The Candidates
Last night, I had a conversation with a friend who can probably best be described as a pro-life liberal who votes Republican for national office solely because of the abortion issue. While he had initially been leaning Democrat this year, his recent discovery regarding Sen. Obama’s all-pro-choice, all-the-time legislative record has led him grudgingly back into the Republican camp. When I respectfully inquired as to how my friend could even think of supporting Obama over McCain in the general election given the stark difference between the two men on abortion, and given that abortion is my friend’s main issue, the response I received was illuminating. Basically, my friend confessed that until recently, he had been unaware of Sen. McCain’s pro-life creds, and had instead assumed that McCain was pro-choice due to the liberal Republican image that has (falsely) been cultivated in the collective political psyche regarding the Arizonan. The fact that McCain is loved by independents, respected by Democrats, and loathed by talk radio has apparently convinced many non-political junkies on the Right that McCain is the second coming of Nelson Rockefeller, a notion that couldn’t be farther from the truth considering that Sen. McCain’s winning coalition in the primaries — Catholics, veterans, domestically moderate defense hawks, Hispanics, and seniors — looks a lot more like a motley crew of JFK/Scoop Jackson Democrats than Rockefeller Republicans. Still, McCain’s image problem is hurting him among peripheral political observers on the Right, and, according to my friend, he can’t afford anything less than a rock-ribbed conservative as his VP pick if the senator is to shore up conservative skeptics who are convinced that Gerald Ford has just won the Republican nomination.
As such, it seems that McCain’s best bet is to find a veep selection that excites conservatives without turning off independents or moderate Democrats, a daunting task. The Republican Senate caucus is a wasteland right now. Most of the GOP governors who fit the description are either old and retired (Gilmore, Engler, Ridge, Tommy Thompson), or are young and inexperienced (Palin, Jindal). Of the governors who are in their prime, only South Carolina’s Mark Sanford has the potential to make red voters cheer while remaining acceptable to blue and purple voters. In fact, a Sanford selection could allow Sen. McCain to send the message that the Palmetto State governor’s model of maverick conservatism — one that appeals to, and doesn’t drive away, grassroots Republican voters — is the sort of model that McCain intends to follow once in office. Adding a southerner to the ticket would also ensure that Dixie Republican turnout is high enough to match the millions of new African-American voters who will be coming to the polls for the first time to support Sen. Obama should he be the Democratic nominee.
McCain may also want to use the next few months as an opportunity to build bridges to conservatives by floating potential Cabinet appointees. Again, the senator should avoid selections that would harm his standing among independents, and should instead focus on finding nominees who energize conservatives while also remaining acceptable to swing voters. How about Phil Gramm for White House Chief of Staff? Romney for Treasury Secretary? Lieberman at the Pentagon? Ted Olson for AG? Fred Thompson for, well, something? These are all moves that McCain can make now that will shore up the base without making any dents in his independent-friendly armor.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
My sincere hope is that McCain chooses Sanford as his runningmate and that Sanford knocks some sense into McCain on the spending issue.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I like your thought process here. McCain’s image is that of a liberal, but in reality he is more of a cafeteria conservative, he picks and chooses on secondary issues (mostly to the dismay of the establishment) and on primary issues he is a conservative.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
nowandlater #2,
Yeah, because the economy, immigration, and foreign policy are all “secondary issues.”
February 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I think Rudy is somewhere in McCains plans. Possible VP, AG or, Sec of Homeland. Though Rudy won’t pull the conservative vote he will help McCain with other voter blocks.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
McCain sucks on immigration that’s true. I think he is great on foreign policy and the economy. He has never voted for tax increase. Obama and Clinton have.
If you are really sour on the thought for voting for McCain. Vote for the most conservative Senator and congressman in your state. And then vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils. I would rather have some who is half a conservative then a 100% liberal.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think Rudy as head of the CIA and/or Homeland Security would be awesome. Could we just combine those positions and call it good?
February 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
4. . . I like Romney for Homeland Security but I can definitely see Rudy there. I don’t know if Rudy wants in with the new administration. He’s back on the speaking circuit and can make quite a bit more money in the private sector, which he could really use right now.
DaveG. . .I like your cabinet choices, particularly Ted Olsen for AG. I’ve been hawking Sandord for VP for a while now. But one potential VP you dismissed as old or retired is John Engler (retired, but not too old at 59), another one I’ve touted recently. He was a pretty good economic conservative governor of MI, and quite popular too. McCain could pick him on the idea that things gave gotten so bad we need to reach back a bit in years to get back on track. It’s only been 5 years since he left office, so he’s not tied to current economic problems in Michigan. He’s knows for tax cuts and government reform, which fits in pretty well with McCain’s style. And he’s young enough to take over in 4 or 8 years, but with no national ambitions before now, wouldn’t be risking a potential future run (like Romney, Sanford or Pawlenty) if he and McCain lost in November..
February 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I do not think he needs a souther.Plus don’t you think SC jump in Employment will hurt Sandford Chances?
February 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I think McCain needs to wait and see who wins on the Democratic side before deciding who he should pick. If Obama wins, he needs someone who is young and charismatic. If Clinton wins, he needs a Southerner. Either way, he also needs someone who is socially conservative and has executive experience.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
McCain may “vote” for the occasional meaningless “pro-life” bill, but that’s as far as it goes with him.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Peter. . . It was one thing when socons said pro-choicers aren’t welcome in the GOP. Then they said “flip-floppers” to the pro-life side aren’t welcome in the GOP. Now pro-lifers who haven’t screemed the pro-life mantra from the mountaintops aren’t welcome either? McCain has always voted pro-life on abortion. He’s not my first choice for our nominee but I don’t fault him for ONLY voting pro-life without being a leader of the movement.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I didn’t say that. McCain will talk about abortion when it will help him, but not anytime else. Nothing will get done on the issue, as has happened under the last two Bushes.
How dare I want something better than business as usual!
February 16th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Running against Obama requires a charismatic VP. The only charismatic VP would be Huckabee.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Little got done under this Bush simply because there was little that could get done - we are still one vote short on Roe. Bush did move us as far in the right direction as it was possible for him to do so.
Bush is clearly dedicated to the pro-life cause. McCain, well, isn’t. He follows the party line on the issue, but as far as I can see, he doesn’t give a @#$! about the issue when there isn’t political gain for him involved.
—
Anyway, about Romney, if he can’t get the VP spot, there is no reason for him to accept. Mitt’s long-term focus is 2012, and his short-term focus needs to be on keeping his name in the news until 2011. If he can’t get the job that puts him next in line, he can get more bang for his buck working outside of the government for four years.
Maybe as GOP chairman?
February 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
On #12. What are you talking about? Bush appointed Alito and Roberts for crying out loud clearly moving the court to the right on Roe vs. Wade. Out of the three stools, Bush has been most devoted to the socons. Faith-based initiatives, abstinence only education, pro-life judges, anti gay marriage amendmants, what more do you want????
February 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Charaisma, youth, independent apppeal..and an accomplishment list that rivals most two-term governers.
McCain-Palin!
February 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Someone who will give the issue more than lip service, maybe?
The other side doesn’t accept politicians who don’t get anything done for their side of the issue, so why should we?
February 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I think you are falling victim to unreasonable expectations. Keep in mind, I’m about as pro-life as they come, so are goals are the same. Unfortunately, nothing is getting done on abortion until we have the votes on the court to get rid of Roe - and we are still one vote short. This is one of those things where you can’t move too quickly, or you set yourself back a couple decades.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
14. . . I agree with you that Romney needs to keep his name in the news but without holding office that’s kind of tough. He could start a new company but it will take more than a few years to reach the levels of Bain, and even if it did succeed, that type of thing is done mostly under the radar of everyone but the business newspapers and cable nets. Serving in a McCain cabinet may be all he can do. Don’t forget, one of the complaints against him was that he hadn’t done anything within the conservative movement. Short of serving in an administration, there isn’t much else he could do over the next four years to gain political credibility. He’ll never hold office in MA again (unless he runs against John Kerry next year, a highly unlikely event. He could run against Ted Kennedy, but his term doesn’t end until 2012).
February 16th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Romney could start a conservative think tank which consults with Governors about tough budget decisions.
He also could lobby for automakers and head a think tank to discover new fuel technologies.
Or he could do what Reagan did. Create alot of conservative think tanks and policy groups.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Romney should try to serve in some capacity that gets him foreign policy cred. He could become the head of some foreign policy foundation maybe.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
20 and 21. . . He would do very well heading up think tanks and foundations. But who would notice. As for lobbying for the auto industry, I’d shy away from that. Lobbyists are rarely held in high esteem.
The auto industry could still help him out, however. He could become chairman of one of the Big 3. But a better option would see Romney positioning himself as a sort of arbitrator or liaison between the government and the Big 3, working out ways to boost the industry in an economically feasible (and conservative) way, and if he succeeded in saving a battered industry and the thousands of jobs within it, he’d be well positioned in 2012 or 2016 for a presidential run.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I won’t vote for a McCain/Rudy ticket… no way. Mitt has the background, integrity, and intelligence, and he earned the spot, and he brings in a ton of conservative vote that feels as I do.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Romney doesn’t need to focus on foreign policy - he needs to focus on being a force in domestic policy. Telling Romney that he had to become another foreign polcy buff to win the nomination would be a mistake - and continue a self-destructive trend in the GOP - isolating ourselves to foreign policy, and allowing the Democrats a monopoly on the critical domestic issues like Healthcare, education, etc.
Really, as far as foreign policy does, Romney has everything that is needed. He surrounds himself with knowledgeable people, is decisive, and has an understanding of situation. Just becuase he never spent four years chained to a wall doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good on foreign policy. What foreign policy experience did Reagan have? What about FDR?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
i don’t think mccain’s ‘liberal’ republican image is false. mccain feingold, mccain kennedy, gang of 12, calling falwell an agent of intolerance, opposing bush tax cuts, using class warfare rhetorica, against tough interrogation tactics, for providing rights for terrorits….. and on it goes on and on.
so daveg, i have to disagree with your statement. don’t forgot he lead the fight against the right to life group who wanted to make advertisements promoting the pro life agenda for the sake of his precious campaing finance reform bill. did you tell your friend about that?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
If that anti-abortion voter thought that McCain was pro-choice due to his image, maybe independents and Democrats that like him do, too.
Just a thought.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The other side doesn’t accept politicians who don’t get anything done for their side of the issue, so why should we?
What are you talking about?
They’re about to nominate a man that hasn’t done…anything.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Romney as VP/SecTreas/Homeland Security? ROFLMAO
First of all, as has been noted, Romney needs to stay in the public eye. Nearly as important, however, is that he not be part of a debacle, which is what we’re looking at from McCain. Either McCain gets beat like a red-headed step-child in the election (most likely) or, by some miracle he wins (even blind pigs find an acorn every now and then) and is even more ineffective than we’ve had over the past couple of years. McCain doesn’t have any coattails. Simply put, we’ll be lucky to avoid the Dems having a super majority.
Romney will spend the better part of the next 4 years campaigning for Conservative candidates and enhancing his conservative bona fides (not to mention garnering a significant number of political IOU’s in the process). Matthew is correct. It will be something that will get him foreign policy cred.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
#26 - ???
Are you saying that McCain could get the votes of abortion supporters because they think he is pro-choice? Not only do I doubt that, but I don’t want the authority of a GOP President (which is tied to the amount of support they recieve from those who originally supported them) hinging on abortion-supporters.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Why would Romney want to be Treasury Secretary? Have you ever seen a Treasury Secretary become President? Even more, when was the last time that a member of a former president’s administration ascended to the presidency?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Also, Rudy should be AG, not Director of Homeland Security. His surveillance policies are a little too tough.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Either McCain gets beat like a red-headed step-child in the election (most likely)”
I’m not so sure about that - particularly if we are facing Obama. I know he’s popular, but when he has to do more than pander to hard-left, anti-war forces within the DNC, he is going to have problems.
–
“or, by some miracle he wins (even blind pigs find an acorn every now and then) and is even more ineffective than we’ve had over the past couple of years. McCain doesn’t have any coattails.”
This much I’m not so sure about either. Yeah, McCain won’t be a Reagan or Kennedy-style figure who oversees a huge boost in American confidence, optomism, and overall feel-goodiness, but he would oversee the end of the mission in Iraq, and the ticker-tape parade in NYC for the returning soldiers, which would send his approval through the roof, and allow him to accomplish major spending reform. His GOP successor won’t be gaurenteed victory, but I think its likely that McCain would be a President left America feeling “fine” to “ok” - and neither of those situations are a good case for changing parties.
—
“It will be something that will get him foreign policy cred.”
see #24.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
31. . . heh heh his surveillance policies are too tough.
If they’re legal, tough security policies are just fine by me. I’m not sure a Homeland Security chief advocating weaker security is someone we want in that seat.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Alaska (#14) Romney does not need to keep his name in news as much as he needs to solidify his conservative credibility among the bases. I mean, sure, he should be on news once in a while, but he does not need to do it as frequently. Once he has the strong relationship with the conservative base, he could focus on the rest of the population, while these conservatives do the grassroot work.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Eh, I mean Alaska in #19.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Act (#32) You can talk much about nothing. You could even have “experts” coming in and talk about how Obama’s plans are great without going into specifics. For example, have we forgotten the movie of that director (the one Fred attacked back)? I think it’s called “Sicko”. There’s also Gore’s “The Unconviencent Truth” movie. That is THE horsepowers Democrats have under their hood. They could produce documetary after documetary, propaganda after propaganda, lie after lie. They also could fill the air with soundbytes that sounds professional and full of expertise, but are empty. The voters will be deceived, whether we like it or not. The question is, will there be enough voters to overcome the deceived voters?
February 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Have deals already been made with Rudy and Mitt? I think Mac would love to have Rudy as his VP, not sure he will choose him for that position because of pressure from without. If not VP he will probably be Sec of Homeland Security. Then watch for his name in the 2012 election. He will be 67 or 68 then just like his hero Ronald. He is lost his for mayoral election, learned from it and came back strong.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
McCain-Gingrich 2008!
Newt would excite the Conservatives!
February 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Are you saying that McCain could get the votes of abortion supporters because they think he is pro-choice? Not only do I doubt that, but I don’t want the authority of a GOP President (which is tied to the amount of support they recieve from those who originally supported them) hinging on abortion-supporters.
Noooo.
What I’m saying is that McCain might bleed independent support when they find out that he’s relatively socially conservative.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
A McCain Giuliani ticket–I agree with cdf. Both have great chemistry with each other
and Rudy will get the independent votes.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8558_Page2.html
Here is a actricle about Tim Palenety
A Indepedent friend of mines who is for McCain told me that he knows McCain is Pro-life but he not scary because his Stance on Sterm-Cell. Same with Business. He usually Pro-Business my friend said but he is not going to allow the Ciggerate Companys lie to Congress about Nictione or Drug compenies stop the reportion of Drugs from Canada.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I don’t understand the “importation of drugs from canada” issue. It’s not significant enough to impact my vote, but those who take the the “pro-importation” position are just wrong on the merits. It’s one of those demagogic issues like the earlier “SCHIP” vote; where we’re objectively right, but unable to win the political battle.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
McCain/Giuliani???? I thought this was supposed to be a conservative blog! You think you can just kick in the teeth the three legged stool conservatives and still get them motivated, you have another think coming!!
Go Mitt for VP. The guy would have easily won this thing outright if it weren’t for the team strategies…. Now you don’t even want him to be given a chance at the VP. I’m still plenty ticked as are many, many conservatives over he campaign strategies and tactics that knocked Mitt out. If you want support, you better be thinking twice about kicking him out, then kicking him in the teeth with the other foot.