Hutchison as McCain's veep pick?

Another name is floated.

By Mark Kilmer Posted in | | | | Comments (98) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Vice President Kay Bailey Hutchison. The possibility of John McCain selecting the Texas Senator as his running mate is floating out there somewhere.

When I studied political science in school, we were taught the veep candidates were chosen because they could balance a ticket ideologically or geographically, or because they could carry a prized State. Those are old-school rules, but I assume they are still in vogue (if we add a gravitas balance rule). Other factors like age, sex, race, rural v. urban, experience with Congress, issue strengths, criminal record, etc., are also factors.

The ideological balance rule might be important here, if John McCain wants to convince those who believe he is not conservative enough by choosing someone whom they believe is conservative enough, but it seems that a candidate's conservatism is now a matter of gut feeling and opinion than anything objective. The American Conservative Union has a popular rating system in which they measure a candidates "conservatism" by how often the Senator (for our purposes) agrees with the ACU on specific issues legislation chosen by the ACU. In his career, John McCain has agreed with the ACU on ACU-selected issues 82.3% of the time. Kay Bailey Hutchison has agreed with the ACU on ACU-selected issues 90.4% of the time. (For sake of reference, Arlen Specter has voted with the ACU on their selected issues only 44.7% of the time in his career. Hillary, just nine-percent.) So by the ACU's criteria, Hutchison does not balance McCain ideologically, with both leaning heavily conservative.

It gets more fun. Read On…

David Hill writes in The Hill newspaper:

Hutchison is one of the few potential running mates who could ensure home-state success. To the surprise of pundits not paying attention to Texas, this is saying something. The Lone Star State is no longer the automatic red state it once was. As the Hispanic population grows, and as some misguided Republicans drive Latinos into the beckoning arms of the Democrats again, Texas Republicans can no longer necessarily count on getting 40 percent of that vote, as was doable in the Bush era. One longtime poll taker in the state recorded a Democratic plurality in voter identification last year. Texas Republicans are going to have to earn their statewide victories once again.

Sen. Hutchison has proven she can handle this challenge. In 2000, she captured the most votes in Texas history, tallying more than 4 million ballots. Hutchison knows how to win even when the Democrats are surging. After all, she was the first-ever Republican woman elected to the state legislature and the first female elected to the U.S. Senate from Texas. If Hillary Clinton’s bid fails, Hutchison will be ideally positioned to gain votes from voters wanting symbolic gains for women.

As a bonus, Hutchison would burnish John McCain’s conservative credentials in Texas and elsewhere. The American Conservative Union confers a lifetime rating of 90.4 percent on the Dallas senator, higher than a conservative stalwart like Mitch McConnell (89.7 percent) or McCain himself (82.3 percent). The National Rifle Association awards Hutchison its highest rating. The pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce assigns the Texan a rating of 92 percent. And Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gives her a 95 percent rating. In the school of conservative politics, Kay Bailey Hutchison is the super-smart girl who sits in the first row, an all-A’s student whom John McCain should want in his study group

Now, my conservative gut reaction rules her out. Granted, my recovery from cancer treatment has done a number on my conservative gut, but it had earlier objected to John McCain as the Republican nominee and has been overridden by my conservative noggin's reaction. I'm willing to think about Hutchison, and since I have access to the smartest political minds on the internet, I ask you to have at it.

A CAVEAT. Neither Tim Russert nor George Stephanopoulos has demanded a "Shermanesque" statement from her, but Senator Hutchison has ruled out such a run as McCain's veep.

"It's not something I want," Ms. Hutchison said of the vice presidency. "I'd so much more like to keep helping Texas. I hope I'm not in a position where I'm considered."

Ms. Hutchison added that she had not talked to Mr. McCain, who is all but assured the GOP presidential nomination, about running with him, nor have they discussed any of his prospective running mates.

Oh, that's not Shermanesque. If she's asked, sounds like, she just might do it. She'd guarantee McCain Texas, but running against Obama or Hillary, that one is a no-brainer anyway. The geographical balance is nil. Then again, Club for Growth rated her at 53% on Pork for 2007. I guess she balances John McCain, who rated a perfect 100%.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | McCain's Campaign Theme Song?Comments (117) »
Hutchison as McCain's veep pick? 98 Comments (0 topical, 98 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

She's a Senator, and I think she's pro-choice.

She is pro choice...so where's my incentive?

HuckaVeep or Obama Sweep.

2006 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 7 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 6 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 7 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2001-2002.

I frankly like her. But I believe she wouldn't make a great pick. Here's why:

- She's a senior Senator.
- She was born in the 40's.
- She's not a pork fighter nor a spending hawk(I really don't care about the balance in this issue).
- She studied law, not economics.

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican considered to be a potential candidate for Texas governor in 2006, said Saturday she supports a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before a fetus is viable outside of the womb.

Hutchison, speaking with news reporters after her speech to the Republican state convention, said her stance on abortion has remained consistent through the years.

''My position is I think there can be an ability for a woman, until viability, to make a choice,'' she said, adding that the state should have the right to impose abortion restrictions such as parental consent or notification.

Hutchison told GOP convention delegates she values ''the dignity of human life.'' She said she opposes late-term abortions, often referred to as partial birth abortions.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Not sure why, but that's been her history.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

This is idiotic for so many reasons I can't even begin to say them all.

1. If McCain is having trouble holding Texas, he mine as well go home and take a nap, because he's not winning the election.

2. Huchison excites no one, and is pro-choice. Inflaming the social conservative crowd against him is NOT what he wants to do right now.

3. Her so-so record on spending issues also does nothing for him, and makes him less credible on the issues.

4. The ONLY reason I can think he'd want to pick her is if Hillary loses the nomination, and he thinks he can peel off some disaffected Women, but there's better choices. Palin, Blackburn, heck, even Condi would be better if he wanted a pro-choice, moderate Woman.

5. She won her election in a crushing landslide because she had no credible opponent. I'm not saying that she hasn't been a good statewide candidate in the past, but there is 0 passion for her. She's just good enough. Good enough seems like a big mistake against someone like Obama.

I pray to God this is a joke.

I pray this is a joke.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

McCain's pick has to be a surprise...something to liven up the Party and put a spark in the race.

Hutchison would be an awful selection, and I can't believe McCain would seriously consider it. And if he needs to solidify Texas, then he ought to quit right now.

that McCain should pick someone who would "liven up the party and put a spark in the race." I am nearly ambivalent about whom he picks, provided it isn't some lefty freak. That being said, I'd like to see someone from outside the box.

My conservative gut read "ESTABLISHMENT," when I saw her name. (It was evidently first mentioned by Steve Forbes, at least in public.) And when I think ESTABLISHMENT, I think Gerald Ford, 1976. Or Bob Dole, '96. (Chances are, we would win neither of those elections anyway.) And my read of the party is that at least our prized wing would recoil if McCain selected an establishment veep choice.

McCain needs Bobby Jindal with eight more years of experience than has now.

Ford always thought he would have won it all had he kept Nelson Rockefeller as vp. Dole as running mate in '76 was a sellout to the Reagan insurgency, and he thought it hurt him in the Northeast and Ohio.

And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill

Did I mention she'll be 66 by my count by the election? Having someone only 5 years younger then you when you're 71 isn't such a hot idea.

I really, really hope he doesn't have some absolute morons telling him she'd be a good pick. It would be a disaster for him.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Let's pop this trial balloon.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I seem to recall seeing speculation that she was going to run for Governor next time that came up. I'm not sure how being a losing VP candidate would affect that.

In any case, this sure seems like a case where the ACU rating is out of whack, due to the specific votes they picked. Because I suspect if you asked 100 random Texas Republicans whether she was conservative or moderate, the vast majority would say moderate. The rating is what it is, but as a native Texan, I can tell you that she wouldn't provide a conservative counterweight.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Not my favorite Texan... She continues to attempt to sidestep building the fence. Another that is looking for future votes at the expense of the country.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

is the "Hutchison" amendment that STRIPPED [1] all funding for the border fence from this year's appropriation bill.

[1] Actually, the amendment merely removed the mandantory requirement that DHS actually spend the money on...you know, A FENCE...and left it to Secretary "LettuceHead" Chertoff to determine where that moolah could best be spent. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Mr. Chertoff will find other, more "important" things to do with that money than build an actual fence. Hence, the fence funding was "stripped".

THANKS, Kay!

That prompted my final email to her...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

With everybody else it seems like there's some reason why they wouldn't be good

Ugh by Cicero

I'd say the short-short list is:

Sanford
Pawlenty
Romney

Some possible surprise choices (some very unlikely):

Condi Rice
Huckabee
Fred Thompson
Michael Steel
Jeb Bush

Let's go through this in order.

I'd say the short-short list is:

Sanford
Pawlenty
Romney

Probably; maybe; no way. Romney's not taking on a role like the Veep -- and McC does not like him (no fellow candidates like him, for that matter).

Some possible surprise choices (some very unlikely):

Condi Rice
Huckabee
Fred Thompson
Michael Steel
Jeb Bush

Again, in order: Dear God no, the woman is a miserable -- miserable -- failure in her present position, and we need to get her away from government before she hurts herself; Nope, never going to happen (again, thank goodness); not going to take it; too inexperienced; and, do I really need to address this one?

Why do you think Condi is a miserable failure in her present position?

My understanding was that she was part of formulating the surge strategy and the current tactics that Petraeus employs.

I don't think that Condi would be a good VP candidate but I have not seen evidence of her as a 'miserable failure.'

with Republican politics...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

It's difficult to be a law professor without a law degree.

Professor of International Relations, perhaps.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I don't think Reagan liked George H. Bush very much by the effective end of the primary season.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

He ran as fairly conservative in MD and won. A stand up guy but perhaps, like Mccain, a bit too moderate for the conservative base.

VP by cdm

Sanford - No. Despite the appropriate editorial about Obama, if Sanford is the VP, it will spark a non-stop discussion about flying Confederate symbols. How do we win OH, MN, TN, WI, MN, and MO if we have to fight that rear-guard action? Besides, if we do not hold SC, we are going to lose anyways, so he does nothing for us in terms of bringing a state. And he could not vote for himself in his re-election campaign because he forgot where he was registered! You know the main stream media will play this up in his national introduction. Too much to overcome.

Pawlenty - I'm not convinced he can carry his own state, but he does help us with cultural conservatives. Again, however, if they don't go with us anyways, we're screwed.

Romney - To much flip flopping. And he isn't conservative (despite what Rush tells you).

The others:

Rice - a possibility, but with some baggage.
Huckabee - Can talk to blue collar workers on their level about economic issues. Can't be dismissed.
Thompson - Too old (it would be the oldest ticket on record)
Steel - To much baggage in regards to his last campaign. Has never won a campaign on his own.
Jeb Bush - We should win Florida anyways, so what does he bring to the table?

I'm am not sure that the people who keep pushing Sanford, Pawlenty, etc. really want to win the general. It seems they are more concerned with the conservative credentials of the VP nominee. Well, I've got news for them: no one cares about McCain Feingold in the general.

All the exit polls point to one thing: it's the economy, stupid!

We need a VP who can relate to blue collar workers in toss-up states, and talk on their level about economic issue. The candidate also has to generate excitement, and be young Experience isn't that important - look at Obama, he hasn't finished one term in the Senate!

I'm for Sarah Palin. Governor of Alaska. Conservative on cultural issues. Knows blue collar kitchen table economics (husband is an oil worker and commercial fisherman. Took on a corrupt entrenched incumbent (she knows how to campaign tough), and she has fought against pork barrel spending.

And remember, experience isn't that important in this cycle!

And, more than anything, we need someone who can talk blue collar, kitchen table, economics.

Mike Huckabee is either a fool or a genius for staying in this long. I never would have thought that the strategy of 'staying in the race long enough so the front runner has to consider you for VP' was even plausible. I'll give Mike credit - he's certainly got quite the pair...

.....................

You deserve what you tolerate!

Sarah Palin could be a very clever choice tactically.

Relatively inexperienced, but the Democrats won't be able to use that. Younger and female helpful as well.

The VP nominee has to be qualified and experienced enough to assume office in the event of a Harrison-like vacancy shortly into a McCain administration. Palin, likable and ideologically suitable though she is, has too little time-in-grade at the Governor level to be considered for this cycle. If we need her four years from now, great.

I'm not really convinced that there are any *really* good VPO picks out there. Pawlenty seems solid, Sanford has potential. Everyone else lacks either relevant experience or adequate conservative credentials.

I voted early in the Florida primary. Find out who and why.

in this cycle. Obama hasn't even completed one full term in the Senate, and he is about to be the nominee of one of the two major parties.

Also, everyone seems to think our most dynamic people (Palin, Jindal, etc.) will be ready next cycle. Well, I've got news for you - we are trying to win this cycle!!

I do not see what Pawlenty and Sanford bring to the ticket, other than good conservative credentials. The problem is that this election is not going to be about McCain-Feingold, or any of the political nuances that many conservatives are passionate about.

This election is about reassuring soccer and hockey moms in the midwest, and blue collar white men (both of which broke for Bush in key swing states in '00 and '04) that we understand their economic issues, that we are still the party to make them better, and that it won't be politics as usual. I just do not see how Sanford and Pawlenty can do this.

You kind of sound like the coach that wouldn't play a freshman, no matter how talented the freshman is.

If Jindal and Palin are the best we've got, we've got to get them in the game some how.

I'm not completely closed on Sanford and Pawlenty, but canyou make an arguement about how Pawlenty makes a difference, and Sanford makes a difference and overcomes his baggage?

...appears to be that you view the Vice President as someone who helps win elections. I view the Vice President as a potential President, possibly with very little advance notice. (See, e.g., Tyler, LBJ, Ford.)

I think that history has shown that having at least a full term under one's belt as governor, given the right candidate, is a useful training ground for the White House. A respectable time in the Senate, while not necessarily a path to electability, is also useful experience for the White House.

A few months as governor of one of our least populous states? As wonderful as you think Palin is, that's not enough for my taste. Experience matters, whether the electorate agrees or not.

I voted early in the Florida primary. Find out who and why.

And in order to win this election, we will have to energize the base AND steal some registered democrats who voted for Bush in '00 and '04, but are thinking about Obama now.

Ithink that this may be a case of some wanting principled action (conservative, tried and tested, familiar), and some wanting practical action (conservative, exciteing, relates to swing voters).

Because of the way the calendar is stacked, we do not have time to introduce someone who can't generate excitement just by being who they are (Cox, Sanford), or who have to use time to explain away peculiarities (Sanford, Blackburn).

Part of our difference may also lie in a shift in electoral politics that I anticipate we will be faced with. In '04 we were able to out "base" the opposition in a few key swing states. We got our people out to vote, and they didn't. I believe that in this cycle, we will do well to "draw" in terms of base turnout, and we will have to steal some of theirs to put us over the top.

In regards to your list of VP's who had to take over. Wasn't Truman most famous for being the Senator from Pendergast when he got the VP spot? And he turned out OK, right?

"Knows blue collar kitchen table economics (husband is an oil worker and commercial fisherman. Took on a corrupt entrenched incumbent (she knows how to campaign tough), and she has fought against pork barrel spending."

Husband is a foreman level employee at Prudhoe Bay, about as close to economic royalty as you get in Alaska. He's a quarter Alaska Native, enough for the CDIB, and that gives one all sorts of advantages, especially if one would like to style oneself a colorful, rugged Alaskan commercial fisherman - visions of "The Deadliest Catch" dancing in their heads and all. To the point, fishing gives some great write-offs against all that oilfield money.

It hasn't been demonstrated that she knows anything about economice, kitchen table or oil field. She staked her administration on being able to get a gas line from the North Slope started and we are no closer, if as close, than we were under that "corrupt, entrenched incumbent." And, BTW, just what corruption was it that Murkowski engaged in? I can point to some dumb things he did, appointing Lisa and buying the jet come readily, but corrupt? Only if you use the term the way Democrats do to imply corruption in anything that anyone might make some money off of.

There really was nothing tough about her campaign. She made her mark by ratting off State party chair Randy Ruedrich for allegedly doing political work on State time. There are lots of stories about how that went down, and I don't much believe hers. Anyway, she played kiss and tell and became every Democrat's favorite Republican. Unfortunately for the Ds, the electorate was just as tired of Tony Knowles as they were of Frank Murkowski, and the Prom Queen woke up as Governor.

And her dissing the Ketchikan Bridge was politically very easy for her. The good people of Anchorage and the Matanuska Valley, her stomping grounds, hate pork everywhere except in their districts. Building a bridge in Ketchikan, where nobody voted for Palin, is pork, building one from Anchorage to the Mat Valley is enlightend public policy. And she was just death on wasteful capital projects in the State budget - except the ones in the Matanuska Valley.

Before you annoint her as the great hope of the Republican Party, learn something about her and Alaska politics - or not; fairy tales seem to work pretty well this year.

In Vino Veritas

Mark Sanford - you raise a good point about the confederate symbols baggage. Also, South Carolina is probably a reliable red state already.

Tim Pawlenty - good points. He's a decent option.

Mitt Romney - no. He and McCain loathe one another and after seeing Bush/Cheney in action I prefer having a true partner for the President. Particularly given McCain's age. Romney should wait and run again for the next open seat.

Condi Rice is too heavily associated with President Bush. Instead of talking about plans for the next administration, McCain would end up having to spend time defending the current one. I generally like the current President, but his administration is too much of a lightning rod now.

Mike Huckabee is charming but his record is not really fiscally conservative and he doesn't have a clue on foreign policy.

Fred Thompson is a great guy but he couldn't be bothered to campaign hard for himself let alone anyone else.

Michael Steele ran a great campaign for Senate in 2006. He lost because he had an R next to his name in a bad year and a deep blue state. However, I agree that he needs more on his resume before running for VP. Give him a few years.

Jeb Bush would be a great choice but he has the wrong last name for this cycle and probably the next.

Sarah Palin would be an interesting choice, but she's pretty new to the Alaskan governorship. The GOP in Alaska has really suffered under that corruption scandal so it needs her there to try to clean up the brand. She should be on the short list next time if she does a good job in Alaska.

Some folks that I think would be interesting choices:
Phil Gramm, ex Sen of TX - serious guy, great economics knowledge, good working relationship with McCain, popular with conservatives, and impeccable ethics reputation. Downside: he's been out of the public eye for a while.

Dick Armey, ex Rep of TX - similar to Phil Gramm.

Chris Cox, ex Rep of CA - great economics background, pretty good speaker, fairly conservative, and executive experience at SEC. Downside: has some physical problems from an old car accident that may make it hard for him to actively campaign.

Duncan Hunter of CA - good speaker, serious guy, and respected by the far right. Downside: he might not want to work with McCain because of immigration differences and he's also from Congress.

Tom Ridge - ex-governor of PA: also a good speaker, serious guy, and popular in the blue-ish purple state of PA. Downside: he's slightly pro-choice which would upset the social conservatives, and he's also a former Bush cabinet member.

Pete Hoekstra - Rep. from Michigan: good speaker, solid on national security issues, might help with MI. Downside: doesn't balance the ticket on economics issues and no executive experience that I know of.

That may be the best name yet I've heard proposed. Unquestionable economic expertise, high-level legislative AND executive experience (assuming you count the SEC as executive). He's a rock-solid conservative and and an all-around smart guy to boot.

I don't think he puts Cali in play, necessarily, but I don't really expect that from a Veep nomination in the 21st century.

I voted early in the Florida primary. Find out who and why.

Doesn't put Cali in play. (I'm in California).
Doesn't generate the excitement by himself that will be needed in an eight week sprint.
Won't help us pull some of the blue collar Democrats we will need in order to win the general.

He would be very good as Sec Treas, Sec State, or Sec Defense, or running against Boxer for Senate.

Part of me secretly wished the dems did impeach Bush so we'd have President Cheney.

Mitt would be a nice balance. A McCain true partner would have to be a McCain clone and that doesn't add anything to the ticket.

Condi's been a disaster as Sec of State. She should've stayed as NSA. She was very good there. Politics is not her forte. Kicking butt & taking names is.

Huckabee would be a disaster to the ticket.

Fred couldn't reach the ADD generation. He's too old to match with McCain anyway.

Steele is too moderate to go with McCain. He'd have been great with Fred or Mitt.

No person with the last name of Bush will ever have a chance at the Presidency until at least 3008.

Hunter turned out to be a single-issue guy and that won't help the ticket.

Anyone remotely associated with the Bush administration would be a negative.

Palin & Jindal need more seasoning.

-- It'll be interesting to see who rises to the top.

FDT's Principles

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain gets killed in MN vs Obama so I wouldn't waste the VP slot on him. He's not popular enough to make up the double-digit deficit.

he is presently doing a radio ad with Janet Napoleatano talking about how we need to reduce emissions and create green jobs -- and of course we need to cap right now -- we dare not wait even two years...

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

So does the guy at the top of the ticket. No VP is going to override McCain on policy. They will become his clone... or close to it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

and the stress of the office, the VP may be more important this time.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

And McCain is pretty far out on AGW. I don't see his VP avoiding signing on that bandwagon. He could reverse himself should something unfortunate happen to McCain, but I don't think that is all that likely. Congress is the best hope for stopping AGW. Even now it is probably the only thing stopping carbon caps from becoming reality. Bush has moved pretty far left on AGW since taking office.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

which is why he needs to pick a solid conservative both to win and allow the possibility that the VP will NOT follow his lead here... I have little hope for Congress but keeping my fingers crossed. Way too many idiots in place and ready to spend money.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

but I agree, there would be much better choices.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

seriously, I can't think of a better running mate. I know he has turned down political opportunities before, but then he takes other opportunities to stay in the public eye. I just don't get him.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

but he is simply not interested in going back into politics. He has said that repeatedly.

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I [or someone very much like me :-)] suggested that Condi Rice should run for either POTUS or VP. My reasoning at the time, and even today is that there is nobody who understands foreign policy and world politics better than she. She is not experienced enough, in some peoples minds for the top spot, but would make a great VP. In addition, I believe she would be most familiar with the Bush Doctrine and carrying it out. As a side note, she would have the possibility of destroying the Democrat coalition forever. But, like JC, it will not happen.

I love Fred Thompson -- but that dog don't hunt either. Even if he said yes, it would be two too many grump old men.

McCain will never offer it to Mitt Romney -- even though that would be the right coalition to placate many of the social conservatives who are concerned with McCain. Romney WOULF put Michigan into play -- we are ready to kick out a few Dems -- having dummly re-elected the Wicked Witch from the Great North, and now suffering from buyers remorse.

Pawlenty has gone over to the dark side on global warming -- and one GW acolyte on the ticket is one too many.

I don't know that much about Sanford -- I hear he is well regarded, but I'm not sure he does anything for the ticket that the ticket doesn't already have.

How's that for a non answer?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

would be a major embarrassment to his family.

The others, I agree.

Sanford - too much baggage, gives us a state we were already going to win.

Look, none of these guys can talk the only game that will count: the economy.

She would cause social conservatives to vote 3rd party, and offend moderates. No one from Texas will be chosen as VP. It just won't happen.

McCain just needs to do it and go for Jeb Bush.

Yes it's another Bush, and potentially a third Bush in the White house in four, or eight years, but Jeb was always the chosen one in the Bush family.

Jeb Bush on the ticket wins Florida, takes the South for the Republican ticket, and probably plays well in parts of the NE.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Jeb Bush? It will never happen.

2 words - Terri Schiavo...

And Condi? I think the world of her and she would be awesome but her pro choice views are too risky at this point.

.....................

You deserve what you tolerate!

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator McCain

1. She wants to be governor, and will likely replace Perry, unless she decides to hang it up due to age.

2. Kay's pro choice

3. Between Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey, Phil would be the exciting one in the room

4. The only reason she'd be picked is because she's a woman.

5. I think she has a crush on Obama and they're secretly having a torrid love affair.

1. She's not that conservative, so it wouldn't draw in the base.

2. She's old. Can you imagine the contrast between McCain & Hutchison and Obama and whomever?

3. She's not that dynamic, and wouldn't really add to the campaign, electorally speaking.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...so someone suggests adding Kay Bailey Hutchison to the ticket to take care of the rest.

FDT's Principles

He might rouse a few Democrats, but on balance he'd rouse a lot more Republicans than Democrats.

And think of the possibilites for 2012 if McCain doesn't run for reelection.

Of course having two John's on the same ticket might lead to some amusing confusion at times...

And Rightly So!

would definitely get me excited again... Unfortunately, he is despised by the left since they seem to be so pro-UN.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

economic concerns. Won't help us in the general at all.

came about that the President controls the economy. I guess the media perpetuated that belief.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

irrelevant.

The voters have always used economics in judging candidates.

Was Hoover really to blame for the Great Depression? Were voters moved by Reagan's question about being better off then they had been four years prior?

If you want to win, you have to play the game.

you're probably right...the electorate knows no better (could it be our schools?)... Just an interesting thought...heh.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

who are basically non-political is important, I can't see it as a primary object here. The average person who is only concerned about the economy won't even know who the VP candidate is. His real job (at least during this election) will be to encourage those of us who aren't crazy about McCain to vote for him anyway. That means that someone who is well-known as a strong overall conservative would be the ideal choice (and no, I don't mean Huckabee).

the morning and said, "Take the day off, we got this one."

Who would you pick to carry the water on these economic issues?

True, I'd prefer her to run for Governor of Tennessee after Bredesen is done but given the current situation, and the apparent desire by some to have a woman on the ticket, she's the best in the field.

I like Kay Bailey Hutchison. But she would hurt, rather than help McCain with the Right - having one person (McCain) on the ticket that we need long explanations and calls for us "grow up" and "calm down" to fully get behind is more than enough.

Note: Sarah Palin is not even half done with her first term as Governor of Alaska - I would think that for her to leave for the Naval Observatory so soon would be a betrayal of her constituents.

Romney/Pace 2008

Senator of Illinois, and that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Marsha Blackburn is from one of the wealthiest districts in the country, and has lived her whole life there. We are not going to run out a rich middle aged white woman and have her talk to the swinng voters we need, and Bush won in '00 and '04: Blue Collar white men, and suburban and rural soccer moms. Also, she insists onbeing called "Congressman". The press wil spend a week having a field day with that peculiarity, and there are only eight weeks between the convention and the election.

In order to win, we need a candidate that excites the right, excites the general public from day one on a short eight week run, and can appeal and relate to swing voters that we need.

Sanford, Pawlenty, and Blackburn would excite the right, but they would not accomplish the other two (Sanford and Blackburn have baggage and peculiarities that are not suited for an eight week run).

If Obama can capture the nomination of one of the major parties halfway through his first term as Senator, then Palin can be the nominee for VP.

... then he is every bit as petulant and quite frankly, ill-suited to be the GOP's nominee as all his detractors say he is. If McCain would not pick someone who would help him solidify his ticket with the Conservative base and very possibly draw in more of the middle that he is so reliant on because she *supported* others in the Primary, then his nomination is a mistake in more ways than one, and win or lose, the GOP is going to suffer.

In contrast, Reagan picked a man who was his rival for the nomination and who loudly bad-mouthed his economic vision. They went on to win also because the guy solidified the ticket with the more moderate sections of the base who might have gone with Anderson in November.

Romney/Pace 2008

that so and so endorsed so and so, so now their opponents would never accept them. That is ridiculous. Political parties have a way of rallying when it comes time for the election b/c it is in their best interest to WIN and obtain political power. Just b/c Blackburn did not immediately endorse McCain does not mean she won't be considered.

McCain, Clinton, and Obama want to win and so they are going to choose the person they feel will best help them win and, in the case of McCain for sure, the best person who could lead this nation if need be regardless of any previous endorsement of an opponent.

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator McCain

Why not take Tom Ridge, someone that can swing a State.

Then Sanford is by far the best choice, particularly because he is well loved by BOTH economic and social conservatives... and because he is so young.

The only other two candidates in the same league as Sanford are Tom Coburn and Chris Cox.

If you look at the resumes and consistant across-the-board conservative records of Sanford, Coburn, and Cox... and factor in their ages as well as their willingness to go against liberal Republican tendancies... then these three are head and shoulders above ANY of our presidential candidates.

Not even close!

But I have another idea. I fear a bloodbath where Obama gets elected where he takes the Southeash by a landslide due to blacks voting in record numbers... including many who have never voted and won't ever vote again.

We could lose senators like Chambliss, Sessions, Dole, Inhofe, Alexander, etc.

And if we lose, why dirty up the reputations of Sanford, Coburn, and Cox.. why not keep their reputations clean for 2012.

So how to avoid this bloodbath? Choose J.C. Watts for V.P. The blacks in the southeast will listen to him as he takes on Obama's message of gov't dependance and "nanny state" policies.

Really, when they LISTEN, blacks will line up behind a J.C. Watt's message more so than Obama. But without Watts, they won't listen.

Anyway, two ways to look at this race... not sure which is correct. But one of these is the best idea, IMO.

I know him, I've talked to him, and he is not coming back to politics barring a miracle from God. We're goiung to have to look elsewehere-its a real shame Michael Steele didn't win...

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

if we really want to win...
Then Sanford is by far the best choice, particularly because he is well loved by BOTH economic and social conservatives... and because he is so young.

I could not agree more.

The only thing I can say against McCain picking Sanford is that McCain should win South Carolina regardless. But aside from that, I think he should be the pick.

(Though if we are going to start playing identity politics, Sarah Palin does look good.)

She is conservative, her husband is blue collar, she can talk the economic issues of swing voters, she took on an establishment old school pol and special interests, she's a hockey mom - and did I mention she's a woman?

It is a short eight week run from convention to election day, and the reality is that Sanford would have to spend a significant portion of that time explaining why Confederate symbols still fly in SC, and why he couldn't vote in his own re-election. Also, he doesn't help us with key swing voters that we need to peel away.

I like Sarah Palin, for many of the reasons you mention. See some of my other posts about her. However, I do think her resume is a little lite to be the Vice President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

But then again, I think Obama's resume is too lite to be the President of the most powerful nation on Earth. Go figure.

As for Mark Sanford, you do bring up a good point about the Confederate Flag. However, as a Black South Carolinian myself -- a Black South Carolinian who himself thinks the Confederate Flag is a symbol of evil and represents nothing that any American, Black or White, should be proud of -- I think Sanford hit it on the head when he replied to Wolf Blitzer,

"if you were to talk to the vast majority of South Carolinians, they would say that we do not need to be debating where the Confederate flag is or is not.

I fly that Rebel Flag on the back of my truck and its in my house. The Rebel flag is in the eyes of the beholder, and there are many Black Americans, such as the head of the Carolina NAACP that marched for the right to wear and display the Stars and Bars in schools. Blacks fought for the Confederacy too, just like there were Blacks that owned slaves in SC, as well as other states in the South. To me the Rebel flag means just that, rebel, and I don't think that its anything to be ashamed of in and of itself. Plus while I'm up North it really makes the Yankees mad to see it.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

But that still does not change my opinion of what the flag represents. To me to say that it means "rebel" (your quote) without the context of what the Confederacy was rebelling against (the rule of law and, yes, abolition) is like saying David Duke supports the equal rights of all Americans.

By the way, you do know that the Blacks who fought for the Confederacy did so only on the promise that either they or their family members would be manumitted, don't you?

While it is noteworthy that this promise of manumission occured in the South before the North, please, please do not make the error or give the impression that Blacks fought in the Confederacy out of a sense of loyalty or patriotism to the Confederacy.

Fight and we will free you was made by both sides to get the slaves to fight for them. Lincoln himself said he would have kept slavery if it would have held the Union together-neither sides were going to war over the idea of slavery because in both of their minds Blacks were, and alwasy should be, second class citizens. Hey man I'm from below the Mason Dixon lien too-and I gurantee you that we have just as many rebel flags in Texas as you guys do in SC, but it is more of a rebel thing than a race thing here, and I think that there are Blacks who agree with both of us whoa are good people.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I did not say that the North did not make the same promise. The did. Only the made it two years later. The Confederacy first made the promise of manumission in 1861 but the Federal government did not until 1863.

At the risk of being pedagogic, I would also ask you to reread the history of the Civil War. Yes, you are correct that the initial split was not over slavery but over holding the Union together (although even here the issue that threatened the Union was slavery). But as every commentator but the "Lost Cause" apologists admit, it became readily apparent to everyone during the course of the war that the root cause and the issue that must be addressed was, indeed, slavery.

And as someone who spent a few of my adult years in Texas and yes, I have seen the Confederate flag there, too. I will also say that some of the display is just as much a racial thing as in South Carolina.

As I wrote before, Clarence Thomas displayed the Confederate flag on his desk in Missouri. I still do not agree with that.

But as I also wrote before, I agree with Mark Sanford. To paraphrase, the vast majority of people (in South Carolina and throughout the nation) have more important things to discuss.

Like I said, I think that we both have valid arguments, and I simply agree to disagree. Like you said, we have more important things to be discussing, and I really don't even know how we got into the Civil War anymore :-), but I do agree that it would not be an issue this year. Also, I think that we need someone more exciting than Sanford. McCain's problem is not conservatism, McCain's problem is that he is John McCain. He needs someone who is not going to mealy mouth NewTone the Congressional Democrats and call them out like the treasonous swine they are-I'd love to see Rudy as VP. I really think the two of them would put NY, NJ and a host of other New Englad states into play.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

Wrong. He was reported to have flown it, but he never did. According to him, the person that said he did may have seen a Georgia State Flag, which had the stars and bars on it, but that he had never flown the flag himself and did not support flying it.

Read My Grandfather's Son. He talks about it in detail.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I thought I read somewhere that he had the Confederate flag on his desk when we was a state attorney in Missouri. I believe I read it in Juan Williams' The Atlantic article on him but I could be mistaken.

I have a copy of My Grandfather's Son but have not had the chance to read it yet. I will take a look at it this evening and see what Clarence Thomas has to say himself.

Thanks for the update.

Yes, it was reported many places, just as you said, that he flew it when he worked in Missouri. I first read it when I read Andrew Payton Thomas's biography of him. But he corrects it in his own book.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

posted before, that Sanford's editorial on Obama was appropriate.

However, there are only eight weeks from the convention to the election, and this debate would take too much time, and too much focus away from issues that we need to address in order to win.

to the general and Sanford would have to spend half of that time explaining hom symbols of the confederacy still fly in SC, and why he couldn't vote in his own re-election.

Look, the fact of the matter is that there are less registered Republicans than Democrats. We win generals when we can peel of some of their voters. How does Sanford help us accomplish that? Or Coburn and Cox?

It seems to me that you want to refight the primary, instead on focusing on the general.

Remember Reagan/Bush?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

We should pick Rudy then? ::smiles:: Nah I actually don't care as long as it isn't Huckabee, I can live with anyone else.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

still seem to be sore over the nominee, and are using the VP spot to adress that.

The fact is, we need to energize the base, AND steal away some Democrats that voted for Bush in '00 and '04. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, and they are energized this year. If we energize and excite our base, and have excellent turnout, and they do the same, we lose.

We need all the help and excitement we can get.

Also, Reagan was percieved in '80 to be a lightweight on Foreign Policy, and on specifics, especially regarded as so by the other side of the aisle (many feared Bush more than Reagan,and were glad to face Reagan). Bush, due to his experience as Director of the CIA and Ambassador of China, gave Reagan gravitas and credibility.

This is the situation we are now in. McCain is considered strong on Foreign Policy, but will have trouble relating to middle class families on many economic issues. We need someone who can strengthen his support in this area.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I like the idea of Sarah Palin if Obama is the nominee. You can't use inexperience against her.

What are Linda Lingle? I suspect she is moderate on social issues to get elected in Hawaii, but I thought she was well thought of in her state.

If a woman, black, asian, white (or whatever) is the best pick, then choose them. If it has to be explained in detail why they are the best pick, they probably aren't adequately qualified or at least not well known. Being a particular sex or color does not make any candidate adequately qualified to be one step away from the presidency. There are enough good conservatives around that we probably don't need to go digging to find one if that person would not normally be considered anyway.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service