GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
With all the talk about veeps today, I think it’s time for Yours Truly to once again throw down the gauntlet and utter the show-stopper that I floated a few weeks ago: the single best running mate for GOP nominee John McCain would be Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
Lots of very smart people have been weighing in on the “McLieberman” debate recently. In the interest of brevity, I won’t quote from any of their pieces, though I do encourage you to digest them all at your leisure. Over the past few days, I’ve wrestled with the Lieberman question at length. After all, in what universe does a Republican presidential nominee benefit from selecting a running mate who is pro-choice, domestically moderate, known for his support of an unpopular war, and who isn’t even a member of the Republican Party? Still, despite all of that, it is my belief that events have aligned in such a way to make a Lieberman selection by McCain not only possible, but beneficial, and ultimately, perhaps necessary.
When Barack Obama officially clinches the Democratic nomination, pundits will tell you that the world has changed, and that Hillary-supporting working class and middle class white Democratic primary voters will soon fall into line behind their new Messiah. Don’t believe them. Again, I must speak to this issue anecdotally as someone who knows the sorts of Democrats who voted for Hillary. I know them because I grew up around them. They were my family members, my neighbors, my teachers, and my fellow parishioners during my coming of age in the industrial Midwest. And again, I will not mince words when I say that there is a very significant segment of Democrats and Democratic leaners who will simply not vote for Barack Obama. Obama’s nomination will be the biggest betrayal to the Ed Muskie/Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party since George McGovern. And that wing is voluminous, especially in the big northern states that Obama has to win to become president, such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Now, imagine that you’re a white ethnic middle class Democratic-leaner in the North watching your party leave you. You hate George Bush, and you despise the Republican Party for the events of the past eight years, but you know that you’re simply not going to vote for Obama in the fall. Now imagine that John McCain extends an olive branch to you and those like you by selecting as his running mate a fellow white ethnic Democrat from the North who has also been abandoned by the Democratic Party. With the selection of Joe Lieberman, John McCain is opening the Republican tent to Hillary Democrats. By selecting a candidate who is basically the current version of Hillary Clinton, only with a Semitic surname, John McCain is saying that his Republican Party is one part Ronald Reagan and one part Scoop Jackson.
There are, of course, risks to this strategy. On the right, the Republican base will make some noise, and will be offended by Lieberman’s centrism on domestic issues. Republicans like Lieberman and Hillary Democrats when it comes to their America-first attitude and their hawkishness. But both Joe and Hillary supporters, despite being personally culturally conservative, are both fiscally and socially to the left of the Republican base. Movement conservatives will fear a leftward trek if the party allows Lieberman to run as VP.
And then there are those very Hillary Democrats that Joe is supposed to bring on board. It’s true that they tend to be more hawkish than many voters, but they’re also hardliners about a foreign policy that puts America first, and many such voters no longer see an open-ended occupation of Iraq as serving America’s interests. So Lieberman then could actually turn off the very voters he’s supposed to deliver. Why then do I still support him?
First, despite my recent advice to the senator to add more nuance to his Iraq position, it’s pretty clear by now that John McCain and Iraq are inseparable as a matter of politics. There’s nothing John McCain can do within the next six months to make the McCain Surge something other than his own in voters’ minds. Since he owns the war anyway, he might as well make the best of it and select a running mate who can reach out to Hillary voters in other areas, as Lieberman would do on domestic issues and in identity politics terms.
Secondly, even though the base will make some noise, they’ll ultimately vote for McLieberman. That’s because the base likes and respects Joe Lieberman, even if they don’t want him to be president, and it will be evident that Lieberman is not exactly running as a youthful heir apparent. Plus, Lieberman represents something of a convert, similar to Zell Miller, and everybody loves a convert, which is why they get to give keynote addresses. Lieberman is certainly not a member of the Religious Right nor a champion of economic libertarianism, but neither is John McCain. Lieberman won’t excite the base, but there are so few Republicans anymore that the base isn’t going to make or break this election. The few Republicans who consider Lieberman the last straw will be outnumbered by the independents and Democrats that consider Lieberman their excuse to vote Republican.
Finally, Lieberman would mean more Jewish votes for the McCain-led ticket, which would help in three big, pivotal states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If Obama loses these three states, he can’t win the election. Each state has a substantial Jewish population, and it was arguably Lieberman’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 2000 that made each state a tad more Democratic than in 2004.
It’s been eight decades since Americans elected three consecutive presidents from the same party. Given that President McCain’s veep is almost certainly going to be in a dead-end job, McCain might as well simply select a running mate who he trusts, who is capable of running the country if the unthinkable happens and McCain cannot complete his term, and who can help him win an election during the worst environment for Republicans in a generation. Lieberman is the candidate who best meets those qualifications. And that’s why John McCain, and the Republican Party, need Joe Lieberman now. More than ever.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I have no problem with Lieberman.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I don’t really have any problems with Lieberman, either. However, I have one quibble - in regards to your last paragraph, George H.W. Bush was elected after two terms by Ronaldus Magnus. So, it hasn’t quite been eight decades, unless I’m reading you wrong.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Good argument.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Are you nuts?
DaveG, Perhaps you haven’t really studied the issues.
MI and PA were 2% Jewish in 2004. 2%! That’s nothing. No effect whatsoever on anything. Bush got 22% of the jewish vote in MI and they didn’t even bother in PA with a cross tab but I’m sure it was similar. Even FL was only 5% jewish. Bush won it by 5 pts despite getting only 20% of the jewish vote. Even if Lieberman triples Bush’s results from those states, it won’t make one bit of difference. Given Obama’s comments and record, He has enough of his own problems with the Jewish vote that McCain should be able to advantage of.
The idea that Lieberman is going to swing all these states by himself is absurd.
And Lieberman is not an independent. He’s a liberal democrat who happens to be pro war. Aside from the war and foreign policy, he’s on the other side of every issue that matters to Republicans and conservatives.
I’m not even sure the convention would approve of him. If something like 5 states oppose the VP, he or she is out. It shouldn’t bve that hard to find 5 states to oppose him.
And all these rural whites that support Hillary? You think they’re just going to love a Jewish guy? They don’t like blacks, but they don’t really care all that much for jews either.
Also, not to get morbid, but having Lieberman as VP would not only have conservatives and Republicans pryaing for McCain’s health every day, but would I think provide way too much of an incentive for someone to assassinate him. Basically they’d end up with a liberal President.
If he nominates Lieberman as VP, it would be the equivalent of him getting up on stage in Minneapolis, and flipping the bird to the entire Republican Party and conservative movement. Forget it.
Lieberman will speak at the convention, he’ll be involved in outreach to the Jewish vote as it is. There’s no need for him as VP. He adds nothing and costs everything.
Fotunately, it won;t happen.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
#2: I meant that it’s been eight decades since three different presidents of the same party were elected back to back. The last time it happened was in the 1920s.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
dave, does the fact that MI and PA have “substantial” jewish populations of all of 2% change your thoughts at all?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ohh…gotcha. Danke. I still agree with your overall premise and have no problems with Lieberman (as a potential VP choice, that is).
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“dave, does the fact that MI and PA have “substantialâ€? jewish populations of all of 2% change your thoughts at all?”
A few thousand votes in a couple of states could be the election.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Ultimately, the question is “can McCain move closer to the center of American politics without killing his Republican base support and thus losing the election?”
I suspect that there are not many good arguments to be made either way on this point, it mostly depends on your own personal feeling for it.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Two crusty old guys with liberal leanings and slight speech impediments, experienced in compromise as they might be, boy you really know how to fire conservatives up. Anyone else out there with any good ideas?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I have long thought that a Unity ticket of either John McCain/Joe Lieberman or John McCain/Zell Miller would be very politically smart and would likely appeal to the patriotic electorate that wants to win in the middle east and see our efforts there all the way through to the end.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
by comparison, the white woman turnout was 42 and 43% respectively. That’ll probably increase by a pt or two this year.
Seems to me if McCain wants to target a specific demo, it’s really no contest bewteen the two.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Aside from foreign policy, Lieberman is still a Democrat, and not a conservative one at that. If Lieberman winds up on the ticket with McCain, Bob Barr will start to look relatively appealing. Shouldn’t we have at least one Republican on the Republican ticket? Is that too much to ask?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
McCain will pick a Republican to be his running mate. Party elders, big donors, and grass-roots Republicans will force his hand.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Although I have no evidence of this, Something tells me that Lieberman has turned away from many of his earlier liberal positions and in fact I believe that he would probably be on board with a Scalia/Thomas judicial nomination.
But the first and foremost issue of the next four years will be Iran and on this Senator Lieberman is very good. Lieberman could be extremely helpful in preparing for and selling to the American people the idea of regime change in Iran. We could also use Lieberman’s skills in establishing a new representative democratic government or republic in Iran and transitioning the country to a new democratic constitution. In other words Lieberman could be the face of McCain’s Iran initiative.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I like Lieberman personally (he’s a great guy) but come on. I mean come on.
McCain risks losing more votes by picking Lieberman than he has to gain.
There are better options even for a unity ticket.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
If not Vice President, I could also see Lieberman’s potential as a Secretary of State or Defense. Another possibility would be some sort of viceroy or provisional governor of an Allied transitional government in a newly reconstituted Iran sometime in the future.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
No way on earth this happens. If it did happen GOP turnout would tank and we would lose 7 Senate seats and 20 House seats. Sure some independents would pick anyone over Obama, but the Senate and House races won’t be Obama. They will be moderate Dems who will clean house because of severely depressed GOP turnout.
Let me just say this one more time, this is a terrible idea. Why do you think all the liberal commentators on TV want McCain to pick Lieberman? It’s not because they are interested in advancing conservatism or having conservatives win elections.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
DaveG,
If McCain really wants to get Hillary’s voters on board, why not offer the VP slot to her?
McCain would promise to her that he’d only serve one term and in 2012, allow her to run for the WH herself against whoever the GOP would put up.
It would be a unity ticket that recognizes the danger posed by Obama.
I think McCain/Clinton is a guranteedw inner in November. Lieberman as SecDef, bring Bob Rubin back at Treasury, a true unity goverment for 4 years to cool things down after the 16 years of Bush and Clinton, fix the economy and take care of Iraq, and then in 4 years we’d start over again.
If you support Lieberman, Hillary should be an easy choice.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I’d support McCain-Lieberman.
That would guarantee an open field in ‘12.
McCain is our firewall against radical cult leader Obama, after which we can resume our normal state of affairs.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I want to apologize for taking that gratutitous slap at Giuliani in a comment earlier saying he was dead last in delegates. I was just trying to explain why his differences from party orthodoxy were more severe than those of other candidates, but I suppose it is refighting the primary fight. As far as Lieberman, his American Conservative Union score in 2007 after being re-elected as an Independent was only 8. Hillary and Obama’s lifetime scores are about 7. I have a question for DaveG though. The other day you said the war was hurting McCain (which is true) and he should perhaps soften his position somehow. Now you are suggesting he pick someone liberal on every issue EXCEPT the war. It strikes me as a bit illogical.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
And by the way, DaveG is right.
The Hillary voters I know are all wary of Obama. Even the college students. I know a young black woman who has been supporting Hillary who is completely ready to vote for John McCain (and I think she’s really going to, also). We joke about starting a Super-minorities for McCain group.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
JA Pruce,
Here are some comments I made on a previous Veep Watch thread re: Lieberman…
Joe Lieberman, on balance, may well be to the left of everyone on R4?08, but he is a moderate.
In National Journal’s 2007 rankings of members of Congress (in which Barack Obama earned the distinction of being the most liberal senator: 95.5% liberal/4.5% conservative), Lieberman scored a 42.5, meaning he was more conservative than 42.5 percent of his Senate colleagues.
All things relative, in 2007, Joe Lieberman, as an elected Independent, graded out as a moderate in the Senate, and that is not because of his stance on the war in Iraq or National Journal overweighing foreign policy.
On social issues alone, Lieberman was more conservative than 40 percent of the Senate, including all but 9 Democrats.
On foreign policy matters, Lieberman was more conservative than 61% of his fellow colleagues in the Senate, including every single Democrat as well as Republicans Dick Lugar (60%), John Warner (59%), George Voinovich (58%), Arlen Specter (57%), John Sununu (56%), Norm Coleman (55%), Susan Collins (54%), Olympia Snowe (53%), Chuck Hagel (48%), and Gordon Smith (46%).
May 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Here are some recent comments by Lieberman that should help satisfy the concerns of economic conservatives leery of the liberal leanings of the Connecticut senator:
Independent Lieberman calls Democratic Party ‘hyperpartisan’
March 31, 2008
Senator Joe Lieberman blasted the Democratic Party yesterday as protectionist, isolationist, and hyperpartisan.
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Lieberman, Independent of Connecticut, said it is not the same party that made him its vice presidential candidate in 2000.
“It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government,” he said. “It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist, and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.”
Lieberman, who won reelection to the Senate as an independent after losing the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, still caucuses with Democrats. But he has endorsed Republican John McCain’s presidential bid, and said yesterday that McCain reflects the legacy of John F. Kennedy.
McCain, he said, is “a reformer, somebody who understands ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country and remembers the other part of the Kennedy inaugural, which said that we will bear any burden, pay any price to assure the survival and sustenance of liberty. That’s John McCain.”
Lieberman also blasted Senator Barack Obama for voting against a resolution to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group and gave Clinton credit for supporting it.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:06 am
You know, I disagree with Lieberman on very nearly everything but for some reason I’d be relatively okay with him as VP. In fact I’d be way better with him than Huckabee. Interesting…
May 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
The reason, I think, why some Republicans don’t have a problem with Lieberman is explainable.
1.) Lieberman is a known figure- no crazy surprises from old Joe
2.) Lieberman is on the air usually to talk about foreign policy, where he agrees with the Republicans
May 13th, 2008 at 12:48 am
If Lieberman became more conservative socially, he would be open to the baddest flip-flop ads. All the Dems would need to do is get footage of his comments in the 2008 election season and run contrast ads with his comments on the senate floor/2004 POTUS campaign etc.
And two old white men running against Obama/Kaine or Obama/Sebelius would get wipped. HJard for them to present a compelling vision of the future…
May 13th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Furthermore, if the Jewish vote is really under threat, and really that important, then Obama can just pick Rendell. He’ll consolidate Hillary voters, win back some blue-collar support, and lock in PA. And re-assure Jewish voters also.
In fact, Rendell is probably Obama’s smartest pick at this point.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Sigh. And people wonder why I’m supporting Pawlenty for VP. Because about 40% of the people in the party are screaming for insane lefties and moderates like Ridge, Condi, Lieberman, Crist, etc so that John McCain can get to the left, and fast. And 25-30% are in Romney (Huckabee) or bust mode. Someone needs to be promoting sanity and a middle way.
Anyway, I don’t think Joe would be any benefit whatsoever electorally. He’s too publicly disconnected from the Democratic Primary. Where was that poll a month or so ago, where a McCain/Lieberman ticket actually did WORSE then a McCain/Condi ticket among Democrats? And using him to win over down-scale whites? Has anyone bothered to look at Joe Lieberman’s election results? Ned Lamont BEAT Joe Lieberman in the under 50k demographic, despite losing the state by 10 points. Joe did better with the “no college degree” folks, but nothing terribly impressive. Face it, there are no more scoop jackson Democrats. Joe’s the last of the breed. And he’s been getting buy more on blue-blood types demographically. If McCain put him on the ticket, in all likelihood, he’d be a net drag. I’d vote for the ticket, if only because Joe is really the only potentially awful VP who really wouldn’t have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, even as a sitting VP. But, it seems like an entirely pointless move.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Right now, McCain is my 70% friend, with Obama my 5% friend. That’s enough for me to vote for him, and tell others to vote for him if it comes up in conversation. If McCain picks Lieberman, he’s telling me he’s only my 30% friend, and that’s just not worth the effort, especially when Paul and Barr remain my 70% friends, just a different 70%.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Barr is undoubtedly hoping for McCain to pick someone dumb, like Lieberman. The right would then start to look interestedly at a third party ring-wing ticket…
May 13th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Dave, I would certainly back McCain/Lieberman for the same points you address above. He would be seen as nothing more than a compromise pick that has no chance of running in 2012. For all intial outrage, most conservatives would settle on the ticket.
My only objection comes with your assertion that Lieberman’s spot on Gore’s 2000 ticket boosted the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. Kerry/Edwards took 50.92% in PA while Gore/Lieberman took only 50.60% Gore’s Michigan advantage (51.28% for Gore vs. 51.23% for Kerry) is nearly neligible, while Florida may be the only state where Lieberman’s Jewish background was a factor (48.84% for Gore vs. 47.09% for Kerry).
May 13th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Speaking of Veep battles and campaign inanity, go here: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/mccains-optimum-look/ and search for “Matthew Carter”. It’s a blog post asking a bunch of font-tologists about the deeper meaning of McCain’s selection of typeface. Matt Carter picks a VP based on who’s name looks best in the chosen font.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:54 am
You guys are giving me great points to use on my (Dem) wife who voted for Hillary but doesn’t like Barack.
There really are multiple democratic parties and with Hillary out of the race we can get the ‘working stiffs’, the ‘white ethnics’ and voters who like the Clintons and think it’s silly to call them racists. We should be prepared to be called racists every step of the way this fall, for having the Audacity to oppose Obama.
They are a motley crew. The only reason the AA community and the eggheads are getting along is because they can project their dreams onto a man who four years ago was in the STATE legislature.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Question for all,
I personally don’t know a single person that voted for Bush in 2004 and is now ready to pull the lever for Obama (regardless of whether or not they still like Dubya). Maybe I live in some sort of bubble or something but I doubt it. I know plenty of (mostly older, right of center on social issues but not exceedingly ideological) people that supported Bush and would have voted for Hillary had she won the nomination - but Barack seems to be a bridge too far.
Anyone else get this sense?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Off topic - but in the MS-1 special election Davis (R) had Dick Cheney campaign for him. What kind of idiot does something like that in this kind of environment? Dick Cheney is out of touch. Who says “So?” when a reporter says that the public wants our troops out of Iraq? WHO DOES THAT? He could have said “I want the soliders out too but the harm of premature withdrawal is bad…yadda yadda”. What kind of IDIOT point-blank says that he doesn’t CARE what the public wants? How more out of touch can you possibly be? We need to get rid of Bush and Cheney. They have DESTROYED the GOP image.
And when our congressional candidates embrace either of them they deserve to lose.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:54 am
NOT
GOING
TO
HAPPEN
May 13th, 2008 at 6:31 am
At this point, I don’t give a flyin ‘F’ who McCain picks, so long as the pick is exciting. McCain needs to do something that will have your average American saying to themselves, “Wow”.
Lieberman fits that bill, since he’s sort of a Dem.
Sarah Palin certainly has the “Wow” factor.
Someone like California State Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, the Nation’s leading Latina Republican, has the “Wow” factor 100 times over.
JC Watts, Michael Steele and Condi Rice automatically have the “Wow” factor because of their race.
Some Hollywood Actor like Clint Eastwood, or even John Voigt would be great.
Even media starts like Joe Scarborough or John Kasich.
ANYBODY BUT BORING-ASS INSURANCE SALESMAN TIM PAWLENTY. Or, completely unknown Rob Portman.
McCain needs pizzaz. He needs to stay far, far away from boring.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Adam, you may not know anyone who voted for Bush who will pull the lever for Obama, me neither, but I know a ton of people who pulled the lever for Bush, who are going to vote for Libertarian Bob Barr this time.
McCain’s not in danger of losing votes to Obama. He’s in danger of losing them to the rising Libertarian Party. (And now with Ross Perot’s Reform Party getting behind Bob Barr, we’re likely to see double digits for the LP candidate.)
May 13th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Eric,
I dunno. Once the libertarian party gets to 1 percent, let me know. Barr’s newfound appreciation for marijuana isn’t going to resonate with cultural conservatives and I’m not too sure how well-known he is outside of GA.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Eric,
Double digits? What a hoot!
May 13th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Lieberman sounds good, he is a rather good attack dog, but come on. Lieberman makes watching paint dry sound exciting. That fucking nasal voice drives me crazy. And while some may think (wrongly) that Obama is muslim, we know Lieberman is a jew and puts the security of Israel before that of the US. And dems are already “fired up and ready to go.” You put a turncoat on the ticket and they might storm the GOP convention. Finally, he sucked as a VP candidate for Gore.
Oh, one more thought. If he is now conservative how will picking him be a sign of unity. Dems will say “you can have the traitor.” I am reminded of what the Baron Harkonnen once said, “never trust a traitor, even one you have created.”
May 13th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I like that people get riled over this.
“WHAT!? We must have a conservative VP, since we conservatives didn’t get the nomination and we’re pissed off about it!”
Bob Barr isn’t going to make a Ralph Nader sized dent. Just because Lou Dobbs says he is doesn’t mean anything. Conservatives will show up and vote for McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Rice, McCain-Ridge…whoever.
Average Americans like moderates. A Republican-Democrat ticket would be the epitome of moderacy.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I think Colin Powell or Rudy would be a better choice if your goal is to go after the Reagan Democrat vote. I think you pick Rudy as Veep and announce Lieberman as your Sec of Defense in mid-october. Rudy helps McCain with the North East and Lieberman helps you in Southern FL.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It’s really amazing to me. A lot of “conservatives” don’t care how liberal Lieberman is on a whole range of domestic issues. As long as he supports war and Israel, that’s all that matters. All else will be forgiven (and forgotten).
The guy is socially liberal (Gamecock) and economically liberal (Metro).
So what were Guiliani and Huckabee getting skewered for?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Robbie,
“A Republican-Democrat ticket would be the epitome of moderacy.”
You mean “mediocrity.”
May 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Bravo,
Do you realize that would basically be telling conservatives to go to hell? Conservatives don’t trust McCain - and yesterday certainly wasn’t reassuring. If he lurches further left with his VP there is no way he will have help with gotv efforts from many grassroots orgs.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
It’s really amazing to me. A lot of “conservatives� don’t care how liberal Lieberman is on a whole range of domestic issues. As long as he supports war and Israel, that’s all that matters. All else will be forgiven (and forgotten).
Well, yeah, because the VP isn’t making policy decisions and he won’t be our standard-bearer in four years.
So who cares?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Alex,
“So who cares?”
I certainly will if the old guy keels over. Never mind what it says about McCain’s priorities and judgement.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:42 am
So on an obstensibly conservative and Republican website, Ron Paul is roundly booed, and Joe Lieberman cheered. Seems that many here will love a liberal Democrat if he’s supports war, and will despise a conservative Republican if he’s against war.
Is war all that matters? If if you were gung-ho-with-both-barrels-blazing in favor of bombing the whole Middle East, couldn’t you find an otherwise conservative Republican who favors that?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Yep I been lookin’ into Barr and he’s another sleeper, but I’m still voting him over McCain. Anyone else conservative jumps in they get a good look too.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am
MWS, I like Ron Paul plenty. And I strongly dislike Joe Lieberman.
But I’m mainly focused on beating Obama. If Lieberman helps, then fine.
Then we can have an open field in ‘12.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Is war all that matters? If if you were gung-ho-with-both-barrels-blazing in favor of bombing the whole Middle East, couldn’t you find an otherwise conservative Republican who favors that?
Not one that aids the ticket.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:06 am
The other day you said the war was hurting McCain (which is true) and he should perhaps soften his position somehow. Now you are suggesting he pick someone liberal on every issue EXCEPT the war. It strikes me as a bit illogical.
Well, after re-examining that view, I’ve decided it isn’t feasible for McCain to shift on the war within the course of the next 6 months. It’s simply too short a time for any change in position to be seen as something other than politically motivated. The Democratic attack ads would be a sight to behold. So since McCain is stuck with the war, he might as well make the best of it and select someone who can reach out to folks who disagree with traditional Republican positions on other issues. That leads me back to Lieberman.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
PabloZed wrote: “Do you realize that would basically be telling conservatives to go to hell? Conservatives don’t trust McCain - and yesterday certainly wasn’t reassuring. If he lurches further left with his VP there is no way he will have help with gotv efforts from many grassroots orgs.”
I don’t think it would be telling the conservataives to go to hell by picking Rudy as VP. It would only seem that way to someone who expects every Republican to be lock-step in line with them on every issue.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Lock-step is not a requirement, but I think pro-choice is a deal killer if for no other reason that it causes strife. Its no different for Obama. He can’t pick a pro-life VP even though it probably would help.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am
#45, MWS, same rationale Alex gave in #52.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I don’t want Huckabee to define the GOP. Lieberman has no such capability.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Dave: Without intending to do so, you did a very good job articulating why Lieberman would make sense as a VP pick whereas Rudy (whose views on most issues would, at a minimum, be less heretical to the Republican base) would not.
Bottom line, it is the symbolism of the Liebermann pick. This was a man acceptable enough to the Democratic Party to pick as THEIR Vice President in 2000. This fits very well into a narrative of “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” While I think Rudy would bring a lot to the ticket, he really doesn’t reinforce that narrative as he has always been very strongly identified with the Republican Party.
Plus, I can tell you there is a significant amount of consertnation in the Jewish community (at least here in SoCal) about Obama as the Democratic nominee. If Liebermann was the VP nominee, McCain would probably carry the Jewish vote outright, which would put New Jersey & Connecticut in play, make Pennsylvania even more competitive than it currently is and keep Florida even further out of reach.
As to the drawbacks, if picking Lieberman is the difference between social conservative leaders like Dobson, et al. bolting and staying put, then he’ll have to be passed over. However, if they are going to leave ANYWAY there is no reason not to put him on the short list, at least for now, and see how things shake out between now and August.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Let me tell you guys a story. One of my past supervisors was a centrist Republican from the Northeast who was also a devout Jew. Her background was in Republican politics. Yet she not only voted for, but also actively campaigned for Gore/Lieberman in 2000. While she didn’t come out and say it, it was fairly obvious what caused her to jump ship. She was already a centrist and so could have conceivably voted for Gore anyway, but for a lifelong Republican not just to vote for Gore but to WORK for Gore took a cultural connection. I.e., if Joe Lieberman could become Vice President, then maybe someday her son or daughter could.
There are millions of voters just like this who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, who are uncomfortable with Obama, and who like McCain but are leery of voting Republican this year. Lieberman would say to these voters, come on in. And send a check to McCain/Lieberman ‘08 while you’re at it.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
DaveG,
Jewish voters are one of the smallest subsets in America. I can count one hand the number of states where they make up a meaningful percentage of the population (more then 2%). So I don’t know if “millions” is quite the right word, but even if it is, surely there are bigger swing demographics, and larger “millions” to target. Obama is having extreme difficulties with working class whites. They make up 25-30% of the general electorate. And they’re far more open to Republican entreaties then Jewish voters, because many of them have voted Republican multiple times within the last 20 years. Joe Lieberman has shown no particular ability to attract these working class whites in the past. Jewish voters within the Democratic Party are generally not found within the subset of working class whites. He has no cultural connection to them. It’s simply bizarre to posit that Joe will help the McCain ticket with crucial demographics, more then a working class white Republican would.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Matt, you’re forgetting the degree to which Jewish people are successful, networked, and influential. To their credit.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Its true that Its been a long time since we have had three GOPers in a row, but if the Democrats can’t win in 2008, I really don’t see them winning in 2012.
Republicans are unpopular right now because of gas prices and the war in Iraq. Iraq will have long been off the table come the next round, and gas prices will likely have fallen (the’re high because of a commodity bubble - and its starting to show weakness - look at gold).
Really, I think 2008 is the Democrats best chance to win until at least 2016. If the Democrats cannot win this year, with literally everything in their favor, can anyone honestly tell me that they think they will have an easier time in four years?
…and that is why Lieberman could be a deal breaker - because I believe that 2012 could very well be a strong Republican year.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Metro,
Yes, yes, they’re influential, but that’s precisely the point. Blue-collar whites AREN’T influential. Average Joe’s are average. It’s possible that Lieberman might help McCain in some ways, but Dave’s argument goes something like this: “Obama’s struggling with many demographics that normally vote Democratic. Jews are among these demographics. Maybe putting Lieberman on the ticket will help McCain win Jews, and these other demographics, but Joe’s a former Democrat, and they’re Democrats, and there’s like, synergy”. Nevermind the fact that Joe’s not the sort of Democrat that’s done extraordinarily well with working class whites in the past-Lamont won these folks in 2006. Nevermind the fact that the cultural cues that make Joe more appealing to Jews and moderate, up-scale, online Republicans, are precisely the cues that make him less appealing to working class whites. Nevermind the fact that we’ve actually seen at least one poll showing that adding Joe to the ticket actually hurts McCain with Democrats. Has it occurred to anyone that the level of ap*sh*ting that occurred when Joe ran as an independent, will be increased 100 fold if he’s on the Republican ticket? Has anyone considered the possibility that lots of Democrats might look at it as the ultimate betrayal, and dig in their heels instead? In order to overcome all of these flaws (beyond the ideological problems, obviously), I need more then “Joe’s a Democrat. He’s hawkish. These folks are Democrats, and maybe some of them are hawkish, somehow. Presto, onward to victory”.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Guys, DaveG could care less about issues or policy. He is purely a political animal and his only objective is power.
He has made this abundantly clear in his posts. If Lieberman helps McCain win, Lieberman is the best choice. Period.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
[...] more reasons. First of all, he’s Jewish. Obama has struggled with Jewish voters, as DaveG pointed out this morning. It’s unlikely to be a game-changer, anywhere but perhaps Florida, but [...]
May 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Look - there are alot of Hillary voters who will not vote for Obama because of the misogyny in the campaign and its use by the MSM.
Now I know there are lots of Republicans who are the same way - no woman president and all that.
BUT this is a perfect opportunity to get these voters for a long time, as they are now registering as Independent and wanting to vote for McCain.
The addition of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or similar thinking woman, would be an absolute winner. Lieberman would be OK too, because he registered Independent.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Look - there are alot of Hillary voters who will not vote for Obama because of the misogyny in the campaign and its use by the MSM.
Now I know there are lots of Republicans who are the same way - no woman president and all that.
BUT this is a perfect opportunity to get these voters for a long time, as they are now registering as Independent and wanting to vote for McCain.
The addition of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or similar thinking woman, would be an absolute winner. Lieberman would be OK too, because he registered Independent.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Isn’t Hutchinson 72? That isn’t going to do much to alieveate fears about McCain’s age, and it does nothing for 2012.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
act-blog,
Nah, Hutchison is in her mid 60’s. And for the last time, we don’t need to “do something” for 2012 in 2008. The GOP primary system is designed to almost ensure that we get a nominee by March at the latest. We don’t have truly divisive primaries; nothing compared to what the Democrats are going through. If we don’t have an “heir apparent” we’ll be just fine, and given that Romney is not going to be McCain’s VP, no matter how much you’d like him to be, you better hope that the VP isn’t someone who can take over in 4 years. Actually, given your tendency to favor anything and everything that might conceivably land Romney in the White House, you really ought to be on-board with a McCain/Lieberman or McCain/Hutchison ticket. He’d actually have a chance of becoming the nominee in an open field, and would have no chance against a sitting Republican VP.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
First of all, I believe that Romney has a verry good chance at becoming McCain’s VP.
In addition, even if he isn’t, the second-placer in one primary traditionally places first in the next open round. Even if McCain doesn’t pick Romney, Mitt could still have history on his side. I wrote a post on my blog a while ago saying that McCain’s VP pick could put history against itself.
You say our primaries aren’t as devisive as the Democratic ones, but that is only true to a degree. Once the primaries are over, and the voters actually start thinking about the issues, they are probably going to have an easier time supporting the nominee than many Republicans will.