I’m thinking John Kasich will be the Republican nominee for Gov in 2010. He’s been campaigning all around the state for awhile, and has made it clear he’s interested in the job.
Of course I’d pick Palin. A Longer-than-expected executive resume,a strong conservative, and single handedly cleaning up one of the USA’s most corrupt political establishments…how can you go wrong with that?
I’m voting for T-Paw against Huck, but at the moment it looks like a Palin-Huckabee final.
Pawltney by a mile, though mostly by default. Huckabee alienates too much of the Republican base, Palin is pretty much ineligible for consideration this year, and Portman has the phrase “Bush Administration Official” on his resume.
Personally, I’d take Portman, but I’d wouldn’t object to TPaw. I don’t think Palin will accept the job (remember her recent childbirth), and I think Huckabee is the anti-Christ.
Out of those 4 - I would settle on Portman. Huckabee is an absolute no go, never ever ever never ever. Palin hasn’t been around long enough. If we are fighting against Obamsa’s inexperience then why should the next in line for Pres be just as unexperienced? TPaw would be okay, but still hasn’t been around very long in the grand scheme of things.
I think too much experience doesn’t permit you to think outside the box. There are already enough think tanks and lobbyists in Washington with conventional thinking.
“I don’t think Palin will accept the job (remember her recent childbirth)”
Actually, Palin indicated that she WOULD accept the job on the day she went into labor and has not changed her stance at all. The ineligibility argument just doesn’t fly.
Palin. If Huckabee beats Pawlenty, I like Sarah’s changes in the final. All the econ conservatives on this board should hopefully vote for Sarah. She’s far and away more economically conservative.
Palin,
Yea, but wasn’t her baby born with special needs that might require her attentiveness? I’m not against her by any means, but I remember it being talked about and I was under the impression that she was unlikely at this point.
T-Paw is my choice out of the four. I voted T-Paw and Portman (who beat Palin only because of experience concerns). I’ll vote Palin over Huckabee any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
- Reformer’s love her/She quotes Gingrich in her speeches
- Social con’s love her
- Indy’s love her
- Club for growth loves her
Only 5% of the state does not approve of the job she is doing. Can anyone remember the last time a republican had those numbers? Certainly not this year!
Nobody with any actual power has delared it unlikely, and Palin knew about the baby’s Downs Sydrome months in advance. She has very clearly signaled that she is not taking herself out of the running. In fact, this may have helped her chances, as she is now a heroine in for special needs parents and pro-lifers…who have given her rave reviews and not discouraged a VP candidacy at all.
For more info on how special needs parents are reacting to Palin, check out this news story…speciafically the part where Congresswoman Cathy McMoriss Rogers (a parent of a Downs child) says that the baby should not crimp Palin’s career at all:
In 2008 I am not sure if we should be telling a woman she “can’t” run for office. Every time they say that to Hilary, female voters come out for her in big numbers.
Palin, hhhmmm, white middle class woman, small town, church goer, owns guns….but not bitter. Anyone else see a problem for Obama?
“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” Huckabee said. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”
So Huck’s off the Veep list. Which relieves me a bit, because I was getting awfully worried that the folks voting in this poll appear to have lost their minds, and are prepared to send Huckabee to the finals.
Voters are moving to elect populist politicians in 2008, we see that with John McCain and Barack Marx. We saw that in the recent congressional special elections. Palin is a fervent populist. That is why she is the most popular political leader (State numbers) in the country.
Crist? Is McCain aiming to have the ticket with the whitest hair of all time. Besides, there are enough rumors about Crist to prevent him from being named.
Portman? Please. Do the words Bush Administration official mean anything to you? And his responsibility was in the budget and the economy, two areas that aren’t exactly winners right now. Conservatives and Republicans, not to mention democrats decry Bush’s spending, as has McCain, and he’s going to name his budget director as his VP? I don’t think so. Also, he’d have little or nor effect on Ohio anyway.
At this point - and someone can correct me if I’m wrong - I see no real drawback to Palin. She doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of geography, but there’s no hard and fast rule that a VP nom has to put a state in play. Does anytone think that there might be some grumbling about not taking adequate care of her special-needs newborn? I don’t share that point of view, but that could easily be lobbed at her if she’s out campaigning.
The biggest drawback for Palin has always been experience. You can’t use Obama’s inexperience against him when your Veep’s biggest gigs, before this 2 year stint as Governor, was the mayoralty of a town of about 4k people.
If some of these democrats like Ted “Chappaquidick” Kennedy, Chris “Waitress Sandwich” Dodd, Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton and Barack “Sweetie” Obama start going after a woman and going after motherhood, McCain can start writing his inaugural.
Also, it would be even better if pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Tim Russert join in. Most women already depsise them.
As for putting a state in play, what state did Cheney put in play. I don’t think he helped Bush at all. I don’t know one person who voted for Bush because of Cheney, but I do a few who didn’t because of him. What state did Quayle or Bush 41 put in play when they were VP?
Palin, or any other woman for that matter puts something much more important than a state in play, a demographic.
Of course you can. The experience of the VP has nothing to do with the experience of the P. They’re two totally distinct areas.
When it comes to Obama, it will be how his experience matches up to McCain’s. The Vp will be irrelevant.
People will easily understand an experienced P taking a lesser experienced VP under his wing, who really will have no power anyway.
And bashing a woman will only further inflame the feelings against “Sweetie” Obama that many women already have and that are growing stronger by the day. Give it another couple months to marinate and it will be at full boil.
At worst, she’d be the change component to McCain’s experience.
Besides, aside from someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice, both of whom are pretty much put pf the picture, none of the potential VPs really have any great residuum of experience.
It depends on how you define resume of experience. I consider more then one term as Governor, plus state or national legislative experience, a good “resume” for the presidency and certainly for the vice presidency. Sanford and Pawlenty qualify on those merits. I don’t consider being the Governor for two years of a state which is totally disconnected from any issues a president might face to a great resume. Not when your other claims to fame are “mayor of a town of 4000, head of gas-line commission, and beauty queen”. That’s not to say she’s totally off the list for me; I’ve voted for her in every round. Because with 4 more years as Governor under her belt, she’d be perfect, and because her opponents have been mediocre. But, I’d be awfully uncomfortable putting her on the ticket, and I wouldn’t be at all confident she could adequately handle the duties of a president, right away, if the unthinkable happened to McCain.
Jim and K-Lo bring up good points on how Sarah can be a very attractive VP. She’ll far exceed Pawlenty in building excitement for the ticket–something we need if anyone has read Peggy’s latest article. Looks like Matthew you’ll be supporting Sarah in the finals. (who knows if this veepstakes will have any impact) Also, why is Sarah unqualified as VP b/c she’s only been a gov for two years, but the possible demn VPs (Webb, Strickland) only have two years experience in their respective posts. No one is discounting either one of them–and in most cases both of them are on the top of Obama’s list.
Her opponents have always been mediocre? Can you name any of those impressive democrats John McCain has scored victories against in AZ? Can you even name who Bush beat in his reelection in TX? Do the names John Spencer and Rick Lazio mean anything? Alan Keyes? Most people who run for the Presidency have beaten up on unimpressive opponents.
As for experince, would another few years as governor of AK really make all that much of a differnce? Ronald Regan ran for President in 1968 after 2 yrs as governor. Teddy Roosevelt was thrust in to the WH with little experience and he did ok.
As for issues, AK is the largest state in the union. It has very important military bases. When it comes to energy and oil, it’s arguably the most important state. There’s a lot of issues AK deals with. Now, she and McCain happen to be on different sides on ANWR, but ANWR is never going to happen anyway so it’s not really a big deal. Those are important issues.
Also, if she’s really that inexperienced and not qualified, after her presence on the ticket helps McCain win, she can resign a few months in to the term and McCain can name a more qualified VP. She will have done her part.
They are unqualified. I do discount them. In fact, I discounted Webb on the Obama/Webb thread 2 days ago. If they’re at the top of Obama’s list, someone is giving him poor advice. Obama needs someone with experience, to avoid looking like a neophyte; McCain needs someone with experience, to aid in making Obama look like a neophyte “hey, even my Veep is more experienced then him”. Strickland fails miserably on that account. Webb only comes close to fulfilling the experience quotient because he was the Secretary of the Navy for less then a year; other then that, he’s even more disastrously inexperienced then Obama.
And yes, if it’s Palin vs. Huckabee, I’ll be voting Palin. She’s probably in my top 4 out of the entire 32 (After Pawlenty, Sanford, and Petraeus). But, that list excludes a few of my favorites (Carcieri, Keating, Owens, Engler, etc).
I meant her opponents have always been mediocre in this Veep polling. 1st round Perry (George Bush’s successor is enough to doom him), 2nd round Brownback (just so we can make all the moderates that like McCain flee in terror I suppose), and 3rd round Jindal (who I love, and is probably more qualified then Palin, but he’s just too darn young). Now Portman; that was a tough decision for me, because I like Portman, but ultimately I’ve decided that whatever benefit he might bring to Ohio, is negated by the fact that he’s so prominently tied to now not-so-good Bush economy. I mean, had she been facing Sanford or Petraeus or Pawlenty in any round, I would have gone the other way.
As for your other examples, that’s nonsense. Ronald Reagan wasn’t qualified in 1968 and was thankfully stopped. Teddy Roosevelt had more experience then almost any other president in history; he was a leader in the New York senate for a few years, he was a sheriff in the rough and tumble Old West, he was a Police Commissioner in NYC, he was one of the heads of the US Civil Service Commission, he was the Assistant Secretary of Navy (and effectively Secretary of Navy because John Long was pretty much dead to the world), he was Governor of New York, and then he was Vice President for some months. He did absolutely everything, in every field in politics.
Do you seriously imagine McCain would ever pick someone named Keating to be his VP?
Carcieri is 66. Maybe McCain can name Wilford Brimley as Secretary of State and Don Ameche as SecDef. Also, RI isn’t exactly an electoral powerhouse.
Owens? Whatever happened to him. I remember he was NR’s golden boy before they got their crush on Romney. He’s seemingly disappeared from the scene.
I think McCain will be able to make the contrast with Obama on experience just fine regardless of his VP. I just don’t see any need for him to double down on a resume. He already has that area won.
Also, Obama could pick a Joe Biden or Bill Richardson who would match McCain on experience and potentially neutralize that advantage.
Palin does not at all undermine the McCain experience arguement, as she does have more gov’t experience than Obama, and hers is all executive. So, we can actually add fire to the argument by saying “our ‘inexperienced’ veep choice has more experience than Obama” Furthermore, if Obama does in fact do as expected and name someone like Richardson, it becomes insanely easy to use arguments like “They’ve got their ticket upside down, we phave it in the right order”. Palin also has actually produced massive change in her state, whereas Obama can only talk about it. She’s a perfect contrast, and has almost no negatives.
I would also point out that Palin has exactly the smae amount of experience as Charlie Crist, and comparable experience to Bobby Jindal. Plus, she has massive clout on energy issues as a former head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and the current chairwoman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which also happens to be the single largest interstate compact in the nation (previous chairs include Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee).
“Carcieri is 66. Maybe McCain can name Wilford Brimley as Secretary of State and Don Ameche as SecDef. Also, RI isn’t exactly an electoral powerhouse.”
Carcieri is an ethnic Catholic, from a blue-collar background, and adds a huge heaping of business and executive experience. That’s like wheelhouse type stuff, given the type of message McCain has to send “This is a ticket that can handle any problem in America” and the type of demographics he must target in the general (blue-collar, ethnic Catholics, largely found in the Northeast).
“Owens? Whatever happened to him. I remember he was NR’s golden boy before they got their crush on Romney. He’s seemingly disappeared from the scene.”
Owens supported an initiative that temporarily suspended the cap on spending increases (or some such thing). Conservatives decided he was the devil, and the media praised him to heaven. Colorado still loved him, warts and all. The only possible snag is that he appears to be getting a divorce, which might limit whatever help he’d bring by being a Catholic.
I quite agree though that McCain needs a VP that helps him in other areas. But, these aren’t mutually exclusive propositions; you can positively add to the “experienced” narrative, and still bring other qualities to the ticket. For instance, as I’ve said before, I believe Pawlenty is the most naturally talented politician in either party. He’s been involved in politics for literally 25 years, but he has so much polish that he’s able to play the “regular guy” effortlessly. Perhaps it is effortlessly. Perhaps this is really who he is. But, regardless, even ignoring the fact that he strengthens McCain’s Maverick image, or possibly helps bring in Wisconsin and maybe Minnesota, or adds a little youth and vitality to the ticket, his ability to speak to Joe Everyman, in an election cycle where people are tired of politicians who look after the interests of other politicians and “the rich”, is an extraordinarily valuable on it’s own.
Charlie Crist isn’t quite qualified either, though admittedly being Governor of Florida, a large state with an array of problems that mirror the US’s neatly, is more relevant then being Governor of Alaska. Jindal has more relevant experience then Palin; he was the head of a state health department (multi-billion dollar budget) at 24. He was the head of a state University system. He was an assistant secretary of health and human services. He was the head of a bi-partisan medicare reform commission. He was a Congressman for 3 years. If he’d accomplished all that, and he were 46 instead of 36, he’d be obvious choice for McCain. But, Mac can’t pick someone literally half his age.
No one disagrees with your opinions about Pawlenty. I like him; I’ve donated to him. But people in MN aren’t really that in love with him. He barely has a positive approval rating. I think you wrote an article about how he can carry MN. I’ll just be honest and say that he’ll add very little. McCain himself is moderate enough to carry this state. But look at Sarah’s approval rating–in the 80s. Somethings going on there b/c with that number she’s winning over moderates, liberals, women, etc. I would not focus on a region; MN is a little too blue for Pawlenty to guarantee a victory. But everywhere you look, people praise Sarah. She’s not an empty suit. I don’t think she’ll bomb on the national stage. In fact, she’ll engender a whole new level of life in the McCain campaign and maybe capture enough Hillary supports and/or women for wins in PA, MI, OH..even NJ.
Alaska is only small in terms of population, in terms of governing, it’s a BIG job.
1) It’s got more land than any other state…can you say “nightmarish transportation system.”
2) It’s got more natural resources to manage than any other state…that’s not as easy as it sounds.
3) Divide the size of the land by the size of the tax base…not pretty.
4) AK is one of the most corrupt states in the union, numerous state legislators are currently under indictment, being an ethics-oriented governor there is like swimming in a shark tank with an open wound. Lots of corrupt people are gunning for this woman’s head every day..meaning she’s been thoroughly vetted by people trying to find dirt (there’s nothing there to attack).
And before being Gov., she was a two term mayor of AK’s fastest-growing city (another job people said she was totallty unqualified for), head of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, and chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission. She’s been in government longer than Bobby Jindal (and don’t tell me local gov’t isn’t relevant..they have to deal with all the stuff the state and federal people don’t want to handle), and while I don’t know Crist’s full resume, I personally think Alaska is actually much harder to govern than Florida.
You may be right about Minnesota. My conclusion to that article was “maybe” if you recall. But, even if Pawlenty doesn’t bring Minnesota, it’s useful to look at the reasons why he’s still a political force. He was elected by a substantial margin in 2002. He’s governed as, by many accounts, the most conservative Governor in Minnesota history. Yet, he managed to get re-elected in a year where the state GOP lost about a gazillion in congress, and the national GOP lost everywhere. Yes, maybe he doesn’t win without Pete Hutchison. Yes, maybe he doesn’t win if Hatch’s running mate doesn’t express cluelessness on E-85. But, maybe none of those things make a difference if he’s not Tim Pawlenty, but is instead an average politician. No, he doesn’t have 80% approval ratings, but is +5 to +10 so bad in 2008, in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since Nixon? I can’t think of any other Conservatives in blue states with positive approval ratings this year. Tim’s almost equally talented partner in crime, Norm Coleman, comes the closest to being a popular blue-state conservative- but he’s still a fair deal less conservative then Pawlenty. My point on Pawlenty has always been more general then “he’ll bring Minnesota” or “he’ll bring Wisconsin”, though I mention those arguments to persuade others. Instead, I’ve always argued that, to an America that doesn’t yet know Tim Pawlenty, he’ll have all the freshness and charm that he had to an unsuspecting Minnesota in 2002, and that the political qualities that allow him to keep his head fairly far above water in Minnesota, despite the fact that he’s now an old hand, when he by all rights ought to be drowned along with every other blue state conservative, are qualities that will charm America. I’m sure Palin can charm America too. She’s a remarkably appealing politician. But, she has the disadvantage of simply not being a credible President at this point in time; she’s not a lightweight, by any means, but she does have “gosh, I’m just so happy to be here” vibe about her, and she’s far too disconnected from national issues.
“she’s far too disconnected from national issues”
Please explain…she’s on the forefront of energy issues, and with the price of gas that’s a big deal. She’s also on the front line in the environmental debate. And did I mention that she was the one who cancelled the “Bridge to Nowhere” and is combatting congressional earmarks by making massive cuts in the amount that her state requests? Alaskan issues ARE national issues at this point in our history, and the disconnection between AK an the lower 48 exists primarily in people’s minds.
“she does have “gosh, I’m just so happy to be hereâ€? vibe about her”
…that’s why people love her..she’s not arrogant. She’s had that vibe her entire career, and still managed to earn a reputation as a tough-as-nails administrator.
What about the economy? How is the Alaskan economy remotely like the American economy? I mean, the fact the Oil and Gas business is practically the biggest issue in the state (not just now, but always) practically gives the game away; Alaska is nothing like the broader America. Any Alaskan would look like a fish out of water in national politics, but she compounds this because of her limited experience.
I’ll concede that there is not a huge manufacturing base in AK, but there is more than oil. Fishing (and processing of said fish) is another huge one, for instnace. But that’s somewhat beside the point.
An economy is an economy. Exactly what is being produced does not changes the basic laws of economics, it merely shifts the supply and demand curves into different positions. No state is a total cross-section of the entire country’s economy (MAYBE California, but that’s about it..and they have a larger-than-average tech sector). Michigan is too dependendent on the auto industry, there’s not much logging in New Jersey, and you can catch lobsters in Wyoming. Oil, however, is a pretty big economic issue for a number of states (especially around the Gulf of Mexico), and arguably the biggest one for the nation at large. So your argument really doesn’t make sense.
I believe Matthew brings up important points that can be interpreted as “negatives” for her. My mother even expressed concerns about Palin being a new mother, but when I e-mailed my mother the storey about Palin selling the cirproate jet on eBay the previous corrupt Replican Governor had purchased against the will of the public, my mother voted for her on CQ Pol. VP Madness.
There are definitely legitimate negatives with ANY candidate…and I’ll concede that Palin has a few. But they are far outweighed by the mountain of positives.
Matthew, You bring up valid points about Pawlenty. I like him a lot. Pawlenty, like Palin comes from the Working class community Obama struggles with. I think Pawlenty’s father was a teamster. Check out this site I found about Palin I bookmarked. http://www.palinforvp.com.
In the end of the day, the biggest disqualifying factor for McCain’s VP will be climate change. McCain is using this to connect with young voters (and by the way he is beating Obama in polls with the under 30 voters). These politician all have pollsters and they must be telling McCain that this is a huge issue for this age group. Palin, Pawlenty, Crist, Gingrich, Huckabee, Hunstman, Ridge, Fiorina, and Hoeven are the eligable Republican who (to various degrees) want to deal with this issue. Remember, McCain said he will choose someone who “shares his values”. For the first Presidential election of my lifetime, organizations such as the Sierra Club will not endorse a Democrat because of leadership McCain has displayed on this issue. American Indian groups have threatened to leave the democratic party because of McCain record fighting for water rights for them out west. McCain would damage his credibility if he selected someone who these groups find as (in their words), “a denier”, linking the policy to Bush’s.
Actually I find zero negatives for her. Did you watch that campaign video or her with her kids and husband loading the float-plane? When you see that video, it reminds me of all the families on my street packign for a holiday. For some reason, SOME people see her children as a negative, but the public sure loved those young kids running around the White House yard during the Kennedy years.
Plus, what the heck will Obama say? He has two young girls of his own.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:28 am
who the #@$#$^ is Rob Portman and how’d he beat Crist??
May 16th, 2008 at 6:43 am
heh, check out obama’s ceiling:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107296/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-Clinton-44.aspx
May 16th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Can’t believe the boom on Palin just because she is (allegedly) hot.
If she was a Dem we would be saying wtf?!
May 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I picked Palin, and not because of her hotness.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Portman
May 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am
T Paw. Won’t scare off NE indies the way Huck would. Palin? Portman? Fans of both, but veep is a huge stretch.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am
T-Paw. Hands down.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Pawlenty. But can he be an attack dog? I don’t know if he has it in him.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Any chance Portman might run for gov in OH? That would make sense to me…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
fredo,
I’m thinking John Kasich will be the Republican nominee for Gov in 2010. He’s been campaigning all around the state for awhile, and has made it clear he’s interested in the job.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Of course I’d pick Palin. A Longer-than-expected executive resume,a strong conservative, and single handedly cleaning up one of the USA’s most corrupt political establishments…how can you go wrong with that?
I’m voting for T-Paw against Huck, but at the moment it looks like a Palin-Huckabee final.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Palin or Palwentry would be fine in my list. Lean more for Palwentry
May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
T Paw. Out of those four he is the most conventional and that is alot better than “surprise” picks.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Pawltney by a mile, though mostly by default. Huckabee alienates too much of the Republican base, Palin is pretty much ineligible for consideration this year, and Portman has the phrase “Bush Administration Official” on his resume.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Personally, I’d take Portman, but I’d wouldn’t object to TPaw. I don’t think Palin will accept the job (remember her recent childbirth), and I think Huckabee is the anti-Christ.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Out of those 4 - I would settle on Portman. Huckabee is an absolute no go, never ever ever never ever. Palin hasn’t been around long enough. If we are fighting against Obamsa’s inexperience then why should the next in line for Pres be just as unexperienced? TPaw would be okay, but still hasn’t been around very long in the grand scheme of things.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I think too much experience doesn’t permit you to think outside the box. There are already enough think tanks and lobbyists in Washington with conventional thinking.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
“I don’t think Palin will accept the job (remember her recent childbirth)”
Actually, Palin indicated that she WOULD accept the job on the day she went into labor and has not changed her stance at all. The ineligibility argument just doesn’t fly.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Palin. If Huckabee beats Pawlenty, I like Sarah’s changes in the final. All the econ conservatives on this board should hopefully vote for Sarah. She’s far and away more economically conservative.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
T-Paw
May 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Palin, then Pawlenty, then Portman, then pretty much anyone else in the world, then Huckabee. =-)
May 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think Palin or Pawlenty
Don’t know too much about Portman and Huck puts Utah in play
May 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Palin,
Yea, but wasn’t her baby born with special needs that might require her attentiveness? I’m not against her by any means, but I remember it being talked about and I was under the impression that she was unlikely at this point.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
T-Paw is my choice out of the four. I voted T-Paw and Portman (who beat Palin only because of experience concerns). I’ll vote Palin over Huckabee any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Palin
- Reformer’s love her/She quotes Gingrich in her speeches
- Social con’s love her
- Indy’s love her
- Club for growth loves her
Only 5% of the state does not approve of the job she is doing. Can anyone remember the last time a republican had those numbers? Certainly not this year!
May 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
It is going to be Crist.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Saw a video of Palin, and she seems like an excellent communicator.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Tommy #23,
Nobody with any actual power has delared it unlikely, and Palin knew about the baby’s Downs Sydrome months in advance. She has very clearly signaled that she is not taking herself out of the running. In fact, this may have helped her chances, as she is now a heroine in for special needs parents and pro-lifers…who have given her rave reviews and not discouraged a VP candidacy at all.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
For more info on how special needs parents are reacting to Palin, check out this news story…speciafically the part where Congresswoman Cathy McMoriss Rogers (a parent of a Downs child) says that the baby should not crimp Palin’s career at all:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080503/ap_on_re_us/alaska_governor_baby_6
…and this rave review from Glenn Beck (also a special needs parent):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2oVFWaEPu8
If anything, this baby is HELPING Palin’s odds of being nominated.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
In 2008 I am not sure if we should be telling a woman she “can’t” run for office. Every time they say that to Hilary, female voters come out for her in big numbers.
Palin, hhhmmm, white middle class woman, small town, church goer, owns guns….but not bitter. Anyone else see a problem for Obama?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” Huckabee said. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”
May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
So Huck’s off the Veep list. Which relieves me a bit, because I was getting awfully worried that the folks voting in this poll appear to have lost their minds, and are prepared to send Huckabee to the finals.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Voters are moving to elect populist politicians in 2008, we see that with John McCain and Barack Marx. We saw that in the recent congressional special elections. Palin is a fervent populist. That is why she is the most popular political leader (State numbers) in the country.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Crist? Is McCain aiming to have the ticket with the whitest hair of all time. Besides, there are enough rumors about Crist to prevent him from being named.
Portman? Please. Do the words Bush Administration official mean anything to you? And his responsibility was in the budget and the economy, two areas that aren’t exactly winners right now. Conservatives and Republicans, not to mention democrats decry Bush’s spending, as has McCain, and he’s going to name his budget director as his VP? I don’t think so. Also, he’d have little or nor effect on Ohio anyway.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
At this point - and someone can correct me if I’m wrong - I see no real drawback to Palin. She doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of geography, but there’s no hard and fast rule that a VP nom has to put a state in play. Does anytone think that there might be some grumbling about not taking adequate care of her special-needs newborn? I don’t share that point of view, but that could easily be lobbed at her if she’s out campaigning.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Win M,
The biggest drawback for Palin has always been experience. You can’t use Obama’s inexperience against him when your Veep’s biggest gigs, before this 2 year stint as Governor, was the mayoralty of a town of about 4k people.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Grumbling?
If some of these democrats like Ted “Chappaquidick” Kennedy, Chris “Waitress Sandwich” Dodd, Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton and Barack “Sweetie” Obama start going after a woman and going after motherhood, McCain can start writing his inaugural.
Also, it would be even better if pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Tim Russert join in. Most women already depsise them.
As for putting a state in play, what state did Cheney put in play. I don’t think he helped Bush at all. I don’t know one person who voted for Bush because of Cheney, but I do a few who didn’t because of him. What state did Quayle or Bush 41 put in play when they were VP?
Palin, or any other woman for that matter puts something much more important than a state in play, a demographic.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Matthew,
Of course you can. The experience of the VP has nothing to do with the experience of the P. They’re two totally distinct areas.
When it comes to Obama, it will be how his experience matches up to McCain’s. The Vp will be irrelevant.
People will easily understand an experienced P taking a lesser experienced VP under his wing, who really will have no power anyway.
And bashing a woman will only further inflame the feelings against “Sweetie” Obama that many women already have and that are growing stronger by the day. Give it another couple months to marinate and it will be at full boil.
At worst, she’d be the change component to McCain’s experience.
Besides, aside from someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice, both of whom are pretty much put pf the picture, none of the potential VPs really have any great residuum of experience.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
jim,
It depends on how you define resume of experience. I consider more then one term as Governor, plus state or national legislative experience, a good “resume” for the presidency and certainly for the vice presidency. Sanford and Pawlenty qualify on those merits. I don’t consider being the Governor for two years of a state which is totally disconnected from any issues a president might face to a great resume. Not when your other claims to fame are “mayor of a town of 4000, head of gas-line commission, and beauty queen”. That’s not to say she’s totally off the list for me; I’ve voted for her in every round. Because with 4 more years as Governor under her belt, she’d be perfect, and because her opponents have been mediocre. But, I’d be awfully uncomfortable putting her on the ticket, and I wouldn’t be at all confident she could adequately handle the duties of a president, right away, if the unthinkable happened to McCain.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Jim and K-Lo bring up good points on how Sarah can be a very attractive VP. She’ll far exceed Pawlenty in building excitement for the ticket–something we need if anyone has read Peggy’s latest article. Looks like Matthew you’ll be supporting Sarah in the finals. (who knows if this veepstakes will have any impact) Also, why is Sarah unqualified as VP b/c she’s only been a gov for two years, but the possible demn VPs (Webb, Strickland) only have two years experience in their respective posts. No one is discounting either one of them–and in most cases both of them are on the top of Obama’s list.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
only have two years experience in their respective posts *are qualified*
May 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Matthew,
Her opponents have always been mediocre? Can you name any of those impressive democrats John McCain has scored victories against in AZ? Can you even name who Bush beat in his reelection in TX? Do the names John Spencer and Rick Lazio mean anything? Alan Keyes? Most people who run for the Presidency have beaten up on unimpressive opponents.
As for experince, would another few years as governor of AK really make all that much of a differnce? Ronald Regan ran for President in 1968 after 2 yrs as governor. Teddy Roosevelt was thrust in to the WH with little experience and he did ok.
As for issues, AK is the largest state in the union. It has very important military bases. When it comes to energy and oil, it’s arguably the most important state. There’s a lot of issues AK deals with. Now, she and McCain happen to be on different sides on ANWR, but ANWR is never going to happen anyway so it’s not really a big deal. Those are important issues.
Also, if she’s really that inexperienced and not qualified, after her presence on the ticket helps McCain win, she can resign a few months in to the term and McCain can name a more qualified VP. She will have done her part.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
IR-MN,
They are unqualified. I do discount them. In fact, I discounted Webb on the Obama/Webb thread 2 days ago. If they’re at the top of Obama’s list, someone is giving him poor advice. Obama needs someone with experience, to avoid looking like a neophyte; McCain needs someone with experience, to aid in making Obama look like a neophyte “hey, even my Veep is more experienced then him”. Strickland fails miserably on that account. Webb only comes close to fulfilling the experience quotient because he was the Secretary of the Navy for less then a year; other then that, he’s even more disastrously inexperienced then Obama.
And yes, if it’s Palin vs. Huckabee, I’ll be voting Palin. She’s probably in my top 4 out of the entire 32 (After Pawlenty, Sanford, and Petraeus). But, that list excludes a few of my favorites (Carcieri, Keating, Owens, Engler, etc).
May 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
jim,
I meant her opponents have always been mediocre in this Veep polling. 1st round Perry (George Bush’s successor is enough to doom him), 2nd round Brownback (just so we can make all the moderates that like McCain flee in terror I suppose), and 3rd round Jindal (who I love, and is probably more qualified then Palin, but he’s just too darn young). Now Portman; that was a tough decision for me, because I like Portman, but ultimately I’ve decided that whatever benefit he might bring to Ohio, is negated by the fact that he’s so prominently tied to now not-so-good Bush economy. I mean, had she been facing Sanford or Petraeus or Pawlenty in any round, I would have gone the other way.
As for your other examples, that’s nonsense. Ronald Reagan wasn’t qualified in 1968 and was thankfully stopped. Teddy Roosevelt had more experience then almost any other president in history; he was a leader in the New York senate for a few years, he was a sheriff in the rough and tumble Old West, he was a Police Commissioner in NYC, he was one of the heads of the US Civil Service Commission, he was the Assistant Secretary of Navy (and effectively Secretary of Navy because John Long was pretty much dead to the world), he was Governor of New York, and then he was Vice President for some months. He did absolutely everything, in every field in politics.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Do you seriously imagine McCain would ever pick someone named Keating to be his VP?
Carcieri is 66. Maybe McCain can name Wilford Brimley as Secretary of State and Don Ameche as SecDef. Also, RI isn’t exactly an electoral powerhouse.
Owens? Whatever happened to him. I remember he was NR’s golden boy before they got their crush on Romney. He’s seemingly disappeared from the scene.
I think McCain will be able to make the contrast with Obama on experience just fine regardless of his VP. I just don’t see any need for him to double down on a resume. He already has that area won.
Also, Obama could pick a Joe Biden or Bill Richardson who would match McCain on experience and potentially neutralize that advantage.
He needs a VP who will help him in other areas.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Palin does not at all undermine the McCain experience arguement, as she does have more gov’t experience than Obama, and hers is all executive. So, we can actually add fire to the argument by saying “our ‘inexperienced’ veep choice has more experience than Obama” Furthermore, if Obama does in fact do as expected and name someone like Richardson, it becomes insanely easy to use arguments like “They’ve got their ticket upside down, we phave it in the right order”. Palin also has actually produced massive change in her state, whereas Obama can only talk about it. She’s a perfect contrast, and has almost no negatives.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I would also point out that Palin has exactly the smae amount of experience as Charlie Crist, and comparable experience to Bobby Jindal. Plus, she has massive clout on energy issues as a former head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and the current chairwoman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which also happens to be the single largest interstate compact in the nation (previous chairs include Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee).
May 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
jim,
“Carcieri is 66. Maybe McCain can name Wilford Brimley as Secretary of State and Don Ameche as SecDef. Also, RI isn’t exactly an electoral powerhouse.”
Carcieri is an ethnic Catholic, from a blue-collar background, and adds a huge heaping of business and executive experience. That’s like wheelhouse type stuff, given the type of message McCain has to send “This is a ticket that can handle any problem in America” and the type of demographics he must target in the general (blue-collar, ethnic Catholics, largely found in the Northeast).
“Owens? Whatever happened to him. I remember he was NR’s golden boy before they got their crush on Romney. He’s seemingly disappeared from the scene.”
Owens supported an initiative that temporarily suspended the cap on spending increases (or some such thing). Conservatives decided he was the devil, and the media praised him to heaven. Colorado still loved him, warts and all. The only possible snag is that he appears to be getting a divorce, which might limit whatever help he’d bring by being a Catholic.
I quite agree though that McCain needs a VP that helps him in other areas. But, these aren’t mutually exclusive propositions; you can positively add to the “experienced” narrative, and still bring other qualities to the ticket. For instance, as I’ve said before, I believe Pawlenty is the most naturally talented politician in either party. He’s been involved in politics for literally 25 years, but he has so much polish that he’s able to play the “regular guy” effortlessly. Perhaps it is effortlessly. Perhaps this is really who he is. But, regardless, even ignoring the fact that he strengthens McCain’s Maverick image, or possibly helps bring in Wisconsin and maybe Minnesota, or adds a little youth and vitality to the ticket, his ability to speak to Joe Everyman, in an election cycle where people are tired of politicians who look after the interests of other politicians and “the rich”, is an extraordinarily valuable on it’s own.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Palin for VP,
Charlie Crist isn’t quite qualified either, though admittedly being Governor of Florida, a large state with an array of problems that mirror the US’s neatly, is more relevant then being Governor of Alaska. Jindal has more relevant experience then Palin; he was the head of a state health department (multi-billion dollar budget) at 24. He was the head of a state University system. He was an assistant secretary of health and human services. He was the head of a bi-partisan medicare reform commission. He was a Congressman for 3 years. If he’d accomplished all that, and he were 46 instead of 36, he’d be obvious choice for McCain. But, Mac can’t pick someone literally half his age.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Matthew,
No one disagrees with your opinions about Pawlenty. I like him; I’ve donated to him. But people in MN aren’t really that in love with him. He barely has a positive approval rating. I think you wrote an article about how he can carry MN. I’ll just be honest and say that he’ll add very little. McCain himself is moderate enough to carry this state. But look at Sarah’s approval rating–in the 80s. Somethings going on there b/c with that number she’s winning over moderates, liberals, women, etc. I would not focus on a region; MN is a little too blue for Pawlenty to guarantee a victory. But everywhere you look, people praise Sarah. She’s not an empty suit. I don’t think she’ll bomb on the national stage. In fact, she’ll engender a whole new level of life in the McCain campaign and maybe capture enough Hillary supports and/or women for wins in PA, MI, OH..even NJ.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Matt,
Alaska is only small in terms of population, in terms of governing, it’s a BIG job.
1) It’s got more land than any other state…can you say “nightmarish transportation system.”
2) It’s got more natural resources to manage than any other state…that’s not as easy as it sounds.
3) Divide the size of the land by the size of the tax base…not pretty.
4) AK is one of the most corrupt states in the union, numerous state legislators are currently under indictment, being an ethics-oriented governor there is like swimming in a shark tank with an open wound. Lots of corrupt people are gunning for this woman’s head every day..meaning she’s been thoroughly vetted by people trying to find dirt (there’s nothing there to attack).
And before being Gov., she was a two term mayor of AK’s fastest-growing city (another job people said she was totallty unqualified for), head of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, and chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission. She’s been in government longer than Bobby Jindal (and don’t tell me local gov’t isn’t relevant..they have to deal with all the stuff the state and federal people don’t want to handle), and while I don’t know Crist’s full resume, I personally think Alaska is actually much harder to govern than Florida.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
IR-MN,
You may be right about Minnesota. My conclusion to that article was “maybe” if you recall. But, even if Pawlenty doesn’t bring Minnesota, it’s useful to look at the reasons why he’s still a political force. He was elected by a substantial margin in 2002. He’s governed as, by many accounts, the most conservative Governor in Minnesota history. Yet, he managed to get re-elected in a year where the state GOP lost about a gazillion in congress, and the national GOP lost everywhere. Yes, maybe he doesn’t win without Pete Hutchison. Yes, maybe he doesn’t win if Hatch’s running mate doesn’t express cluelessness on E-85. But, maybe none of those things make a difference if he’s not Tim Pawlenty, but is instead an average politician. No, he doesn’t have 80% approval ratings, but is +5 to +10 so bad in 2008, in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since Nixon? I can’t think of any other Conservatives in blue states with positive approval ratings this year. Tim’s almost equally talented partner in crime, Norm Coleman, comes the closest to being a popular blue-state conservative- but he’s still a fair deal less conservative then Pawlenty. My point on Pawlenty has always been more general then “he’ll bring Minnesota” or “he’ll bring Wisconsin”, though I mention those arguments to persuade others. Instead, I’ve always argued that, to an America that doesn’t yet know Tim Pawlenty, he’ll have all the freshness and charm that he had to an unsuspecting Minnesota in 2002, and that the political qualities that allow him to keep his head fairly far above water in Minnesota, despite the fact that he’s now an old hand, when he by all rights ought to be drowned along with every other blue state conservative, are qualities that will charm America. I’m sure Palin can charm America too. She’s a remarkably appealing politician. But, she has the disadvantage of simply not being a credible President at this point in time; she’s not a lightweight, by any means, but she does have “gosh, I’m just so happy to be here” vibe about her, and she’s far too disconnected from national issues.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“she’s far too disconnected from national issues”
Please explain…she’s on the forefront of energy issues, and with the price of gas that’s a big deal. She’s also on the front line in the environmental debate. And did I mention that she was the one who cancelled the “Bridge to Nowhere” and is combatting congressional earmarks by making massive cuts in the amount that her state requests? Alaskan issues ARE national issues at this point in our history, and the disconnection between AK an the lower 48 exists primarily in people’s minds.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“she does have “gosh, I’m just so happy to be hereâ€? vibe about her”
…that’s why people love her..she’s not arrogant. She’s had that vibe her entire career, and still managed to earn a reputation as a tough-as-nails administrator.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Palin,
What about the economy? How is the Alaskan economy remotely like the American economy? I mean, the fact the Oil and Gas business is practically the biggest issue in the state (not just now, but always) practically gives the game away; Alaska is nothing like the broader America. Any Alaskan would look like a fish out of water in national politics, but she compounds this because of her limited experience.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I’ll concede that there is not a huge manufacturing base in AK, but there is more than oil. Fishing (and processing of said fish) is another huge one, for instnace. But that’s somewhat beside the point.
An economy is an economy. Exactly what is being produced does not changes the basic laws of economics, it merely shifts the supply and demand curves into different positions. No state is a total cross-section of the entire country’s economy (MAYBE California, but that’s about it..and they have a larger-than-average tech sector). Michigan is too dependendent on the auto industry, there’s not much logging in New Jersey, and you can catch lobsters in Wyoming. Oil, however, is a pretty big economic issue for a number of states (especially around the Gulf of Mexico), and arguably the biggest one for the nation at large. So your argument really doesn’t make sense.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Oops, meant to say you CAN’T catch lobsters in Wyoming…lol.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I believe Matthew brings up important points that can be interpreted as “negatives” for her. My mother even expressed concerns about Palin being a new mother, but when I e-mailed my mother the storey about Palin selling the cirproate jet on eBay the previous corrupt Replican Governor had purchased against the will of the public, my mother voted for her on CQ Pol. VP Madness.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Corporate”, sorry.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
K-Lo,
There are definitely legitimate negatives with ANY candidate…and I’ll concede that Palin has a few. But they are far outweighed by the mountain of positives.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Matthew, You bring up valid points about Pawlenty. I like him a lot. Pawlenty, like Palin comes from the Working class community Obama struggles with. I think Pawlenty’s father was a teamster. Check out this site I found about Palin I bookmarked. http://www.palinforvp.com.
In the end of the day, the biggest disqualifying factor for McCain’s VP will be climate change. McCain is using this to connect with young voters (and by the way he is beating Obama in polls with the under 30 voters). These politician all have pollsters and they must be telling McCain that this is a huge issue for this age group. Palin, Pawlenty, Crist, Gingrich, Huckabee, Hunstman, Ridge, Fiorina, and Hoeven are the eligable Republican who (to various degrees) want to deal with this issue. Remember, McCain said he will choose someone who “shares his values”. For the first Presidential election of my lifetime, organizations such as the Sierra Club will not endorse a Democrat because of leadership McCain has displayed on this issue. American Indian groups have threatened to leave the democratic party because of McCain record fighting for water rights for them out west. McCain would damage his credibility if he selected someone who these groups find as (in their words), “a denier”, linking the policy to Bush’s.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Plain for VP,
Actually I find zero negatives for her. Did you watch that campaign video or her with her kids and husband loading the float-plane? When you see that video, it reminds me of all the families on my street packign for a holiday. For some reason, SOME people see her children as a negative, but the public sure loved those young kids running around the White House yard during the Kennedy years.
Plus, what the heck will Obama say? He has two young girls of his own.