The Candidates
Featured Archives
Because somebody has to front-page this, and it might as well be me. Money quote:
Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s campaign.
…
“Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said.
…
“He can be pragmatic, but on the biggest decisions he tends to favour his instinct for the bigger picture,” the adviser said.
At the end of the day, this is why I don’t think that McCain’s running mate will be Romney or Portman or any candidate that McCain doesn’t have a strong personal relationship with. McCain will go with his gut and pick someone he likes and trusts. That pretty much limits the field to Lieberman, Ridge, Pawlenty, and maybe Colin Powell and Rudy Giuliani.
Still, I’m not sure how much of a positive impact Lieberman would have on the ticket. He’s not going to bring Connecticut. He’d probably help in the Philly suburbs, but so would Tom Ridge and Rudy Giuliani. Democrats don’t really like Lieberman anymore, but the battle now seems to be for Independents and women anyway. If McCain goes with Joe, he’ll be operating under the assumption that the MSM will make such a big deal about the country’s first bipartisan ticket of the modern era that public opinion will shift a few points towards McCain as a consequence. There’s also the reality that Lieberman is pro-choice, but the McCain campaign may ultimately conclude that for every pro-lifer who refuses to vote for the GOP ticket simply because of a pro-choice, largely figurehead veep, there’s a socially moderate surburban woman in Philadelphia that will vote Republican for the first time because of that pro-choice, largely figurehead veep. In other words, the fact that Lieberman will never be nominated for president by the Republican Party may make his positions on the issues important to only a few single-issue voters.
It’s true that McCain may end up “doing no harm” and going with Pawlenty. But the fact that Lieberman is being vetted shows that the decision has yet to be made, for whatever that’s worth.
Update: Politico is reporting that McCain may make a one-term pledge at the Republican National Convention, at which point he may promise to run an “apolitical administration” for a single four-year term. This makes it even more likely that McCain’s running mate will be Lieberman, as a truly apolitical administration would probably require a bipartisan or nonpartisan presidential ticket. McCain may show up at the convention as an Independent Republican, planning to run this country for the next four years alongside Joe Lieberman, an Independent Democrat. McCain may assume that such a move will sever his connection with the Republican brand to the extent required to garner the few additional votes he needs in states like Michigan and Ohio to win the election. And then we all show up in 2012 and fight over who his successor should be. Sounds good to me.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I would be onboard with Lieberman’s selection knowing that he will never run for the Republican nomination, and we can have an open competition for the nomination with a field of great candidates in 2016.
These types of primaries will ultimately make our party stronger, not weaker.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If McCain picks Lieberman, he will lose; period. McCain is viewed more favorably by Democrats, and independents, then Joe. And the base is simply not going to stand for a guy who thinks partial birth abortion should be legal, who gets F’s from the NRA, etc. Mike Bloomberg would be a better pick, from a political standpoint, and Mike Bloomberg would be a disastrous pick.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Vet” is one of those words I get very tired of during political season, along with “gaffe” (every mistake is a mistake, unless it’s in politics, in which case it’s a gaffe).
Putting that aside, how much “vetting” is necessary for a guy who has already ran for both VP and President? I doubt the story for that reason (though I think there’s some chance that McCain might choose Lieberman).
August 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Kavon I really don’t think McCain/Lieberman would win, I think too many conservatives would split or sit on their hands come November. Does McCain really want to hand the keys to the White House by selecting someone like Lieberman?
August 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
The Pro: With the support of Governor Rell combined with Senator Lieberman being his running mate, maybe McCain could take Connecticut. Stranger things have happened. And a McCain/Lieberman ticket would bring in Independents and Reagan Democrats. It would also be a real slap in the face to Obama’s “unity” slogan.
The Con: Yea, a lot of conservatives would be pissed. And he ads no executive and economic experience to the ticket.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
DaveG do you forget that women have a strong presence in the pro-life bloc as well? What about the pro-life women? Would they still vote for that ticket? I doubt it
August 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
It seems every few days McCain is vetting a different name, and all according to ‘an adviser’ from the McCain campaign.
Maybe it is to throw the MSM and dems off guard, or/and or just one of many trial baloons.
Don’t think it is going to be Lieberman, all we’d have to do is go back and check the voting history with the inventor of the net.
McCain needs a fresh face as his veep, not the tired reruns the MSM keeps harping on.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Also, just picture the Vice Presidential debate. When there debating economic and social issues, Lieberman could just end up defending Obama’s policy’s.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“Also, just picture the Vice Presidential debate. When there debating economic and social issues, Lieberman could just end up defending Obama’s policy’s.”
No kidding, do Republicans really want their VP nominee who is no different from obama and his Veep on economic and social policy?
August 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Chip91,
Why does everyone always assume that Lieberman will appeal to “Reagan Democrats”. Reagan democrats are downscale, mildly socially conservative, union types. Joe Lieberman’s base in Connecticut, even prior to running as an independent, was upscale Dems and independents, socially liberal Republicans, and Jewish voters. There’s nary a Reagan Democrat in sight.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
If McCain goes and picks Lieberman, who is a liberal on every issue but the war, and who would be more than happy to just nod his head as McCain tries to drive through new environmental proposals, business regulation, amnesty, and every other thing they agree on. No doubt Social issues and other things generally championed by Conservatives would take a back seat since McCain doesn’t care about them, Lieberman doesn’t agree with them, and there is no conservative to be an ear and a hand in the administration for the right – if he does that, and if he can get Lieberman through the convention (Conservatives might be able to force McCain to pick one of them – or so we hope), then any self-respecting Republican should refuse to support the ticket, and instead focus on blocking a liberal Obama agenda in the Senate and House – I doubt the DNC will get to sixty seats.
Under almost any other Republican nominee – aka a Conservative who I could trust – I might be able to accept Lieberman as nothing more than a political ploy who would not have no effect on policy, no effect on the GOP, and would step aside in eight years for a groomed successor. But under McCain, its different, under McCain, its the old McCain, the one Conservatives hated, who was willing to sacrifice conservatism for bipartisanship. McCain likes Lieberman, but worse, he agrees with him on many things. Its far more likely that Lieberman would have a say in policy, and as much as Conservatives respect him, that is something we should try to avoid at all costs.
Finally, there are four additional problems:
1) What if there is a tie in the Senate? Do we really want pro-choice, pro-amnesty, environmentalist Lieberman casting the deciding vote?
2) McCain isn’t the healthiest man alive, and he would be the oldest President – there are deffinate issues of succesion to worry about. Do we want Lieberman – in all his liberaldom – just a heartbeat away from the Presidency? And are we convinced that, if he were to become President, he wouldn’t seek re-election?
3) McCain is likely to be a one-term Presidnet – because of age, because his lack of a real ideological drive, etc. – since Lieberman is unlikely to seek the GOP nomiation, that doesn’t give us much time to groom a successor, while, at the same time, it provides plenty of time for the GOP to splinter into 20 different camps in prep. for 2012.
4) Nonassociation might have helped us this year, but it works both ways. By having a nominee in 2012 who will lack strong ties – if any – to the McCain Presidency, it deprives us of the ability to run on any coattails in four years – and that is at a time when coattails could be big, since we would have our best chance to win back the Senate.
Maybe we get a few extra moderates, but on every other level, Lieberman is a terrible pick.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I am hearing that McCain’s top tier of personal choices are 1. Lieberman, 2. Ridge, 3. Lindsey Graham. In negotiating with Evangelical leaders about a potential Ridge selection, the leaders surprisingly preferred Lieberman and were even moderately enthusiastic about him, despite his past support for abortion rights. McCain is now set on running as the ‘Original Maverick’ and we have to now be viewing his VP choice through this framing and what who would compliment this message.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I don’t like this idea at all. I suspect McCain will lose if he tries it. Dems already don’t like Lieberman. They’re not going to all of a sudden decide to vote Republican with someone they no longer trust at the bottom of the ticket. Republicans have been skittish on McCain and they’re slowly coming around. It would be suicide to torpedo that with a Lieberman pick. I don’t really believe this is any more than a continuation of gossip we’ve heard about for months. But if this is what team McCain wants and it’s being leaked as a trial balloon – it’s just a really stupid idea.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“I would be onboard with Lieberman’s selection knowing that he will never run for the Republican nomination, and we can have an open competition for the nomination with a field of great candidates in 2016.”
Firstly, its more like 2012.
—
“These types of primaries will ultimately make our party stronger, not weaker.”
Secondly, there are problems with an open primary:
1) a divided party, often with mistrust and dislike that remains. This year it was Romney and Huckabee supporters not liking each other. Next time it could be Romney and Palin supporters, and Jindal and Crist supporters.
2) As I’ve discussed before, their is a flaw in the current GOP primary system that provides a built-in advantage for moderates in a large field (moderate states are WOT, conservative states are district or PbP)
August 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Everyone should also check out my update to the original post where I discuss McCain’s potential one-term pledge.
I used to be opposed to the one-term pledge but now I’m for it provided McCain picks a veep who either won’t run for the GOP nod in 2012 (Lieberman, Powell) or who makes everyone happy (Palin, Pawlenty).
I think a bipartisan ticket combined with a one term pledge might be enough to beat Obama just because there are more anti-Obama voters out there than there are pro-McCain voters. McCain/Lieberman for one term — and that’s it! — means that we can all fight for our dream candidate in four years and we avoid an Obama presidency.
Plus, in 2012, Democrats will probably nominate a centrist like Mark Warner, so losing then would be highly preferable to losing now to a liberal like Obama. Better to have McCain for four years and Warner for four than Obama for eight.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
If McCain absolutely must pick a Democrat, why doesn’t he try to pick one that…you know, Democrats can actually stand? Or does he just expect that Democrats will magically say “well, I hate Lieberman, more then McCain actually, but when you put the two of them together…well, I’m on board”? 2/3’s of Connecticut Democrats disapprove of Joe Lieberman. This compares to the 27% of Connecticut Democrats who disapprove of Republican Governor Jody Rell. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189
In other words, a Republican Governor is something like 3 times more popular among Democrats then Lieb’s. Boy, that John McCain is crazy like a fox.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
a VP does HAVE TO BE NOMINATED BY A FLOOR VOTE – that means that, if Conservatives delegates (from Romney and Huckabee), can draw a few McCain delegates in (I doubt all McCain supporters are going to be happy with a liberal on the ticket) – we can probably force Lieberman off the ticket and a Conservative onto tit. True, we probably won’t get a Romney or Jindal or Huckabee – who we could set up as strong heir apparents, but we can at least get someone to keep the ticket in check, and provide a voice for Conservatives inside the administration. An heir apparent, unfortunately, will have to be worked out later….no clue how.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
#12:
I think evangelicals like Lieberman because of his strong support for Israel and opposition to Islamism. Ridge gets an unfair shake in my opinion. If he were pro-life, he’d be another Tommy Thompson or John Engler; i.e., a make-the-trains-run-on-time center-right Great Lakes Republican. And Ridge isn’t even that pro-choice; he’s for first trimester abortions but supports parental consent and PBA bans. I think if Ridge had come out for conservative judges back in 1996 or 2000 and had basically taken the Jim Gilmore position on abortion (mildly pro-choice but anti-Roe), he’d have been the veep pick in 2000.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Plus, in 2012, Democrats will probably nominate a centrist like Mark Warner, so losing then would be highly preferable to losing now to a liberal like Obama. Better to have McCain for four years and Warner for four than Obama for eight.”
Your logic is backwards. Better to lose now and be able to run the “liberal” atack against Obama in four years (again, I don’t see 60 DEMs in the Senate) and run a strong Conservative in four years than win now, with a moderate, and have to run another moderate in four years.
That said, I’m not convinced a moderate can get through the DNC primary.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If McCain absolutely must pick a Democrat, why doesn’t he try to pick one that…you know, Democrats can actually stand?
LOL. Good question. John Breaux would be interesting. But McCain really does seem to be looking for an excuse to pick Lieberman.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Oh yeah if it’s Lieberman, McCain is even more on his own than before, in my mind. I’ll watch shuffleboard matches instead of follow politics. What a slap.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
My hope is that this is a trial balloon. Not for Leiberman, but for Colin Powell. If socons don’t make much of a stink over McCain-Leiberman, they’ll find McCain-Powell to be more than adequate.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I find it interesting that so many commenters on this blog view the Veep nominee as the ‘future leader of the party.’ Yes, that sometimes eventually happens but if you look back in history not very often and rarely is that the intent of the selection. Being a VP nominee is a somewhat unpredictable and precarious political situation to be in, in that you basically hitch your political identity onto another man’s star and have little control over your own message. In fact a VP nominee on a losing ticket almost insures political obscurity.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Powell is anti-war, and took the “its an unwinnable civil war” position on Iraq. It won’t be him.
Out of curiosity, any plans for Race42012?
August 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
act-blog,
I doubt Warner will be the Democratic nominee. You have to be Clinton charismatic to get past the nutjobs in a Democratic primary as fairly moderate, and Warner doesn’t have an ounce of charisma. That said, Markos Mouslitas likes Warner, for some reason, and he’s spoke at the Dkos conventions, so maybe he could placate some of the grassroots, if not the rank-in-file.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“I find it interesting that so many commenters on this blog view the Veep nominee as the ‘future leader of the party.’”
…thats because no sitting VP has even been beaten for the nomination of their party.
—
“Being a VP nominee is a somewhat unpredictable and precarious political situation to be in”
High risk, high reward.
—
“In fact a VP nominee on a losing ticket almost insures political obscurity.”
Similarly, a VP on a winning ticket gets you another kind of ticket – or at least it has historically – one to the convention as the new nominee.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Leiberman called for preemptive bombing of iran. Powell was the only guy to warn bush of the chaos that would ensue in iraq after the invasion. advantage-Powell.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
not if Iran ends up with nukes.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Again, I’d note that my objections to Lieberman are almost entirely practical; I think he’d be a personally acceptable pick (though very far down my list), for some of the reasons Kavon and DaveG articulate. But, I think he almost certainly torpedoes the ticket. Joe for Secretary of State (Secretary of Defense almost always has military experience), not for VP.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
No. Not Lieberman. I am all on board a one-term pledged. But, if McCain is going to run as an Independent Republican, choose Colin Powell. He is tremendously popular with Independent, Republicans and Democrats. Democrats hate Lieberman and choosing Lieberman will fire up the already enthusiastic Democrats creating greater turnout.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
In a year where the VP has a moderately high chance of becoming Prez, and in a year where our nominee has a habit of straying to the left, I don’t think we can risk the choice on a liberal with no executive experience.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
the McCain campaign may ultimately conclude that for every pro-lifer who refuses to vote for the GOP ticket simply because of a pro-choice, largely figurehead veep, there’s a socially moderate surburban woman in Philadelphia that will vote Republican for the first time because of that pro-choice, largely figurehead veep.
Dave,
Today’s Rasmussen’s poll, which found only six percent of likely voters saying cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion matter most when casting their vote, will help bolster the confidence of McCain; allowing him to feel more comfortable in selecting as his running mate a pro-choice/gay-friendly candidate like Lieberman or Rudy.
McCain may show up at the convention as an Independent Republican, planning to run this country for the next four years alongside Joe Lieberman, an Independent Democrat. McCain may assume that such a move will sever his connection with the Republican brand to the extent required to garner the few additional votes he needs in states like Michigan and Ohio to win the election.
When I saw Joe Lieberman this past week, he made a concerted effort to chip away at the paint of the scarlet letter ‘R’ next to McCain’s name; defining the maverick senator in terms more palatable to the masses — ‘a different kind of Republican,’ a ‘center-right independent,’ a ‘populist Republican in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt.’
August 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
This would be just the thing to make me start my lose in 2008 to win in 2012 campaign. Currently I am 90% behind McCain)
I think that with Dem majority in the Senate which will only be larger, McCain won’t be able to get a decent judge through the Senate. Also I think that as soon as Obama talks to commanders in Iraq that he won’t do anything very different from McCain with regard to troop drawdowns. That really only leaves Iran as the big issue that the GOP can’t come in and fix in 2012. Obama could really screw up Iran just like Carter did.
I think that the GOP is unpopular enough that the only way we can reform our image and thus recapture Congress and the White House with conservatives is to be sent out into the wilderness totally out of power. That will almost certainly be 2012 if McCain wins this year.
Because McCain will be a different kind of Republican he won’t increase the popularity of traditional conservatives, in fact his constant attacks of conservative ideas and philosophy will probably mean we would be less popular after his administration. After 4 years of McCain, conservatism, if not the GOP will be less popular than it is now and after 3 straight GOP wins the Dems will at least learn a temporary lesson and nominate a sure winner like Mark Warner of VA ensuring our 2012 defeat.
Since we have to lose either now or in 2012 it is important to decide when would be the best time to lose. In my view it is a no brainer that the time to lose in 2008 and then regroup for 2012.
We can have 4 years of a moderate President and no power in Congress now, or we can have 4-12 years of a conservative President with a good chance to control both Houses of Congress starting in 2012. Sign me up for 2012.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“I find it interesting that so many commenters on this blog view the Veep nominee as the ‘future leader of the party.’ Yes, that sometimes eventually happens but if you look back in history not very often and rarely is that the intent of the selection.”
The following VP nominees who have ran for President.
John Edwards
Al Gore
Dan Quayle
George H.W. Bush
Walter Mondale
Richard Nixon
Hubert Humphrey
Gerald Ford
Alben W. Barkley
Harry S. Truman
Bob Dole
Joe Liebrman
Almost all of them have been there parties presidential nominee. The Vice Presidency is a stepping stone for the Presidency. Just one of my concerns with Joe Lieberman.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I grew to respect Lieberman during the 2000 election cycle. Maybe that’s just because anyone can look like a respectable champ next to Al Gore, but still…
Of course, I haven’t really paid much attention to the guy since 2000.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#34, Chip91: Throw out Ford and Truman because they didn’t seek the presidential nomination as VP, they were presidents.
That leaves 10 on your list, of whom 6 won the nomination — Gore, Bush, Mondale, Nixon, Humphrey, and Dole (whose nomination came 20 years later — hardly an endorsement of the “heir apparent” theory), and 4 lost (Edwards, Quayle, Barkley, Lieberman).
“Almost all of them”: Not exactly.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Put it how you want it, but in the last fifty years, two VPs have risen to the Presidency, two have won it in an election, and one has won the popular vote, but through a fluke, lost the electoral vote.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“Dave,
Today’s Rasmussen’s poll, which found only six percent of likely voters saying cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion matter most when casting their vote, will help bolster the confidence of McCain; allowing him to feel more comfortable in selecting as his running mate a pro-choice/gay-friendly candidate like Lieberman or Rudy.”
A very small number could tip the election.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Since I am quite sure almost everyone here disagrees with me in #33, could you please explain why I am wrong?
Do you believe McCain can get good judges through the Senate?
Do you believe the GOP can reform it’s image and elect CONSERVATIVES with McCain constantly attacking us?
Do you believe that Obama will do too much damage that can’t be corrected 4 years later?
Let me know as I am very curious to hear your thoughts. I have been thinking about this for a while and am still on the fence as to whether it would be better to lose this year or not.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I also want to add that while only six percent say cultural issues matter most, many more probably place a very high value on them.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Joseph Lieberman to court Jewish vote in Pennsylvania
August 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
If McCain picks a Conservative VP, who would be set up for the nomination in four years, I’ll support him.
But other than that, I agree that the kind of damage Obama can do is limited. The judges up for replacement within the next four years are liberal, and most policy can be reversed.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
A one-term pledge is crazy talk, and McCain isn’t going to choose Lieberman. They just throw out all this to give the pundits something to talk about, that’s all. I don’t believe a word of it.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
If McCain goes and picks Lieberman, who is a liberal on every issue but the war, and who would be more than happy to just nod his head as McCain tries to drive through new environmental proposals, business regulation, amnesty, and every other thing they agree on.
In Lieberman’s defense, he is a proponent of free trade, and is advocating not only drilling offshore, but supports expanding our use of nuclear power, and tapping our vast domestic supply of oil shale.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’m worried that McCain is just too determined to put someone that he’s chummy with on the ticket. While I completely understand why he’d want to go with someone that he has a close relationship with, the folks who fit that criteria (Graham, Ridge, Lieberman) are lousy picks. I think a Ridge pick would create a “giant sucking sound” of enthusiasm, and Lieberman, for all the reasons articulated above, wouldn’t do for the ticket what McCain would need. That said, I am all for Colin Powell. The two are close, he carries an “independent Republican” cache, and he would come as close to guaranteeing the election as an VP candidate ever has. That coupled with a four-year pledge would make the ticket, I think, almost unbeatable. The number of so-cons that would be miffed by a Powell pick would be nothing compared to the number of Reagan Dems that Powell would be catnip to. I think Powell – if he’ll do it – is a no-brainer.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
First of all, this is just plain BULL. McCain may not be the sharpest axe in the shed, but neither is he the stupidest man who has ever run…..at least I hope not. This pick would absolutely cause a landslide victory for our first Socialist President, THE ONE!
I have voted for Republican Presidents for 40 years, but there is not a chance I would pull the lever for this pair. McCain will have thumbed his nose at all three legs of the conservative stool for the last time. Its not gonna happen folks, no way, JOSE!
August 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
unfortunately, a Lieberman VP pick is classic McCain – spit in the face of your party in the name of “bipartisanship”
He is crazy enough to pick Lieberman – which is exactly what Conservatives warned about during the primary, that McCain would abandon the right.
If McCain tries to pick Lieberman, we need to find out how to get a different VP, if not a new nominee.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
act-blog,
Are you of the belief that the damage Obama can do is still limited if he were to be the president until January 2017?
If elected, I fully expect Obama to employ the Clintonian philosophy of triangulation in his first term; much as he has run his campaign since securing the nomination. Only once he has earned the trust of most Americans as president would he be rewarded with a filibuster-proof Senate. Not until he is reelected, do I believe the mask would come off, revealing the far-left socialist agenda he waited patiently to pursue.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
No, the 2012-2016 is a different story.
But I’m not sure Obama could govern as a moderate for four year.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’m not voting for a ticket with a liberal Democrat on it.
Such a gimmick wouldn’t do much anyway. Lieberman is more closely linked to Bush than McCain is.
All Lieberman would do is link McCain’s campaign with Bush’s 3rd term.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I would be very surprised if Obama won in 2012. He will either do nothing in his first 4 years or he will actually follow through on his promises and raise taxes, over-regulate business and kill the economy. I don’t see anyway that if he enacts his policies that we aren’t in a recession towards the end of his term in office. Also, I think the fact that Obama will control Congress will really hurt him because he either will look incompetent because he can’t lead his party to pass his agenda, or he will look extremely liberal since he, Pelosi and Reid are extremely liberal and will push and pass the Moveon agenda.
I know all of the history of a sitting president losing, but if by far the best analogy for this election is 1976 and Carter got killed in his second term. Clinton still couldn’t win 50% in 1996 and that was against Bob Dole when the GOP controlled Congress.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I would just like to thank Huckabee in Iowa for taking out Romney so we could have Lieberman as VP. Great move.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’m sick to my stomach after seeing just the headline to this post… Lieberman? Goodness, we don’t have a prayer in the fall.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“All Lieberman would do is link McCain’s campaign with Bush’s 3rd term.”
Couldn’t be less true. Joe Lieberman ran against Bush twice. He disagrees with the President on almost every issue. What’s Obama going to do? Attack Lieberman for supporting the surge?
August 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
> “I would just like to thank Huckabee in Iowa for taking out Romney so we could have Lieberman as VP.”
What’s the world’s record for Endurance Whining? The Rombots are now at five months and counting.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sounds like a smoke screen. Total BS to keep people guessing.
-
August 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Lieberman is tied to Bush on the war. That’s why liberals hate Lieberman. It’s also why Lieberman is viewed as Bush’s Democrat by the public.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“But other than that, I agree that the kind of damage Obama can do is limited. The judges up for replacement within the next four years are liberal, and most policy can be reversed.”
We need those liberals replaced if we’re ever going have a conservative. Replacing an 85 year old liberal justice with a 50 yr old one is definitely very damaging. And as far as most policy being reversible, how much of the new deal or great society has ever been reversed. Once nationalized health care is implemented, people will rely on it and it will be part of our infrastructure. It will be harder to reverse nationalized health care than Social Security. Also if lives are lost due to irresponsible action in Iraq, those lives cannot be regained. And it will be very hard to rebuild Iraq, make that area stable and to rebuild our image.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Why the outrage? McCain gave us the Gang of 14, CFR and Amnesty, and people are shocked he wants to take a Dem for his VP?
A Lieberman pick is actually quite consistent with who he is. I feared this months ago; that’s why I didn’t vote for him.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#52 Voters in Iowa made there choice, last time I checked this was still a free country and you could vote for whomever you saw fit. So if you want to blame anybody, blame the people of Iowa.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It seems like some pro-choice Republicans are so excited at the idea of having a pro-choicer as VP, that they don’t care if that canidate happens to be more liberal than Huckabee on the economy.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
We’ll just see if this comes to pass. I honestly don’t see it. We’re all chattering about the latest media talking head prognostications – and no one has any idea who McCain is actually going to choose.
Frankly I’m just ready for McCain to choose his guy so we can go forward – unmask Obama as best we can – and then win or lose and get back on the offensive. Three years of playing defense against these Democrats has been enough.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
McCain is interesting inasmuch as he truly is a maverick, a lone wolf, a politician without a base. He’s like an anti-hero who always seems to have a different love interest in each sequel, and we all know better than to ask what happened to the last one.
Up until the late ’90s, McCain was basically a conservative Republican.
In 2000, his Lois Lane was basically the Dole ‘88/Perot ‘92 crowd — good government Republicans concerned with the deficit, long term outlays such as Social Security, and who had no love for far-right ideologues or the Religious Right.
In 2007-early 2008, his base was the Scoop Jackson/JFK Democrats, basically pro-America non-Republicans that were largely Catholic, older, had served in the military, and who wanted to win the war. These voters were the reason that he won the GOP nomination.
In mid 2008, it looked like McCain’s base would become white women angry about Hillary’s demise.
Now, if McCain wins the election it will largely be on the backs of middle-aged, middle-class moderates in states like Michigan and Ohio for whom Barack Obama is a bridge too far. They think Obama is clueless on the economy and will probably raise their taxes and will preside over several foreign policy screwups. They just want a competent managerial ticket, not necessarily a Republican or conservative one. Hence McCain going with the quasi-independent, experienced ticket with little concern for ideology.
That’s McCain: a guy who plays by his own rules. That’s who he’s always been and I doubt it will ever change.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Lieberman denies McCain VP rumors
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/04/2008 12:39:11 PM EDT
STAMFORD – Despite persistent rumors, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut’s self-proclaimed “independent Democrat,” said he will not be presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate.
On Friday, ABC News reported the McCain campaign was “seriously considering” Lieberman as the “transformative pick” the campaign is seeking to further sharpen its message McCain is the race’s true “agent of change.”
Presumptive Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has used a slogan of “change you can believe in” throughout his campaign.
Asked during a visit to Stamford this morning if he would decline a request from McCain to run as his vice-president, Lieberman said: “It’s such a hypothetical I can’t answer it.”
“It’s not going to happen,” Lieberman said.
But Lieberman continued to hold out the possibility that he will speak at the Republican nominating convention early next month.
“They have not formally asked me,” Lieberman said. “We’ve had a discussion to talk about the possibilities.”
-
August 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#64:
Dude, that Lieberman denial is almost a week old. That’s an eternity in politics.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
#60 Oh, I do blame the voters of Iowa. And I am one.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
McCain-Leiberman = fist choice for VP in 2004-fist choice for VP in 2000
August 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
*67 except they were the first choices of the democratic candidates.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Rombots get over it.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I’d love a McCain-Lieberman ticket.
Seems like the only people that McCain-Lieberman excites are My People: Aron, Metro, etc.
What’s with these idiots saying that they’d want to lose in 2008 to win in 2012, if Lieberman is on the ticket? — Um, hello? Same outcome, whether we win or lose! Morons.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I’m guessing that the support for Lieberman for VP coming out of the McCain camp is more to add street-cred to McCain’s bi-partisan approach to the campaign and less out of an actual possibility of picking the guy for VP. It shows that McCain is serious about trying to bridge the gap – to rise above party bickering – and attract moderates and Indy voters to his side. Same thing Kerry tried in ‘04 with McCain, and Obama’s camp tried (quite unsuccessfully) by throwing out Hagel’s name early in the VP silly season. In the end I strongly doubt McCain picks Lieberman. Other than adding to McCain’s already strong numbers on Nat Security, Lieberman adds absolutely nothing else to the ticket. I think the odds are great that Lieberman is asked to serve on McCain’s cabinet, and I hope he gets a prime speaking slot at the GOP convention, but I’d bet good money that he is never asked to serve on a ticket with McCain.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Secretary of Defense Joe Lieberman sounds good.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“Rombots get over it.”
Its not about Romney, its about McCain telling the entire base to go to hell. Its about having a VP who is more in line with your opponent than your nominee. Its about putting a solid liberal a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Its about having the entire right shut out of the White House for four years, despite the President being a Republican. Its about depriving the party of the ability to run on McCain’s coattails in four years. Its about setting up another feeding frenzy primary. Its about having no way to keep McCain in check, paving the way for amnesty, environmentalism, or whatever other policies McCain wants to push.
But like I said, we still might be able to force someone else on the ticket at the Convention. Romney and Huckabee control more about six hundred delegates, and McCain’s supporters aren’t exactly liberals. I doubt most of them will be happy having a Democrat on the ticket.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
What would make someone think that McCain, who is adamantly against setting deadlines in Iraq for fear of letting the enemy know our end game, would then opt for announcing a one term pledge at the convention? Any advisor who suggests that moronic idea to McCain should be shot on site, then fired.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Its not about Romney, its about McCain telling the entire base to go to hell. Its about having a VP who is more in line with your opponent than your nominee. Its about putting a solid liberal a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
*Ahem* — so you want to lose in 2008 to win in 2012.
So you’d rather have four years of Obama than four years of McCain-Lieberman?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“What’s with these idiots saying that they’d want to lose in 2008 to win in 2012, if Lieberman is on the ticket? — Um, hello? Same outcome, whether we win or lose! Morons.”
Exactly right – if Lieberman is on the ticket, and we win in 2008, it won’t be much different than losing.
–
As for what benefit does it serve to give up 2008? It sends the message that we won’t gamble the future to have the present – that we won’t allow the GOP to be dragged hopelessly to the left on key issues.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“So you’d rather have four years of Obama than four years of McCain-Lieberman?”
Yes.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
72. . .sounds good to me.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
72. . . or Homeland Security.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Leiberman is correct on taxes,Foreign policy, ethics, and reform of government. That is 500 percent better than obama..
August 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Regarding the update: That is something I’ve thought about a bit in the past few days.
I’ve generally scoffed at the idea of McCain as a one-term prez, and pointed out that only two presidents ever have voluntarily not sought a second term (Polk and Buchanan) and both had taken one-term pledges.
But I have the impression that McCain sees himself as an historic figure (much as Obama does), and I can see him going for both the first bipartisan ticket since Lincoln-Johnson, and the first pledged one-term since Buchanan.
I think it might appeal to him.
That said, I’m not convinced — it just sounds like something that McCain might consider. Unlike Obama, he really is a different kind of politician.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Act, you are not being rational. It takes away from your intelligence.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I’d be fine with SecDef or DHS for Lieberman. He’s a fine man, and in fact, if I lived in CT, I would have happily voted for him. You don’t get much better than Lieberman in CT. But we’re not talking about CT here. This is a national election. I’m not nearly as socially conservative as the Rombots – but I agree with them that a Lieberman pick would just be giving up too much. Lieberman is no economic conservative either. The war is very important but it’s not the only thing that’s important. I’d be very disappointed with a Lieberman pick.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Why the hell are hey kowtowing to bigots in the ‘evangalical’ sector? These guys over there are BIGOTS. I refuse to vote for anyone these narrow minded bigots endorse. Period. I will be happy to suffer through 4 years of obamanation, to rid the party of these idoits.
FYI – Edwards and Clinton? both evangalicals. Enough stad about THAT one.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Exactly right – if Lieberman is on the ticket, and we win in 2008, it won’t be much different than losing. As for what benefit does it serve to give up 2008? It sends the message that we won’t gamble the future to have the present – that we won’t allow the GOP to be dragged hopelessly to the left on key issues.
!? It won’t be much different than losing? With McCain as president?
You’re nuts.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The war is very important but it’s not the only thing that’s important
It’s not just “the war”. It’s foreign policy in general. Lieberman is spot-on.
Lieberman’s more socially conservative than most NE Dems. He led the charge on video game violence, for instance. He’s a big culture guy.
Lieberman was open-minded about Social Security personal accounts.
Lieberman and McCain agree on issues like immigration and global warming.
That’s half of the issues, really.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
A Lieberman VP shows McCain is willing to throw Conservatism out to win an election and claim ground on “bipartisanship”
I don’t want a Republican like that heading the GOP.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“Lieberman’s more socially conservative than most NE Dems. He led the charge on video game violence, for instance. He’s a big culture guy.”
He is pro-choice, and has a 0% rating from the christian coalition.
—
“Lieberman and McCain agree on issues like immigration and global warming.”
….even less reason to support him. Those are half the issues why I want a Conservative veep – to act as a balance to McCain, to work to keep him in check.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
81. . . A one-term pledge sounds fantastic on paper, but it means he becomes a lame duck pres (with a VP distrusted by both sides) as of January 21, 2009. The next four years would accomplish nothing. Buchanan served one term because as the most ineffectual president we’ve ever had he led the nation directly into Civil War instead of trying to prevent it. Polk, who didn’t want the job in the first place, offered a one term pledge in order to placate a fractured Democratic party into uniting for just four years until they get their act together. Polk won by a slim margin against Henry Clay (my favorite president who never was) only when a minor anti-slavery third party tilted the election his way.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I suspect Chrystina is just a troll. Ignore it.
I don’t have a lot of patience with evangelicals, but they are not all (or mostly) bigots.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
You’d rather have Obama as president than a Republican-led bipartisan presidency with no successor?
You’re a — pardon the expression — wingnut.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
He is pro-choice, and has a 0% rating from the christian coalition.
Oh dear, I wasn’t aware that the vice-president appointed justices to the Supreme Court.
And if McCain dies and Lieberman is VP, then he’ll appoint bad justices. Well, so will Obama.
Wouldn’t you rather go with McCain..!?
….even less reason to support him. Those are half the issues why I want a Conservative veep – to act as a balance to McCain, to work to keep him in check.
Keep dreaming if you think that McCain will be “kept in check” by his VP.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Buchanan was a bust, no doubt, but he served one term because he had taken a pledge. I agree he would have been a one-term prez regardless of any pledge. Polk, on the other hand, achieved his goal of taking the southwest from Mexico.
But that’s irrelevant. I didn’t say I thought it was (or wasn’t) a good idea. Merely that the history-making aspects of it might appeal to McCain.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
There are worse things than the status quo – McCain’s “solutions” to problems like immigration are a few of those things.
I want actual conservative policy – not the half-amnesty, environmentalist, open-to-business-regulation, don’t-care-about-social-issues Presidency that a McCain/Lieberman ticket would bring.
With Obama, we can just mobalize party-wide opposition to his policies. With McCain, at best, we get a sharp split in the party, and at worse, we get these “bipartisan”, left-leaning proposals that he is so fond of.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
act said, “McCain, to work to keep him in check.”
Are you serious, do you actually believe the VP will keep the President in check. McCain will be in charge, no doubt about that.
There is no way I am voting for a socialist, that will (with majorities in both houses), move the country to the left.
act fails to see the ultimate threat from Obama. If he is elected, especially with 60+ Senators, and a 60+ seat majority in the house, he will move this country to the left, just like Reagan moved this country to ther right.
This is the real threat, not a symbolic VP, only chosen to capture democratic voters.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
> “Keep dreaming if you think that McCain will be “kept in check” by his VP.”
He will be if it’s Romney, because Mitt is so wonderful that McCain will have to give in to the overwhelming power of Mitt’s intellect and personality (not to mention his hair).
August 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
act, do you really think we are going to “mobilize” conservatives after the defeat we took in 2006, and the potential defeat we may take in 2008.
It is not going to be 1994, it will get worse for us. If Obama wins and brings dozens of house and senate seats with him, we could be looking at 30 years for Republicans to retake the house.
So act, who would you vote for this year if Leiberman is the nominee?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“act fails to see the ultimate threat from Obama. If he is elected, especially with 60+ Senators, and a 60+ seat majority in the house, he will move this country to the left, just like Reagan moved this country to ther right. ”
I don’t see the DNC getting a 60 seat majority.
—
Obama would move the country to the left? Maybe, maybe not. Bush certainly didn’t move the country to the right.
And you don’t think that a center-left Republican ticket would move the party to the left? There is exactly one thing worse than liberal policies – the weakening or destruction of the oppositon to those policies.
A McCain/Lieberman ticket governs from the center to center-left on key issues – the environment, business, social issues, immigration. That kind of ticket moves the GOP away from Conservatism. A direction I WILL NOT SUPPORT.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
There are worse things than the status quo – McCain’s “solutions” to problems like immigration are a few of those things.
…But McCain’s solution is the same as Bush’s is the same as Obama’s.
No matter what, you get “amnesty”.
I want actual conservative policy – not the half-amnesty, environmentalist, open-to-business-regulation, don’t-care-about-social-issues Presidency that a McCain/Lieberman ticket would bring.
Then don’t vote for McCain.
With Obama, we can just mobalize party-wide opposition to his policies. With McCain, at best, we get a sharp split in the party, and at worse, we get these “bipartisan”, left-leaning proposals that he is so fond of.
Ah, yes, the party just fell right in line with Bush’s immigration proposal, didn’t it?
Oh boy, party-wide opposition. All forty-five of our seats, minus a few whiny moderates.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Alex, Lieberman isn’t much different than Mike Huckabee if you take the social issues off the table. Plenty of people (myself included) would have had a cow if Huck was on the ticket. I think a lot of people like Lieberman because he has been out on the front lines telling the Democrats to go to hell in a polite way. I can respect that – but his ACU ratings are not good. Lieberman might well give us another Ginsberg or at least another Souter. While I never was a big culture warrior guy – we don’t win elections just to cave to the Democrats on the Second Amendment, Affirmative Action, Death Penalty and various miscellaneous law and order issues like forced bussing as one example.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again. Even though I’d reluctantly support McCain/Lieberman (what’s the alternative?), I suspect the ticket is a loser. You put Lieberman on the ticket and regular salt-of-the-earth people in VA and OH stay home. That’s game. And I don’t buy the argument that Lieberman flips PA. Those latte sippers in the Philly burbs don’t like the war – and they are going to vote for Obama. It is what it is.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I’m really starting to like the idea of a McCain/Lieberman or McCain/Powell “one term and we’re done” ticket.
The heavily Democratic Congress is not going to let any movement conservative legislation become law. We’re not going to see any new tax cuts in the next four years, regardless of what anyone is promising. We also won’t see the fifth conservative SCOTUS Justice placed on the Court. A President McCain might be able to get most of the Bush tax cuts made permanent, and he might be able to get Consuelo Callahan on the Court, but we’re not going to see the end of the income tax or Justice Janice Rogers Brown this cycle. If we have President Obama, though, we will see higher taxes and more liberal judges than Bill Clinton ever gave us.
As such, McCain will pretty much be a lame duck with or without the pledge, but he will be a necessary check on the Democratic Congress. So why not take the pledge, pick a veep who is clearly not an heir apparent, and run to make the big decisions that both parties know need to be made but that nobody wants to make. McCain/Lieberman can run on three big goals. First, win the war. Leave Iraq in four years as a stable society that’s our ally and not our enemy. Secondly, restructure the entitlements so that they don’t blow up in 20 years and destroy the economy, which they’re going to do unless someone makes the right calls. Third, restore the fundamentals of the American economy so that we have a growth economy that produces jobs, with real increases in real wages (I doubt McCain really knows how to do this, but it sounds good). All of this goes to McCain’s and Lieberman’s strengths as fiscally prudent budget hawks and foreign policy tough guys who are in politics to make the hard choices and not to make names for themselves. They can serve for one term and then let Sarah Palin and Mark Warner fight about judges and tax rates such in 2012.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Obama would move the country to the left? Maybe, maybe not. Bush certainly didn’t move the country to the right.
Durrrrr. He didn’t try to.
He certainly moved the country toward neoconservatism, though.
And you don’t think that a center-left Republican ticket would move the party to the left? There is exactly one thing worse than liberal policies – the weakening or destruction of the oppositon to those policies.
With Lieberman on it, it wouldn’t be a fully Republican ticket. No, it would not move the party to the left.
A McCain/Lieberman ticket governs from the center to center-left on key issues – the environment, business, social issues, immigration. That kind of ticket moves the GOP away from Conservatism. A direction I WILL NOT SUPPORT.
McCain-anyone would do that, because McCain is like that.
Wait, social issues? How does McCain move the party to the left on social issues? He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, fought for the anti-gay marriage amendment in Arizona, made good with that anti-American hack Falwell and his other cronies, and all of that nonsense.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Alex, Lieberman isn’t much different than Mike Huckabee if you take the social issues off the table. Plenty of people (myself included) would have had a cow if Huck was on the ticket.
Lieberman is way further to the right on foreign policy than Huckabee.
Also, Huckabee would be McCain’s successor. Lieberman would not run.
I think a lot of people like Lieberman because he has been out on the front lines telling the Democrats to go to hell in a polite way. I can respect that – but his ACU ratings are not good. Lieberman might well give us another Ginsberg or at least another Souter. While I never was a big culture warrior guy – we don’t win elections just to cave to the Democrats on the Second Amendment, Affirmative Action, Death Penalty and various miscellaneous law and order issues like forced bussing as one example.
That’s not why I like Lieberman. I like him because he’s good on foreign policy.
As for ‘other Souters’, let me let you in on a little secret: the VP ain’t the one choosin’ the justices.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again. Even though I’d reluctantly support McCain/Lieberman (what’s the alternative?), I suspect the ticket is a loser. You put Lieberman on the ticket and regular salt-of-the-earth people in VA and OH stay home. That’s game. And I don’t buy the argument that Lieberman flips PA. Those latte sippers in the Philly burbs don’t like the war – and they are going to vote for Obama. It is what it is.
Oh, I never said that it’s a winner. I’m just saying that I’d support it.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You people don’t think having a strong Conservative right there would have some effect on McCain? Its going to have at least some positive effect – and its certainly better than the liberal head nodder that McCain would get from Lieberman.
—
“It is not going to be 1994, it will get worse for us. If Obama wins and brings dozens of house and senate seats with him, we could be looking at 30 years for Republicans to retake the house.”
As shown by several polls, in this election, which is far more about the candidate than about the ideology, senators are going to win or lose on their own merit. And the Democrats aren’t going to pick up “dozens” of Senate seats, IF they can get to sixty, it will be by the very skin of their teeth.
—
“So act, who would you vote for this year if Leiberman is the nominee?”
no one. I won’t be a participant in a slide to the left for the GOP. I’ll wait four years and support a strong conservative then.
There is going to be a Democrat at some point in the next twenty years – it might as well be now, when the alternative is only mildly better rather than in four or eight years, when its a Strong conservative getting defeated.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
What we really need as far as the Supreme Court is a wonderful guy like Reagan, who gave us O’Connor and Kennedy.
We remember him for Scalia, but he also gave us O’Connor.
We remember Bush I for Souter, but he also gave us Thomas.
Think, people.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
McCain’s 72. And he looks every bit of it. The VP very well could be the big P. And that’s no secret at all.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You people don’t think having a strong Conservative right there would have some effect on McCain? Its going to have at least some positive effect – and its certainly better than the liberal head nodder that McCain would get from Lieberman.
No, I don’t think so.
Would you vote for McCain-Giuliani? McCain-Powell?
There is going to be a Democrat at some point in the next twenty years – it might as well be now, when the alternative is only mildly better rather than in four or eight years, when its a Strong conservative getting defeated.
Ah, yes, if there was ever a time when a strong conservative was being clamored for by the populace, it’s now!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
McCain’s 72. And he looks every bit of it. The VP very well could be the big P. And that’s no secret at all.
Which is why we need…
…Rudy!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
O’Connor and Kennedy are better then some of the others. If Carter picked those SCOTUS nominees then George W. Bush probably would not have won that 5-4 court decision.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
O’Connor and Kennedy are better then some of the others. If Carter picked those SCOTUS nominees then George W. Bush probably would not have won that 5-4 court decision.
No, but he still would have won.
Stop buying into liberal propaganda that Bush only won the election because the SCOTUS members were Republicans.
Why whine about Lieberman when we’re likely to have McCain the whole time, and the alternative is Obama, anyway? I trust Lieberman more than Obama!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
#104, “no one. I won’t be a participant in a slide to the left for the GOP. I’ll wait four years and support a strong conservative then.”
You would not vote? How is that showing respect to our troops that have died for our freedom? You have a civic duty to vote.
GOP Senators have improved in the polls this past month, as McCain has improved. Many need McCain to win this year, without him, they have little chance.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Lieberman was on the Gang of 14, and he’d know he was serving in a bipartisan administration, and he’d know that he ‘owed’ McCain. He’s a respectful man. Obama, on the other hand…
August 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
You have a civic duty to vote.
I totally disagree with this.
The uninformed, in particular, should not be voting. It’s your civic duty to not vote, in some circumstances.
If McCain picks an intolerable VP, I plan on writing in Rudy.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“With Lieberman on it, it wouldn’t be a fully Republican ticket. No, it would not move the party to the left.”
I thought the VP didn’t have an effect? Ultimately, McCain is the leader of the party, he sets the agenda, he is the top man, and with Lieberman as the right-hand man, the policies coming out of the administration aren’t going to be conservative…
—
“Wait, social issues? How does McCain move the party to the left on social issues? He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, fought for the anti-gay marriage amendment in Arizona, made good with that anti-American hack Falwell and his other cronies, and all of that nonsense.”
McCain doesn’t consider social issues all that important – I doubt if he has strong feelings either way, he just supports the Republican line because it makes his life a little easier. The problem comes in the form of Social issues being pushed to the bottom of the pile.
—
“As for ‘other Souters’, let me let you in on a little secret: the VP ain’t the one choosin’ the justices.”
Of course not, but you don’t think McCain is going to look for advice, and talk with others? He has already said he will do that on the economy, if he will do it there, why do we assume he wouldn’t do it on other issues?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Wait, ACT-Blog, you can’t vote, anyway, you’re 16!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Alex,
Because I don’t buy the idea that Lieberman will do anything other than tank the ticket. And even if he doesn’t it’s just too risky. Fact is – the court lined up along ideological lines. The liberals wanted to keep the count going. The Supreme Court of FL almost “found” the votes they needed to give the thing to Gore before the high court stepped in. All it would have taken is one Justice voting the other way. Bush had the votes all right – but if not for the court, the Dems would have taken the election anyway.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I thought the VP didn’t have an effect? Ultimately, McCain is the leader of the party, he sets the agenda, he is the top man, and with Lieberman as the right-hand man, the policies coming out of the administration aren’t going to be conservative…
You contradicted yourself. Does McCain set the agenda or does Lieberman?
McCain doesn’t consider social issues all that important – I doubt if he has strong feelings either way, he just supports the Republican line because it makes his life a little easier. The problem comes in the form of Social issues being pushed to the bottom of the pile.
Ah, so McCain’s just doing it for political convenience, but Romney’s a true stalwart.
Of course not, but you don’t think McCain is going to look for advice, and talk with others? He has already said he will do that on the economy, if he will do it there, why do we assume he wouldn’t do it on other issues?
Well, you don’t trust Rudy, either: would you support McCain-Giuliani? McCain-Powell?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Because I don’t buy the idea that Lieberman will do anything other than tank the ticket. And even if he doesn’t it’s just too risky. Fact is – the court lined up along ideological lines. The liberals wanted to keep the count going. The Supreme Court of FL almost “found” the votes they needed to give the thing to Gore before the high court stepped in. All it would have taken is one Justice voting the other way. Bush had the votes all right – but if not for the court, the Dems would have taken the election anyway.
By a 7-2 margin, the justices found that the recount method was crap. They just were told, 5-4, to stop all recounts.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Would you guys please get off this morbid talk of McCain dying in his first term!
That will not happen. Since Obama is a smoker, combined with the life expectancy of African Americans, Obama has a better chance of “passing away” in office than McCain.
McCain has a heathy hearty and mind and will probably live until at least 90. This is the same talk that Democrats pulled on Reagan. It is a pile of bull-s___.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
But if it was 4-5 the counts would have continued. Gore would have been able to press on with the help of the locals in FL. There’s no guarantee he couldn’t have prevailed.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
That will not happen. Since Obama is a smoker, combined with the life expectancy of African Americans, Obama has a better chance of “passing away” in office than McCain.
wtf?
Obama’s still only 47.
McCain has a heathy hearty and mind and will probably live until at least 90. This is the same talk that Democrats pulled on Reagan. It is a pile of bull-s___.
He went through a lot as a POW and he did suffer with cancer for a bit.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he died in the next decade.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
You don’t have a civic duty to vote, you have a civic duty to be an informed citizen, and a moral duty to follow your beliefs.
Not voting because you don’t care and are uninformed is one thing, and its wrong and a poor repayment to men who have shed blood. Not voting because there isn’t a candidate you can support is just as much of an informed decision as voting is, and is perfectly acceptable.
Its far better for someone to stay home because they don’t have any good options, than for someone to walk in and vote, while holding their nose, because they think they “have to vote”.
…and I didn’t say I wouldn’t support Senate and House candidates, or local candidates, leaving part of your ballot blank doesn’t mean you can’t fill in the other parts.
I have a lot more respect for someone who makes an informed decision not to vote than for someone who votes either against their conscience, or who makes a random pick.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Kristofer,
I agree with you. McCain probably won’t die. Maybe it’s a 1 in 4 chance. I don’t like the idea of getting a Democrat president whose only real saving grace is sanity on military matters as president – after Republicans fought the worst environment possible and prevailed fair and square.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#121, smokers have a shorter life expectancy. African Americans have a shorter life expectancy. That is fact.
“Among other medical issues outlined in the reports, McCain is praised for his cardiovascular fitness, described as “considerably younger physiologically” by a doctor after his performance on a heart stress test this year.”
August 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Reagan was half a decade younger than McCain, and didn’t have the health issues that McCain has had.
As for Obama – yeah, he is only 47, and a lot of life expectency is the situation you are in. Blacks are more likely to be poor, uneducated, and involved in crime than whites – I’m not racist, that is just the fact – and those people are groups who have a lower life expectency all around.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
““Among other medical issues outlined in the reports, McCain is praised for his cardiovascular fitness, described as “considerably younger physiologically” by a doctor after his performance on a heart stress test this year.””
Fine, so he won’t die of a heart attack. That wasn’t my main concern anyway.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Anyway, I’ll take Lieberman over Romney. The #1 job for the President is to keep American safe. Obama will not do that, Liberman would.
That is enough for me.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Alex, You don’t really have to talk about people not supporting McCain – Lieberman, since you have even more conservative tickets you will not vote for.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he died in the next decade.
I wouldn’t be surprised either, but there’s also good reason to believe McCain will still be with us a quarter-century from now.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Kristofer,
But then again with Lieberman you’re a getting a Democrat – complete with Democrat economic policy when the country is already eking by with 1 to 2 percent growth as it is now.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
“Reagan was half a decade younger than McCain,”
False. McCain will be 72 upon taking office, Reagan was two weeks short of his 70th birthday.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
#130, Leiberman is a Jack Kennedy Democrat. He is for free trade, lower taxes, and balanced budgets. http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Joseph_Lieberman_Tax_Reform.htm
August 10th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“Seems like the only people that McCain-Lieberman excites are My People: Aron, Metro, etc.”
Which I don’t get. Lieberman is one of most ( if not the most) fiscally liberal canidates McCain could go with. My theory is, that your desire to tick off pro-life voters outweighs your desire for economic conservatism.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I also think Romney learned his lesson in that he wouldn’t try to dance to left on military matters – not after McCain wiped the floor with him in FL. I concede absolutely that Lieberman is better than Romney on the war and on military matters generally. That’s a big deal – but it’s not the whole ball game.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
If McCain/Lieberman are elected to the Presidency, and serve one term that includes a tough, principled foreign policy and a moderate domestic policy, I’d be fine with that.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
act, if Leiberman is VP and Mitt is given a senior (very senior) position in government, Mitt will be the leading candidate in 4 or 8 years.
#129 Aron, thanks for posting that, I was getting worried that Alex was reading too much KOS.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I think before he got on the national stage Lieberman was probably about where I was economically. However, even then I think he was way more liberal than the likes of Metro and Aron.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Act: Do you ever check to see if something you post is true, or do you just randomly make things up as you go along?
I’m still waiting, by the way, for you to offer some support for your statement the other night that “the overwealming majority of the GOP is conservative, socially, economically, and militarilly.”
August 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
McCain’s grandfather died at 61, his father died at 70.
You don’t really want to use McCain’s family to argue longevity.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Kristofer,
If you read that link – it doesn’t look too conservative to me. It’s not wild-eyed – but hardly reassuring. Tax the rich, repeal the Bush tax cuts, 15 percent rating from NTU. Lieberman would be the most liberal VP nominee on the Republican side in generations.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Alex, You don’t really have to talk about people not supporting McCain – Lieberman, since you have even more conservative tickets you will not vote for.
Do you people have no capacity to understand that Lieberman, unlike Huckabee or Romney, would not run in 2012?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
#139 act, medical technology has improved a little but in the last 50 years, did you know?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
ACT,
You’re 16, right? I’ve heard you say numerous time “I’ll vote for X” or “I won’t vote for Y”. Are you old enough to vote? I’m just curious.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Which I don’t get. Lieberman is one of most ( if not the most) fiscally liberal canidates McCain could go with. My theory is, that your desire to tick off pro-life voters outweighs your desire for economic conservatism.
No. We’re just more pragmatic than you are. And at the end of the day, we are single-issue voters for the only issue that truly matters at the end of the day: the war against jihadism.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Alex,
You are so arrogant. Someday you’ll realize that you aren’t always right and that you will get further in life by not being such an ass.
Did you even read my reasoning for thinking it would be better for the future of conservatism if McCain loses?
If McCain picks Lieberman then McCain obviously won’t be able to reform the GOP into a popular and conservative party in the next 4 years. Instead the GOP will be moved towards moderation and likely will be no more popular than they are now since McCain will still disagree with and attack conservatism.
My rationale is that the odds are very, very high that we will lose either in 2008 or in 2012. If that is true then it certainly would be better long-term to lose in 2008 when we have a moderate nominee who likely won’t be able to change anything in Washington because the Dems will control both Houses of Congress. In 2012 we will be able to run a more conservative nominee and after 4 years of full-throttle liberalism we will be in a much better position to recapture Congress by making gains in 2010 and in 2012.
The way I see it the only two things that could make that not such a good idea are Obama totally blowing a major incident with Iran or if you believe that Obama is likely to win in 2012. I am not sure about the first one and I very much doubt the second.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
#140, Leiberman is not as liberal as Bush 1 or Ford. I am certainly to the right of Leiberman (fiscally), but he is no fiscal liberal.
Leiberman on taxes;
- Cut capital gains tax; it has helped economy
- Exciting tax credits for health, elder care, & retirement
- New tax cuts to 95% of taxpayers
- Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty
- Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition
August 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
141, Yes I understand that. But if you don’t think the difference between McCain and Obama is large enough to be worth the possibility of Romney and Huckabee, than why should it be large enough to justify McCain-Lieberman.
FWIW, I probably would vote for McCain-Lieberman.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
If McCain picks Lieberman then McCain obviously won’t be able to reform the GOP into a popular and conservative party in the next 4 years. Instead the GOP will be moved towards moderation and likely will be no more popular than they are now since McCain will still disagree with and attack conservatism.
Why on Earth would you even imagine, in the first place, that McCain would want to move the GOP to the right? What in his history makes you think he’d do such a thing?
Anyway — believe me, I’m familiar with the arguments for waiting. I considered them fully. At one point I said that I wouldn’t vote for McCain.
But with Iran on the horizon, no way will I not vote for him.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
141, Yes I understand that. But if you don’t think the difference between McCain and Obama is large enough to be worth the possibility of Romney and Huckabee
Undecided.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Well, if McCain picks someone else to put in the administration, someone who is very clearly the heir apparent, AND he picks Conservatives as his advisors, then I might be able to accept Lieberman – but not otherwise.
—
“I’m still waiting, by the way, for you to offer some support for your statement the other night that “the overwealming majority of the GOP is conservative, socially, economically, and militarilly.””
Right, ok. You want evidence?
I’m not going to dig through and pull up 100 different polls – the people who self-described Republicans support, and the ideological make-up of the elected officials in the party should give you and idea.
Why don’t you show me some evidence that the party is not a conservative one?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Lieberman would be a great pick for a potential invasion of Iran. I think that McCain needs to get America on a war footing with potential threats such as Iran, Syria, Russia, N. Korea and China looming. A McCain/Lieberman ticket could promise a democratized post-regime change Iran at the end of their first term.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
135 Chip. . . What makes you think a stronger Dem-led Congress will be willing to work together on a tough principled foreign policy and moderate domestic policy with a GOP pres and a traitor VP who already told them before he took office he won’t be in office next time around.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I’ve heard this echoed by many Republicans in recent years. On the one had I agree. The war against jihadism is probably the most important issue. But it seems to me that when Republicans make it the ONLY issue that matters – they lose. After 9/11 faded from memory the 2004 election was much closer than it probably should have been. A lot of it had to do with economic issues – rising prices, problems in industrial states with companies going overseas that steadily worsened. By 2006 it was fiscal irresponsibility, corruption, perceived incompetence.
Yes – absolutely GWOT is the real deal. But Republicans can’t take their eyes off the ball on economic issues either. And they should stay close to the center on social issues. Call out the radicals liberals when necessary – and reign in the radical right when they start making noise about trivialities like Schiavo.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Also, let me be clear I would never vote for Obama or work for him to get elected. No matter who McCain picks for VP I will vote for him.
I just think that if McCain wins, in 2012 we will be disappointed with what he accomplished battling a liberal Congress and we will get beat handily in 2012 because McCain will only make conservatism seem more extreme and less popular. If you believed that McCain wasn’t going to be able to win many battles with Congress (an entirely fair assumption) and that we will lose in 2012 (also a likely assumption) would you still feel that it is better for the long-term to win now with a mediocre candidate instead of winning later with a great one?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
150 — Why do we need an heir apparent..?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Why on Earth would you even imagine, in the first place, that McCain would want to move the GOP to the right?”
He wouldn’t – he would move it to the left.
—
“You’re 16, right? I’ve heard you say numerous time “I’ll vote for X” or “I won’t vote for Y”. Are you old enough to vote? I’m just curious.”
No, I am sixteen, which is why I always try to say “support” rather than “vote” – sometimes I slip.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
McCain’s grandfather died at 61, his father died at 70.
Both of whom he’s already outlived. And his mother is a rather feisty 96-year-old.
This past week, an Atlanta actuarial firm, which specializes in morbidity and mortality calculations, said that McCain has 8.4 “healthy” years left.
“In this analysis, ‘healthy’ means the person does not require the care provided by an assisted living facility and is free of Alzheimer’s disease,” said firm chairman John Bragg.
Barack Obama, who just turned 47, can expect 21.9 years of good health — a forecast shortened by his history of cigarette smoking.
“Either candidate can be expected to serve two full terms, without age or health being an issue,” said Bragg.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“150 — Why do we need an heir apparent..?”
To avoid a divisive primary season that has a built-in advantage for moderate candidates.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Not everyone agrees that a divisive primary season is a bad thing. Hell – if Obama wins this year a divisive primary for the GOP might be a GOOD thing in 2012. It will generate enthusiasm and voter registration.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Act #150:
As I expected, you made an unsupported statement, backing it up with … nothing.
“Why don’t you show me some evidence that the party is not a conservative one?”
a) Because I’m not the one who made the phony statement.
b) I never said it was not a conservative party (shock: Act makes things up again).
Or here’s another challenge: Present evidence to support your statement.
You need to grow up, kid.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
VP’s.
I think everyone needs to understand that no matter who McCain selects, the VP nominee will have to adopt McCain’s positions on 99% of issues. Leiberman moved to the left for Gore, Bush 1 (abortion and taxes) moved to the right for Reagan, Cheney moved to the right (gay rights) for Bush 2, this is what is going to happen for McCain.
act, if McCain does select Romney, Romney will have to support and adopt McCain’s positions. You can already see McCain surrogates doing this (Jindal, Romney, Leiberman, etc…)
So no matter who McCain selects, they will be another “McCain” on policy.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Realistically I don’t think McCain will be able to do much to prevent anything in Iran. Even though he might want to, there is no way that we will be able to put troops on the ground in Iran for 15 to 20 years.
Since there is no way we invade Iran, the only real action we could take other than sanctions (which both candidates favor) is to strategically bomb key sites within the country. I may be wrong in thinking this, but I am pretty sure that Obama will be willing to bomb Iran, especially because he will be anxious to show that he is a “strong” leader.
The only real difference would be then that McCain would engage in policies that would be more targeted to lead to an revolution within Iran, while Obama could possible engage in policies that would delay the overthrow of the current government in Iran.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The other day I went downtown to run a few errands. I went into the local coffee shop for a snack.
I was only there for about 5 minutes, and when I came out, there was this cop writing out a parking ticket.
I said to him, ‘Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a break’?
He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. His insensitivity annoyed me, so I called him a ‘Nazi.’
He glared at me and then wrote out another ticket for having worn tires.
So I proceeded to call him a ‘doughnut-eating Gestapo.’ He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first.
Then he wrote a third ticket when I called him a moron in blue.
This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I talked back to him the more tickets he wrote.
Personally, I didn’t really care. I came downtown on the bus, and the car that he was putting the tickets on had one of those bumper stickers that said, ‘Obama in ‘08.’
I try to have a little fun each day now that I’m retired.
The doctor tells me that it’s important to my health.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Adam,
The Republican primary doesn’t work that way. We tend to reward men who have paid their dues in the party and have waited their turn. I will bet you that our 2012 nominee (if McCain loses) will be one of the unsuccessful 2008 candidates. If Obama wins, the race for 2012 starts the day after he is inaugurated and for some before that.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“What makes you think a stronger Dem-led Congress will be willing to work together on a tough principled foreign policy and moderate domestic policy with a GOP pres and a traitor VP who already told them before he took office he won’t be in office next time around.”
McCain could announce he wont run for a second term in fall 2011. The best people who can bring Republicans and Democrats together is John McCain and Joe Lieberman.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Do the Democrats in OH and MI want to hand the election to McCain? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us/politics/10cleveland.html?em
I personally vote for the POTUS not the VP. I think that is true of most Americans…you know those not on blogs or in the beltway.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Republicans are conservative on marraige: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm (fifth poll down)
Republicans are Conservative on abortion: http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm (21st poll down)
Republicans are conservative on fiscal policy: http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm (16th poll down)
Republicans are conservative on the Iraq war (favor Bush’s policy): http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (18th poll down)
anything else?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
as for the VP becoming a supporter of McCain’s policy – yes, in public, the VP pushes the administration policy. But the question is, how much say do they have in shaping that policy? I think, at least under McCain, and on certain issues, they would have a respectable amount of say.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
if McCain does select Romney, Romney will have to support and adopt McCain’s positions. You can already see McCain surrogates doing this (Jindal, Romney, Lieberman, etc…)
Kristofer,
‘Sgt. Schmidt’ is seeing to it that they’re all singing from the same sheet of music.
I noted during Rudy’s last two appearances on CNN and Fox this past week that he was praising McCain for having consistently maintained his positions on both global warming and cap & trade, despite fierce opposition from within his own party, Giuliani included.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
#167, Do not count on it. It will be Thompson, Graham, Rudy, Ridge and Leiberman shaping policy, not the VP.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Rudy is on the very short list.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
This time around, I vote VP. POTUS is kind of a wash. Put Lieberman on the ticket, and the US has been overrun by libs and remember, the nation wasn’t founded on liberalism. That will be a MAJOR shift, and all families will be feeling the pain. We’re just starting to feel it now, as Putin, Iranian nut leader and others become emboldened and act up as they see a pacifist anti-military presidency on the horizon. McCain doesn’t scare them either. He’s old and tired, as much as he loves a good fight. Add Lieberman, and you have two old tired guys that love a good fight. Sigh.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
…and then you still have the biggest fault of Lieberman – having him as Veep deprives us of an heir apparent, and the ability to run on McCain’s coattails in four years.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
#172. Other and Bush 1, how many sitting VP’s in history have been elected? I’ll give you only five minutes to look it up, as it will not be a long search.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
My sources close to the RNC Convention organizing committee are suggesting that Rudy will be given a significant role at the convention with a coveted time slot and prime time speech. I would love to see Fred get a big prime time address as well but have not been able to confirm his slot.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
You can’t compare VPs today to any VPs going back beyond Johnson – before that, they had little power, even less visibility, and were generally just someone to be there in case the President dies. The VP today is a much more powerful, much more visible position – and, because of that, the number who have become President has increased.
So, going back fifty years to 1960, VPs to become President, for any reason include Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush I and, for the sake of this conversation, you have to include Gore, who won the popular vote.
So, that is five men. Even excluding Gore, four of the last nine presidents have been VPs – not a bad track record.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I would personally be in favor of a McCain-Lieberman ticket. I also like the idea that it would test the power of social conservatives in the Republican party.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Were going to waste our primetime TV spots on men who are unlikely to ever win the nomination? Our primetime slots should be going to people like Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, Palin, Sanford…people who are likely to be a nominee in the future.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“I would personally be in favor of a McCain-Lieberman ticket. I also like the idea that it would test the power of social conservatives in the Republican party.”
You want another pro-abortion, anti-family in this country?
Because that is EXACTLY what we need – earth to Big S., the family and future generations are they two most important things to the future of this country.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I am hearing some buzz about Jindal doing the keynote, which is interesting because my original draft of the tentative speaking schedule had Lieberman mentioned as Keynoter. This switch clued me in that Lieberman was being vetted for Veep and sure enough…
August 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“Anti-family”…good grief. It doesn’t even make sense.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Romney and Huckabee have earned primetime slots..its a slap in the face if they don’t get them. This will be their last opportunity to make national headlines until 2012 – they deserve the opportunity.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
#175, you specifically mentioned, “McCain’s coattails in four years.”.
Coolidge, Johnson, and Ford became Presidents for “unfortunate” reasons. They never ran as incumbant VP’s. Not one of them.
Bascially, the incumbent VP has less than a 5% chance of winning an election while in office as VP.
So, your theory that McCain must pick the “next in line”, is just a theory, not a fact.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Do you honestly think that those who disagree with you on some social issues do not value “the family and future generations … of this country?” I do not advocate policies out of contempt for people, and I suspect that most of the moderates on this site (and elsewhere) do not either. As far as abortion goes, I disagree with you because I think that women (and their families!) sometimes need the reproductive freedom that legal abortion allows. I support the right of gay couples to marry because many of them are raising families without the legal benefits of marriage, such as tax breaks and a say in medical decisions. You don’t have a monopoly on virtue on these issues.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Fair enough…so lets look at it differently: three of the last six VPs to run for the Presidency have won the popular vote – Nixon, Bush I, and Gore.
No sitting VP, certainly not in modern times, has lost their party’s nomination when they’ve sought it.
So, its just a theory, but in the modern political age, its a pretty proven one.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
act-blog,
I believe that both Huckabee and Romney will receive primetime speaking slots as for Fred, T. Thompson, Sam Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore and Ron Paul, I don’t know. I hope Fred gets a prime time speech though, he could be very effective.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
“sometimes need the reproductive freedom that legal abortion allows.”
the right to abort 50 million babies, mainly for reasons of convenience?
—
“I support the right of gay couples to marry because many of them are raising families without the legal benefits of marriage”
…and I oppose Gay addoption, so this argument doesn’t carry much weight with me.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
They all had to get nominated by their parties, act-blog! Lieberman would never get the Republican nomination!
August 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
#184, Nixon lost the popular vote to Kennedy.
I will give you credit for one thing…..this year in politics has shown us that nothing is a four-gone conclusion.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
…and I oppose Gay addoption, so this argument doesn’t carry much weight with me.
Too freakin’ bad, it’s already legal, and it’s not going to be reversed. Just because you hate gay people doesn’t mean that the rest of the country is with you. A new Time poll shows 47/47 support/opposition for gay marriage. Not civil unions — marriage. A supermajority — near 80% — now opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and gay adoption is a battle that’s already been fought and won.
Gay families are here to stay, like it or not. The question is whether you want to support screwing them over or not.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“I would personally be in favor of a McCain-Lieberman ticket. I also like the idea that it would test the power of social conservatives in the Republican party.”
I get the feeling that’s why all of you want Lieberman. Attacking Social Conservatives is more important to you guys than having an economic conservative.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I love how some on here tell Romney supporters to “get over it”. Some of you may not be concerned about the direction the party is going but we are and we are skeptical of McCain. A Ridge,Lieberman,Guiliani pick for VP would ony further our skepticism of McCain.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I get the feeling that’s why all of you want Lieberman. Attacking Social Conservatives is more important to you guys than having an economic conservative.
No. Buzz. Beep. Wrong.
Economic conservatives are more pragmatic about things.
But then again, we don’t feel like we’re displeasing the creator of the universe when we compromise a little.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
#189, the country is changing, for the better. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/09/america/Gay-Fatherhood.php
August 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
McCain can win this thing with the right pick. How about a strong conservative woman like Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Hillary’s women are chomping at the bit for a reason to vote for McCain and not stay home.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
If McCain picks Lieberman, Obama will easily win.
I don’t think McCain’s staff desires to lose in a landslide. They’ll either talk sense into him or he’ll make more mistakes than just picking a very unpopular Democrat as his VP.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
What a bunch of hog wash talking about Lieberman as VP. When I came on this site a year and a half ago, it was claiming to be a conservative site. What a laugh! Over half the postings on this Lieberman VP thing has been pro. So, we have a liberal Democrat on our ticket after the independents and democrats gave us our Presidential candidate?
I’ll tell you what guys….I’m not a gambler, but I’m sure many of you have no qualms about it…so run on over to intrade.com and put your money down on Lieberman for Republican VP. Put your money where your mouth is! You can make 13 times your money in return.
Btw, are any of you guys cheering Lieberman on Jewish by any chance? The Romney supporters were always being accused of being LDS, even though over half of them were not.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
#194, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a moderate, and she is moving away from conservative foreign policy.
Palin is your choice, and the choice of Richard Land, Bill Kristol, Scott Rasmussen, Larry Kudlow, the NRO, etc…..
August 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
If McCain puts Lieberman, Ridge, or Bloomberg on the ticket, we’re done. I require at least one Republican on a Republican ticket before I’ll vote for it. If he puts one of these 3 clowns on the ticket, it will be time for me to reacquaint myself with my Libertarian roots.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
im okay with whatever beats obama. i’m not very convinced that that is lieberman, though.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
First of all, I suspect we’re in disagreement on the definition of a “baby”. I do not believe that an embryo should be defined as a person at conception, and am unsure of where that definition should become operative. I am against abortions in the 3rd trimester, and am ambivalent about those performed in the final 20 weeks of pregnancy, which is a position similar to the “viability” test used in certain court cases. Second of all, I suspect we define “convenience” differently as well. I certainly do not think abortion should be used as a substitute for birth control, if that’s what you mean by “convenience.” However, I would take a different view if a woman decided to abort an early-term embryo because she did not have the resources to raise it, if it had a major birh defect, or if her own physical health was at risk. Do these qualify as “conveniences” in your book?
It doesn’t matter what you think about gay adoption. Even with current laws, there are over a quarter of a million children being raised by gay “parents” in this country.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“Economic conservatives are more pragmatic about things.”
What’s pragmatic about picking a Democratic canidate that’s hated by Democrats, will tick off both EconCons and SoCons, and only adds Security cred to the McCain ticket, which McCain has plenty of.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
#199, that is a crazy picture of Bush you have on your blog.
#201, Knepperstein is saying that we are more pregmatic about our approach politics. Ex. I disagree with Governor Palin on her social policy stances, but I am willing to accept them, as a trade-off in achieving the ultimate goal of a free and properious society. If Leiberman will help elect McCain and help to keep America safe, then I am willing to look the other way on Lieberman’s past and current moderate positions.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
To those not thrilled by the thought of a McCain/Lieberman…Giuliani…Ridge ticket, try not to lose sight of the alternative.
Here’s Obama surrogate Dick Durbin being interviewed earlier today by Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: But let me ask you, because Obama’s answer, and he says it in that ad, is to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Let me put something up.
Last year, the oil and gas industry made a profit of 8.3 percent. Beverages and tobacco had an average profit of 19 percent, drug companies 18 percent, computer companies 14 percent.
Senator, why single out the oil industry and say it’s their profits alone that are unreasonable?
DURBIN: Because they have reported record-breaking profits, not just for oil companies, but for American businesses. The amount of money that they are taking in in profits at the expense of families and businesses and farmers and our overall economy are absolutely beyond anything historically.
And what we’re saying is there’s a limit. This president should have called the oil company execs in the office long ago and said, “You’re killing the economy.” The airlines can’t survive. He should have jawboned. He should have made it clear that the profit-taking that they are experiencing is at the expense of this economy, of families that are struggling to get by, of people who are losing jobs.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Durbin is our other idiot Senator.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I don’t “hate” Gay people – I know and like numerous gay people.
But I question the ability of two men or two women to provide an upbringing equal to that of a man and a woman. There is something to be said for providing a blance of masculine and feminine influence – something not available through gay parents.
Again, I think if nature intended for men to raise children with men, and women with women, then it wouldn’t require both a man and a woman to have a baby.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Here is an interesting article on vetting. Everyone should read it. It tells us just how careful McCain is being. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-10-vettingveeps_N.htm?csp=34
August 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
“Do these qualify as “conveniences” in your book?”
Health reasons are not convenience – they are health reasons.
Its the “I can’t afford it”, “I don’t want to be burdened by it”, “I don’t want people to know” reasons that cover the vast majority of abortions, and the ones I have problems with.
Money should not be an acceptable reason to kill an unborn child – if you can’t raise it, fine, give it up for addoption.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
#205, did you just say that single parents are not as capable as a traditional nuclear family?
August 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
203 Did Wallace let that slide or did he go after Durbin?
August 10th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“did you just say that single parents are not as capable as a traditional nuclear family?”
They aren’t, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but study after study shows that children do best in two-parent homes.
This is coming, by the way, from a person who’s mother’s father died when she was a young girl.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
#210, what is the SINGLE most important value/characteristic you look for in a VP?
August 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I can’t vote for this ticket. As a conservative LDS woman, this ticket is not in line with my thinking. ESPECIALLY if uspported by the idiots in Colorado Springs, who have the idea they are appointed by God to determine exactly WHO is a christian, and who is not.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“I can’t vote for this ticket. As a conservative LDS woman, this ticket is not in line with my thinking. ESPECIALLY if uspported by the idiots in Colorado Springs, who have the idea they are appointed by God to determine exactly WHO is a christian, and who is not.”
???
August 10th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
alaska jake,
Here’s the rest of that exchange:
WALLACE: But, Senator, I mean, one of the reasons that their profits as a gross number are so big are because their investments are so big. Their research and development is so big.
As I just pointed out, there are other industries which, as a percentage of their expenditures — making double the percentage of profits of the oil industry.
DURBIN: Chris, I’m not an accountant, but those who are have dug into the books and listened what it turns out to be.
The profit-taking by the oil companies is not being used to look for new sources of oil and gas. Overwhelmingly, they’re buying back their stock. They’re paying out dividends. They’re paying the CEO salaries.
In other words, they’re not plowing it back into the futures of their company. They’re plowing it into the wallets of their officers and the people who run their companies as well as their shareholders.
Now, that kind of profit-taking is OK generally, but it reaches a point now where the oil companies are literally killing the economy. And when John McCain says, “Well, they need $4 billion more in tax breaks,” he just doesn’t understand the reality of what this economy is facing.
WALLACE: But Senator Obama is also talking about possibly lowering the corporate tax rate as a way — as a general way to spur the economy. If he does that, then he’s going to be giving tax breaks to the oil industry.
DURBIN: I’ll take, on balance, the Obama approach to the McCain approach any day. What Barack Obama has said is focus the tax breaks on the families that are struggling, middle income and working families.
And those are the folks who have been disadvantaged by a war that’s costing us $10 billion to $12 billion dollars a month, a war that’s taking money out of our economy that could be spent here in America.
What Barack has said — give those families a fighting chance. They’ve fallen behind under the Bush economic policies. And let me just also remind you, in April when John McCain was asked — he said he thought that the Bush economic policies were showing progress in America.
I don’t think that you can find many American families that would agree with that statement.
Transcript: Sen. Dick Durbin on ‘FOX News Sunday’
August 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
How much do you think it costs to have a baby, even if one plans on giving it up for adoption immediately? It’s not uncommon for costs to run in the $10,000 dollar range, and that doesn’t even include care for the mother after she is discharged from the initial hospital stay. For someone without insurance, that’s a significant cost. Sure, it sucks that money is often a consideration in whether or not to continue a pregnancy, but unless there is successful government-subsidized universal health care, it will always be a factor.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“but unless there is successful government-subsidized universal health care”
to prevent abortion – lets see, $10,000 x 1.2 million per year – thats 12 billion dollars per year to end abortion, divided by 300,000,000 people.
Thats $40 per person, per year.
I guess we have to ask ourselves if that is too high a price to pay to give our country a stronger future.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Can someone please explain to me how Rob Portman is on the VP shortlist, but not Kasich? This is crazy, I have a feeling all these leaks are untrue!
Kasich;
- Not tied to the Bush administration
- From a more important region of Ohio (central/Columbus)
- From growth record that blends better with McCain (balanced budget)
- Articulate and good looking
August 10th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Portman isn’t on the ticket for OH – hes on it for econ. experience.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
#218, in the Bush administration?
August 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I don’t agree with it either – but its better than no economic experience.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
CNN has a great article out on the VP bounces and timing. Interesting.
“Both Mondale and Kerry lost those modest “veep bounces” by convention time.
Three choices — Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Jack Kemp in 1996 — produced more robust bounces.”
Gore seemed to be the best selection (bump), based on timing and choice.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
#220, I care more about who is in the economic positions in the cabinet, rather than VP.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I bet if Mac picked Lieberman then Huck would not support the ticket. He already said that “Lieberman would be a horrible choice since he isn’t pro-life.” Mike may actually actively campaign against that ticket. He won’t run as third party but I think he would make his opinion known. What do people think Romney would do if Lieberman is the choice. I think it would be bad for Romney or Huck if they supported the ticket, because it may be good in the short-term to unify the party, but their chances in 2012 may be in jepardy.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
to prevent abortion – lets see, $10,000 x 1.2 million per year – thats 12 billion dollars per year to end abortion, divided by 300,000,000 people.
Thats $40 per person, per year.
I guess we have to ask ourselves if that is too high a price to pay to give our country a stronger future.
Oh, Jesus Christ, this is the most economically illiterate statement I’ve seen on this site in months.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
to prevent abortion – lets see, $10,000 x 1.2 million per year – thats 12 billion dollars per year to end abortion, divided by 300,000,000 people. Thats $40 per person, per year. I guess we have to ask ourselves if that is too high a price to pay to give our country a stronger future.
Oh, geez, this is the most economically illiterate statement I’ve seen on this site in months.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
in what way?
Yeah, its a lot – but unless the US wants to end up like Europe…
August 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
#226, Europe? I thought that you’d want to be like western Europe when it comes to abortion?
Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
226 — It’s roughly the equivalent of saying that if you give everyone a million dollars, everyone in the country will be rich — so why doesn’t the government just hand out a million dollars to everyone?
A stronger future, to you, is about keeping gays from assimilating into mainstream society, social engineering from the Oval Office (roughly the so-con equivalent of legislating from the bench), and a prayer to begin every day.
Hardline so-cons are the national laughingstock outside of their own little circle. But Jesus told you to expect that, so don’t worry.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
By the way, act-blog, Europe has much stricter abortion laws than we do. The USA’s abortion laws are among the most liberal on the planet.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Oh. Kristofer caught it. OK.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
McCain or Obama….No matter who the VP is that’s your choice. I will vote for Mccain because im not a idiot!
August 10th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
#229 correct, also, Canadian’s have to go to the US for third term abortions.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Saying that strict abortion laws = a higher birth rate is reductionist. I’m aware of only a couple nations in Europe that ban abortions in the period when most are committed.
Those nations do happen to have very high birthrates compared to their neighbors. That’s not a proof but abortion is a complex issue.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
” If Leiberman will help elect McCain and help to keep America safe, then I am willing to look the other way on Lieberman’s past and current moderate positions.”
I don’t think Lieberman would help elect John McCain.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I for one care more about the moral injustice of abortion and that makes any results of criminalizing it afterthought for me.
I have the same attitude as if someone suggested current laws against murder didn’t do any good.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
It’s kinda funny both Alex and Metro seem like exact spawns of one another, not fond of So-Cons,not crazy about Christians and not your typical Republican.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
If Lieberman is picked, can Rell pick a GOP Senator to take his place? That would be one way of helping to reduce the Dem majority in the Senate!
August 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
When I talk about Europe, I don’t refer to its abortion laws, I refer to its population decline. Unless the United States does something to raise its birthrate, we are going to find ourselves in the same boat Europe is in: dying, decreasing in importance as we are passed by more populace nations like China and India as economic and military powers.
There is a reason people say the future belongs to islam and China – they have high birthrates, increasing populations, and with those, a bigger say in world affairs.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
This is the reason that Roe v. Wade pisses me off.
Without Roe, we largely would have settled this issue politically the way the rest of the West has. Like most of Protestant Europe, abortions after the first trimester would probably be generally unavailable. Though I imagine that first trimester abortions would remain generally available, though I could be wrong.
The point is, the issue would be settled politically, meaning that good men and women on both sides who have been barred from national office because of their abortion views would be able to serve.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
yeah. but on the news I just heard that McCain may push a one term pres at his convention. The chariman hinting to that and that could have an affect on his running mate choice. He really likes Liberman. I dont know about this one. It would draw ind no doubt get media no doubt and some dem no doubt. However, it could cause more mod OBMACANS to vote for him and cause some of the evg base to sit at home.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
#236, what is your point?
#238, I think Japan is a better argument for you.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
McCain would be prepared to do a one-term pledge just to get a trusted friend onboard as VP.
Personally though, I think its a bad move. You become a lame duck from day one. And Governor’s who have just been elected to serve their state spend all their timecampaigning in Iowa & NH.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Maybe this is just a media attention grabber during the Olympics. I hope
August 10th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I think that without Roe there’d be 10-20 states with no abortion providers. Abortions would be too expensive for most women outside of states that funded abortions through Medicaid (~10-20).
We’d probably have a lower birthrate as women took pains to use contraceptives and had fewer unplanned pregnancies resulting in births or deaths.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Yes the Gov. of CT could select a republican replacement!
August 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
When I talk about Europe, I don’t refer to its abortion laws, I refer to its population decline. Unless the United States does something to raise its birthrate, we are going to find ourselves in the same boat Europe is in: dying, decreasing in importance as we are passed by more populace nations like China and India as economic and military powers.
That’s not due to abortion, but to changing social mores.
Anyway, China and India are already way, way, way, way past us in population. If population determines affluence and clout, then we’re doomed on that front, anyway. Of course, that is not the case; both of your arguments are silly.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I think that without Roe there’d be 10-20 states with no abortion providers. Abortions would be too expensive for most women outside of states that funded abortions through Medicaid (~10-20).
A lot of states already effectively don’t even have abortion. The market simply takes care of it. There’s only one provider in one of the Dakotas (South?), for example — and the state isn’t exactly small.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
#248, “There’s only one provider in one of the Dakotas (South?), for example”
Legal provider.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
249 – Heh.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
SoCons are no more “typical Republicans” than any other part of the coalition.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
There is only one legal provider. There are many non-legal places that provide abortions. Mainly because of the so-con movement.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
250 posts already, and its not due to VP Romney, its due to abortion. Makes a change I suppose.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
What just infuriates me to no end is the ironclad insistence by so many pro-lifers that they won’t vote for a ticket that includes a pro-life VP. Good Lord – McCain has impeccable credentials on abortion! How on earth could anyone be stupid enough to help put Obama in the White House due to some quibble with the symbolic bottom half of the ticket? Look, I’m pretty damned conservative on abortion, and I’d still be voting for McCain if he put Gloria freakin’ Steinem on the ticket, because – wait for it – a pro-life president is better than a pro-choice president. Is that so hard to compute? Oftentimes I think it’s far more important to so-cons to penalize pro-choicers than it is to actually REDUCE ABORTIONS! (Something which Bush has done miserably at.) I could never consider myself a so-con not just because I’m a flaming liberal on gay rights, but because I can’t subscribe to this self-defeatist idiocy. Every time I see some refuse to vote for the ticket if a member of the Powell-Ridge-Giuliani troika is on it, I want to throw up. Sorry for the peroration, but abortion discussions always do this to me.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Win W-McCain is 71 I believe so if elected he’d be the oldest president ever,Pro-lifers want to make sure there is a pro-life Veep waiting in the wings should the need be. It’s really not that hard to grasp.Do you really want a Ridge,or Guiliani shaping the future of the party on the life issue?
August 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Sean M,
Reagan was 73 at the time he was reelected in ‘84, and turned 74 two weeks into his second term.
McCain turn 72 on August 29th.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Aron, Reagan looked younger, was energetic and was probably alot healthier than McCain is
August 10th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
#255 – Not particularly. However, that’s not what I was expressing frustration at. I was marvelling at the people that would refuse to vote for McCain just because of his VP. Plus, I would dispute that notion that if McCain passed away, a pro-choice VP would shape the future of the party on that issue. The GOP is an overwhelmingly solidly pro-life party; Ridge or Giuliani wouldn’t be able to change that. What I don’t understand is how you can be pro-life and see A) McCain, B) Obama, and then opt for C) neither. Also, your example presumes that abortion exists in a vacuum and no other issues are relevant; there are certainly some instances where I would opt for a pro-choicer over a pro-lifer. For instance, I would take Ridge over Huckabee any day of the week, no hesitation.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Well I consider myself pro-life and to cover all the 3 legs of the “stool” and there are areas where McCain has sponsored some pretty leftist bills so for me personally I want a veep that will cover all 3 legs of the “stool”.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
[...] Something tells me that Senator Joe Lieberman wouldn’t bother diverting his campaign funds to Democratic candidates if he had any intention of accepting the Vice Presidential nomination of the Republican Party. [...]
August 11th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I’m not surprised this got 260 responses. Obviously, as an ardent pro-lifer, a fiscal conservative, and someone who is a little less enthusiastic about the neo-conservative agenda, Lieberman is a mismatch for me. Many people in the Republican party truly like him though. When we’re running basically even in the polls, I don’t get why certain people have this attitude that, “the less Republican the running mate is, the better”. If I thought we had to pick Lieberman or had to pick Powell to win, that would be one thing, but I would be very unenthusiastic about it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am
With the polls showing neither side with the possibility of a sweeping majority, it is probably best to think in a small-minded way and just try to win a state. Romney? Portman? Crist?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I am late to this blog so I will keep it short. The head of the RNC, on Fox News this AM said a Lieberman or Ridge pick would be good because ” the conservatives have no where else to go.”
This conservative has somehere else to go. I have voted for every Prepublican since 1960. A Lieberman or Ridge pick would at best keep me home on election day and my checkbook in my desk. At worst, with agood Obama pick for VP, I would vote Democratic. Who the hell are these clowns who say I have no choice ?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I will not stay home!! I will still vote for State Senator and County Commissioner. However, putting a Democrat or a RINO on the ticket is a recipe for damage.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
#254 – the reason we oppose a pro-choice VP is because, as I have pointed out numerous times, the VP is essentially a lock for the nomination in the next open election – if they seek it. Basically, while the current President is pro-life, the man set up as successor is pro-choice.
That is where the problem is.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:46 am
#263, 99.9% of Conservatives will not vote for Obama.
#257, Reagan had a lot of health issues, and he was shot in his first term. Back then we did not have the openess and honestly like we do today, with many candidates.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:47 am
#265, says who? Leiberman or Ridge would likely not run for President.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
You have a point bob, but many of us would rather not take the chance.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am
#268, would you not rather have a pro-life Republican President, or a pro-choice Democratic President?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“#265, says who? Leiberman or Ridge would likely not run for President.”
Lieberman I’ll give you.
But why wouldn’t Ridge? He’s only a year older than Romney.
And Giuliani probably would run too.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Yes you are right, the GOP would still be the best option if it came to that, but it just would not be ideal.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Bob – the whole point is that we’re hoping McCain has enough since to not shoot himself in the foot like this. He can’t get elected….not even close!!!
Obama being President would be terrible, but a pro-choice VP is the very thing that will guarantee it! With a good, well vetted three legged stool conservative, he can win this thing, no other way.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
sense*
August 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
actually, in this case, I’d take a pro-choice now if it gaurenteed us a pro-life in four years.
The ability of the president to change abortion policy in the next four years is minimal, at best. Ginsberg and Stevens aren’t going to be replaced by conservatives, at best, we would have moderates on abortion, and its unlikely that we will have another republican congress until 2012.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:17 am
#265 – But again, your comment doesn’t address my point. I understand the opposition to a pro-life VP. What mystifies me, though, is refusing to vote for a pro-life Republican running against a pro-choice Democrat due to the pro-life Republican’s VP pick. Plus, as long as the president appoints constructionist judges – which any Republican president is basically going to be forced to do, pro-life or otherwise (see Miers, Harriet) – I don’t really care what his/her views on abortion for.
#272 – You honestly don’t think Colin Powell would help McCain win? Seriously?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Bob,
O.K., I’m the 0.1 %. Of course, you have to also include 8 other members of my family who feel the same way. But O.K.,Big John, put one of your ” Soul Mates” in as Vp and see what happens. , one of the guys that owe you ” Fealty” and pay ” homage”, as someone said in the media and on this blog a week or two ago.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“#265 – But again, your comment doesn’t address my point. I understand the opposition to a pro-life VP. What mystifies me, though, is refusing to vote for a pro-life Republican running against a pro-choice Democrat due to the pro-life Republican’s VP pick.”
Because I don’t want a pro-choice candidate as our standard bearer, and I don’t want a pro-choice Republican president. A pro-choice Republican is far worse than a pro-choice Democrat.
So, for me, its worse to have a pro-life republican now, and a pro-choice republican later than to have a pro-chice democrat now to have a pro-life republican later.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
#266 99.9% will not vote for Obama, thats too high. Even with the evg vote today Mccain is only getting 66% and Obama is getting 30%. Wishful thinking.
The more I think about it. McCain may pick Liberman and run as a one term pres. Why to neutrilize Obama’s change theme, get, more press time, “change” things up. Can confront Obama that he is the change person and a maverick that works with everyone. He will loose evg they probably will not vote for pres or stay home.
However, he would gain some ind, dem and women. The evg base is not strong for McCain anyway so he may be thinking to give people leaning towards him like the ind etc etc a reason to jump on board. Ughh……..I don’t know not real gung ho for this idea
August 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am
The comment about African Americans life exp is not a cool one. Kristopher. Smoking sure I will give you. Its also depends upon where you live. I know of several African American in Mississippi who lived to be 98 and 106.
Lets not be morbid on both sides. Mccain sees that age is an issue more than Obama which is why I hear he is trying to neutrilize it with a one term bid