very well and makes rational decisions and would be an excellent leader. To be a Republican in national politics these days, however, you really have to be an asshole. I know his rhetoric is a BUSINESS decision and probably a
This is actually a time of some very good businesspeople turned politicians: Romney, Bloomberg and Corzine are the best of the bunch. Cantwell's OK. Frist and Perot were bad jokes.
kelso, thinking strategically, Obama looks, at first, like a reasonable VP choice for Clinton.
The idea of having the woman and the black on the same ticket is worth some thought. But seeing how they are the two candidates of the Identity Politics party, I think as a team they would prove that 1 + 1 is less than 2.
Meanwhile, there's something offputting about a black man subservient to a white woman. Hillary's got a VP problem.
She's got to find a running mate who won't look like Jim Backus as the father in "Rebel Without a Cause." I don't think it's possible. No candidate can expand her voting base while seeming to be her lap dog.
No_slappz: It's not an "identity politics party." Because it's not a parliamentary system, the "parties" are very broad coalitions. The Republican Party's coalition has fewer identifiable blocs. The Christian Right alone accounts for just under half their electorate. The Democratic Party doesn't have a bloc anywhere near that good. I think #1 is women with at least some post graduate education which is around 12%, African-Americans 11% or so, Jews 8%, etc. They have to cobble together a lot of groups to make a competitive party. That's the reality of winning. It's not something they "like." They don't really have landslide scenarios. Look at their winning margins going back. Clinton 1992 with less than 50%. Carter by a whisker. JFK by a whisker. Truman by a whisker. The only blowout were FDR, LBJ, and The Big Dog '96. I don't think Cleveland won huge in either one. Wilson, though, may have won big. And the Democrats had 3 stolen: Hayes from Tilden, Bush from Gore, Bush from Kerry. They only stole 1: JFK from Nixon.
Obama for some reason reminds me of William Jennings Bryan. Religious, prairie populist with poor grasp of economics and foreign policy. Big speechifier. Always looked great. Never won. Buffalo Bills!
He'll probably be nominee against Jeb in 2016, against Jeb in rematch in 2020, and against Cantor in 2024 and lose all 3!
kelso,
Identity politics -- as in women voting for Hillary, blacks voting for Obama. I can't recall affinty factors as compelling as gender and race in any previous presidential election.
Catholics for Kennedy is probably as close as it gets.
Geraldine Ferraro doesn't count; she was never seeking the presidential nomination. Neither did Jesse Jackson.
Gender and race are the only indisputable factors about the two leading Democratic candidates.
Anyway, Hillary's got a problem with finding a running mate.
Post a Comment