Now let's review the VP choices on the Republican side. I am trying to see if I can clear my schedule to head to Dayton on Friday to see McCain unveil his VP pick for the first time publicly.
However, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this election - in general - is not about McCain and what he can promise/say/do. The election will ultimately be decided by the Hillary Clinton primary voters. Will they come home - come back home to the Democratic party? Or will they stay home and not voter out of anger/apathy/sickness on Election Day? That is the #1 question for the next 3 months.
(I'm wathcing Hillary's speech now - so far, an absolute bore, except for one zinger on Bush/McCain. "It makes sense that they have their convention in the Twin Cities! They're practically twins!" I didn't do it justice here, but that line is so far the only highlight.)
Anyway, can McCain pick a VP that may change Hillary Clinton voter dynamic - and exacerbate the split in the Democratic party? Or will he choose a VP that may influence one or two key states in an election that may be excrucriatingly close? Eric's odds:
Tim Pawlenty (MN): 5-1. A Republican governor of a somewhat blue state. I'm not sure he himself can overcome the R label and turn Minnesota from blue to red. He is a social conservative, semi-young, and telegenic, very much like Bayh. A national unknown, however. McCain would choose him if- and only if - he'd guarantee Minnesota for McCain. And I don't think he can.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT): 6-1. Wow. This would turn the race on its end. However - ask yourself this: does McCain feel he is behind enough to take this sort of a risk? If McCain was 8-10 points down (think Dole, 96), this pick would make sense. I don't think he needs to take this risk.
Rob Portman (OH): 20-1. Bush's budget director, and a former congressman from Ohio (I think from Don's district)! Very popular in SW Ohio, but that doesn't mean he can carry the state. Too unknown, no benefits.
Mike Huckabee (AR): 10-1. He's making a strong move as we come to the home stretch! What a way to thank your pirmary "opponent" (if you can call him that) by tag-teaming with McCain against Romney. And with McCain's apparent weakness on economics, this pick could shore up the blue collar vote that usually would be Democratic but don't like Obama.
But - ugh. A lot of downsides, especially to the socially moderate/progressive.
Meg Whitman (CA): 20-1. The former eBay chairwoman. I know nothing about her, but she has been mentioned as a possible candidate to shore up the domestic program of McCain. And the word "eBay" may help with the age issue for McCain. But still - a political novice? (and that's being nice?)
Tom Ridge (PA): 30-1. We have an inside source on this blog that has heard firsthand that Ridge will not be picked. Should we believe him?
Mitt Romney (MA): 3-1. I guess, by process of elimination, the front runner. The political calculation positives are pretty strong: the Mormon issue may affect him negatively in some states, but it is a strong positive in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, all battleground states that McCain needs. The Romney name is also popular in Michigan, and may turn the dial toward McCain a few points.....
but there's something about him I don't like. Too smooth, too polished, too telegenic. He seems like a car salesman. And that's a turnoff.
The Field: 1-1. I am more and more convinced McCain will choose somebody not on the above list. Newt Gingrich? Bobby Jindial (LA)? John Kasich (OH)? Carly Fiorina (Hewlett Packard)? Michael Steele (MD)?
There's a darkhorse out there somewhere. Where?
However, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this election - in general - is not about McCain and what he can promise/say/do. The election will ultimately be decided by the Hillary Clinton primary voters. Will they come home - come back home to the Democratic party? Or will they stay home and not voter out of anger/apathy/sickness on Election Day? That is the #1 question for the next 3 months.
(I'm wathcing Hillary's speech now - so far, an absolute bore, except for one zinger on Bush/McCain. "It makes sense that they have their convention in the Twin Cities! They're practically twins!" I didn't do it justice here, but that line is so far the only highlight.)
Anyway, can McCain pick a VP that may change Hillary Clinton voter dynamic - and exacerbate the split in the Democratic party? Or will he choose a VP that may influence one or two key states in an election that may be excrucriatingly close? Eric's odds:
Tim Pawlenty (MN): 5-1. A Republican governor of a somewhat blue state. I'm not sure he himself can overcome the R label and turn Minnesota from blue to red. He is a social conservative, semi-young, and telegenic, very much like Bayh. A national unknown, however. McCain would choose him if- and only if - he'd guarantee Minnesota for McCain. And I don't think he can.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT): 6-1. Wow. This would turn the race on its end. However - ask yourself this: does McCain feel he is behind enough to take this sort of a risk? If McCain was 8-10 points down (think Dole, 96), this pick would make sense. I don't think he needs to take this risk.
Rob Portman (OH): 20-1. Bush's budget director, and a former congressman from Ohio (I think from Don's district)! Very popular in SW Ohio, but that doesn't mean he can carry the state. Too unknown, no benefits.
Mike Huckabee (AR): 10-1. He's making a strong move as we come to the home stretch! What a way to thank your pirmary "opponent" (if you can call him that) by tag-teaming with McCain against Romney. And with McCain's apparent weakness on economics, this pick could shore up the blue collar vote that usually would be Democratic but don't like Obama.
But - ugh. A lot of downsides, especially to the socially moderate/progressive.
Meg Whitman (CA): 20-1. The former eBay chairwoman. I know nothing about her, but she has been mentioned as a possible candidate to shore up the domestic program of McCain. And the word "eBay" may help with the age issue for McCain. But still - a political novice? (and that's being nice?)
Tom Ridge (PA): 30-1. We have an inside source on this blog that has heard firsthand that Ridge will not be picked. Should we believe him?
Mitt Romney (MA): 3-1. I guess, by process of elimination, the front runner. The political calculation positives are pretty strong: the Mormon issue may affect him negatively in some states, but it is a strong positive in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, all battleground states that McCain needs. The Romney name is also popular in Michigan, and may turn the dial toward McCain a few points.....
but there's something about him I don't like. Too smooth, too polished, too telegenic. He seems like a car salesman. And that's a turnoff.
The Field: 1-1. I am more and more convinced McCain will choose somebody not on the above list. Newt Gingrich? Bobby Jindial (LA)? John Kasich (OH)? Carly Fiorina (Hewlett Packard)? Michael Steele (MD)?
There's a darkhorse out there somewhere. Where?
9 comments:
Rob Portman??? Will the ohio bias never end? Seriously he sounds like a daily show correspondent.
Why the hate for the mittman? Too polished? Too smooth? Isn't this like when everyone bashes pretty girls. Has anyone ever noticed that pretty girls are always pretty nice? That's because most sane people like them. So in a way, compared to the field, Mitt is kind of like the political version of Miranda Kerr, and what's not to like about that.
Did you read that new book team of rivals about how lincoln picked all his competitors to fill his cabinet because he valued their wisdom and points of view? Me neither. Doris Kearns Goodwin and her red sox loving ways can shove off. A lot of people liked to get jacked up about abe, but lest we forget he his still the only president to preside over a civil freaking war. What the hell? If you lose half the states during your presidency that's a pretty big minus. How many states did W. lose? None. That's like layup taking over as regional manager with 1 van in his parking lot and leaving with 15 vans in his parking lot.
Rob Portman. Playa please.
A little Doris Kearns Goodwin hate. Wow. That's impressive.
"Will the Ohio Bias never end?" In a word - no.
And hey - if you preside over a Civil war, and the ntion loses half of its states- but those states won't going to vote for you anyway - isn't that a net plus? A master political stroke! Eliminate those states that vote against you by forcing them to secede! Brilliant!
WOW! I can't believe his pick! Eric, I can't wait to see how you're going to spin this one...
Spin?
I like the pick, but there are risks.
1) She is a maverick, and plays into that image. She took on a three term Republican incumbent governor, and won.
2) She is socially conservative, which will definintely help with the R base. Reports are that they are more fired up now that at any time since McCain was seen as the nominee.
3) She has executive experience - more than any one on either ticket!
4) The woman thing. She has to appear that she is not a token candidate (like Ferraro). This will be tough to overcome.
Can this help drive Hillary voters away from Obama? I don't know....
5) She is not attached to Bush in any way. I don't think the R's can empahisze this enough. The ticket is now Bush's 2000 primary rival, and someone completely unassociated to Bush. It helps to inoculate the campaign against the 'four more years of the same" charge.
Cons:
1) of course, inexperience. "Reports say Obama people are ridiculing McCain for choosing a little known figure with no foreign policy experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency."
But - of course - the response writes itself, right?
2) Other cons? I mean, that's a big con I just wrote. Can she handle a debate with Biden?
I think it's a high risk but high reward selection.
I can't believe that he would diminish his ticket by picking someone with such a lack of experience. That, along with strong foreign policy credentials, were the 2 things he had going for him! So, let's get this straight...in order to ease people's fears about the fact that he's 73, has had cancer, and may likely croak in office, he picks a VP who has (1) no foreign policy experience (we are at war people!!), (2) no ties to anyone in washington, and (3) 18 months of executive experience in (wait for it...) Alaska!
And the jokes about her beauty queen past write themselves. Anyone else notice that she's young enough to be his daughter?? It's just odd.
Anyway, I totally agree with his decision to put a woman on the ticket, but frankly I find his choice condescending. As if all he needed in order to win over women voters was to pick a woman-any random woman-without regard for her experience. She's a joke compared to Hillary and women will pick up on this. The first thing I thought of was Harriet Miers. No further explanation needed.
My initial reaction is that this will go down as one of the worst VP picks in the history of politics.
Laura:
You better watch yourself here....you're tying yourself up in knots.
Let's take your three points:
1) no foreign policy experience (we are at war people!!),
ok - so we are at war? and the presidential candidate on teh Democratic side voted against it.
But you support politicians that are against this current war? Ok, fine....Biden voted for this war, AND on top of it, voter AGAINST the successful Iraq war in 1991!
So what exactly are you looking for in a Pres or VP candidate?
2) no ties to anyone in washington
Ummmm...are you saying this is a negative? Do you want people with ties to this adminstration and this congress?
I thought people wanted change. This is certainyl change. And you are against that?
3) 18 months of executive experience in (wait for it...) Alaska!
This compares to 0 months of executive experince from the Democratic ticket.
And Obama was born in Hawaii, but an Alaksan - well, that doesn't count? In fact, those piss ass states don't count? Would you like to tell that to Mr Biden, who hails from....Delaware?
I swear, the snobbery from teh Democratic side never ceases to amaze.
And women should be livid over your next set of comments.
Are you saying beauty queens are not qualified to be president? What exactly is the joke here that you - you! - brought up. What are you saying to the young women of this world?
And, also, Biden is old enough to be Obama's dad. Obama could be his son. And he's the PRESIDENTIAL candidate, not the VP candidate!
Look, I went through the list of Republican VP candidates - and I predicted a choice would come out of left field. The current choices all had baggage and remided me of a buffet at Ponderosa. You look at the choices, and go - ugh.
There are 8 women governors. Three ofthem are Rpeublican. He chose one of them. This choice has more executive experience than Hillary.
And you find it condescending. She is a good choice out of a current bad lot.
I'm sorry, everyone, I can't type this afternoon.
Eric, I'm so happy you had your baby boy! Congrats! Maybe that means I'll get the last word on this one... ;)
To respond to your points:
(1) Being for or against the war isn't what I'm discussing. Can you honestly picture her sitting down with Putin or Ahmadenajad (sp?) to negotiate America's security?!? (Personally, I picture her at a tupperware party with Cindy McCain, discussing where they get their up-do's done, but that's just my left wing snobbery talking). What is her global resume? What are her qualifications for commander in chief? She's on record saying that she hasn't given Iraq much thought and doesn't know exactly what the VP does all day. I know she has a son going to Iraq, but that doesn't qualify her to handle issues of this importance at the presidential level. Are you comfortable putting America's future in her hands?
2) RE ties to washington - change requires knowledge of how the system works. It helps to have relationships with people in Congress to get things done. She's coming in as a complete outsider AND relative political novice.
3) My point on Alaska is that it's not equivalent to running NY or Florida. It's like comparing a restaurant manager at Denny's to one at Mesa Grill. And I don't value executive experience over legislative-capable people are capable people.
Biden is not the governor of DE-his 35 years in the Senate dealing with national and global issues sort of make up for the smallness of his state.
RE beauty queens: It's not snobbish to say that her qualifications are fluff. Fox News "introduced" her by highlighting the following: (1) she was a beauty queen, (2) she played HIGH SCHOOL basketball and had a scary nickname (as an aside, I can't imagine using my high school basketball credentials as a qualification for a job of any type, let alone for VP of the US--this is how thin her resume is!!), (3) she's a mom of 5, and (4) she got into politics relatively recently, first as the mayor of a town with less than 10K people. The point is, she hasn't dedicated her life to this country the way that Biden, Obama, and McCain have. She's a pretty ordinary person leading an ordinary life who chose late in life to get into politics. I don't think this type of person deserves such an important post.
Let's be honest, she was chosen because she's ideologically perfect for the religious right and she's a women. That's it. Those do not qualify one for the presidency.
What I keep hearing from her supporters is that Obama can't criticize her lack of experience because he lacks experience as well. Isn't this an admission that she is inexperienced? How can she be qualified to be president if Obama, who has a thicker resume (albeit rather thin overall), is in their minds unqualified? Doesn't it take away their ability to criticize his experience?
As you can probably tell, I am truly baffled by this pick.
Post a Comment