Who Will McCain Pick? And Does It Matter?

Nick Gillespie | August 29, 2008

The heavy faves for McCain's VP pick include Mitt Romney and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. And possibly Mike Huckabee. All of whom would consolidate the idea that John McCain is a tired, worn-out politician capable of making just as dull and uninteresting and noxious a choice as Barack Obama did.

Somebody such as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be a lot more interesting and fun, as it would show the Republicans are at least in the final decades of the 20th century. Palin, who may be flying into Dayton today (crap, I just realized I'm flying out of Dayton this morning!), is no great shakes from a libertarian view, but would at least put a different face on the mildly pro-market, strongly anti-gay GOP. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal would provide lots of fun, too, and probably discombobulate easy splits based on identity politics.

The VP matters less than we think. For every Dan Quayle that probably cost the first President Bush a point or two, most simply don't matter. So why not pick someone that will at least give us pixel-stained wretches to write about. In other words, Pawlenty? Puh-lease.

One sobering dataset to continue as we slide into a Labor Day Weekend that is being ruined by politics (something always ruins this weekend, isn't it?). The Harris Poll has been asked Americans their self-declared party and ideological affiliations since the early 1970s. The results are here.

In 2007, 26 percent called themselves Republicans, 35 percent called themselves Dems, and 23 percent called themselves Independents. In 1969, those figures were 32, 49, and 19. When it came to describing their political philosophy, in 2007 35 percent called themselves cons, 37 percent moderate, and 19 percent liberal. In 1968, those numbers were 37 percent, 31 percent, and 17 percent.

What this means now is not self-evident, but there is a consistency to American voter self-identification that is simultaneously comforting and appalling. And suggests that the race for president (though not necessarily for Congress) will stay tight for a long time to come, as it has been for going on 20 years now.

Comments

Muttley|8.29.08 @ 7:58AM|#

I think Michael Palin would be a even more interesting and fun as veep than Sarah.

|8.29.08 @ 8:19AM|#

I've been saying for weeks, that McCain would pick a woman... probably Palin, or Elizabeth Dole.
I would've said Kay Bailey Hutchison, but I've heard that she & McCain don't like each other.

At this point, I suspect Palin will be his choice. And while it may be good for Media attention, and possibly to draw some Hillary disaffected voters, if the Dems are on the ball, they could very easily tie this to the whole Abramoff corruption scandal.
Palin is under investigation, for allegedly using her office, to deal with personal matters, and thus, remind folks about Abranoff, and that this shows bad judgment on McCain's part... or, *more of the same from the GOP.*

So, I hope I'm wrong... but I think I'm right about the Palin choice. And it could present some problems for McCain, as noted, and the *is she ready to be Pres,* thing the GOP is using on Obama...

|8.29.08 @ 8:20AM|#

Jonah Goldberg: When I lay my head to the pillow tonight, I will dream that John Kasich takes the stage with McCain tomorrow in Dayton. If that happens, you can close the books on the presidential race and start looking at whether the coattails will bring us one of the two houses.

Step 1: John Kasich

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Victory!

|8.29.08 @ 8:30AM|#

Palin would be awesome. I hope it's her. And it would definitely bring some angry Hillary voters over.

|8.29.08 @ 8:40AM|#

Intrade says it's Sarah Palin, as does Matt Drudge.

buddyw|8.29.08 @ 8:44AM|#

He only has one chance. He has to pick Ron Paul and promise to die in the first 3 months.

|8.29.08 @ 8:54AM|#

Why is Jindal only moderately pro market? I thought the guy was an arch conservative. What about him causes you to say he is "mildly pro market" as opposed to just pro market?

Jindal's problem is that it is still socially acceptable to be racist against Asians. People are still racist against blacks but they can't say it publicly. In contrast we have court sanctioned institutionalized descrimination against Asians in the form of affirmative action. I could see a black person being elected, Colin Powell could have been and Obama may be, but no way does an Asian get elected to national office.

|8.29.08 @ 8:55AM|#

It's the former Python. From what I've heard, there's not much meat to the investigation, either.

Whether she's the candidate or not, she is slated to speak at the convention, which wouldn't happen if she were embroiled in some major scandal.

|8.29.08 @ 8:58AM|#

I bet it is Palin. How can anyone complain about a former runner up in the Miss Alaska Pagent getting more face time on TV?

Brian|8.29.08 @ 9:02AM|#

Palin maybe tries to get one trooper fired and all of a sudden she's Spiro Agnew. Nice try.

|8.29.08 @ 9:05AM|#

Yeah,

Brian because the Democrats care so much about a governor misusing state troopers. Maybe she should have just used them to cruise for boyfriends for her or girlfriends if you want have a few sick fantasies this morning.

|8.29.08 @ 9:09AM|#

How can anyone complain about a former runner up in the Miss Alaska Pagent getting more face time on TV?

So she's an inexperienced celebrity?

|8.29.08 @ 9:13AM|#

I say bring on the failed beauty pageant and mushy governor VP picks. There is far worse out there.

♪|8.29.08 @ 9:15AM|#

Somebody such as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be a lot more interesting and fun, as it would show the Republicans are at least in the final decades of the 20th century.

Please explain. Because she's slightly more technologically savvy than McCain (but not quite up to 21 century standards)? She likes '90s music? I don't get it.

|8.29.08 @ 9:19AM|#

"So she's an inexperienced celebrity?"

In some ways, but she has done something since college besides win elections. Editor of the Law Review is not her claim to fame.

If it is her, I am sure we will hear a lot of "she is not experienced enough" without a hint of irony and a lot of condesending sexism on the part of the media and the Democrats.

Travis|8.29.08 @ 9:21AM|#

John,

If Jindal can win the governor race in Louisiana I think he could win elsewhere.

|8.29.08 @ 9:24AM|#

I think Palin's beauty could backfire. A woman that pretty unsettles many women. Remember what happened to Stacy Kiebler on Dancing with the Stars?

The press keeps saying Romney. I think that would be terrible for McCain. It would open his campaign up to all the rather obvious problems people had with Romney (wacky religion, astounding flip flops, that used car salesman style) and on the other hand religous conservatives are not going to sit at home either way (unless he picks a pro-choice candidate).

|8.29.08 @ 9:28AM|#

"If Jindal can win the governor race in Louisiana I think he could win elsewhere."


I would like to think that to. But, you have to remember that Blanco was probably the most incompetant governor in history. The media played it down because they wanted to go after Bush, but Blanco was beyond bad during Kartina. The voters were looking for anyone who would do better. Jindal is a really good exctutive. I can tell you from experience that Lousiana, not New Orleans but the State, is 100 times more prepared for Gustav than they were for Kartina and that is mostly due to Jindal. Him winning in Lousiana was a product of time and place as much as anything.

|8.29.08 @ 9:29AM|#

In some ways, but she has done something since college besides win elections.

Much more impressive lose beauty pagents.

a lot of condesending sexism on the part of the media and the Democrats.

Stop playing the gender card, Hillary.

|8.29.08 @ 9:31AM|#

Stop playing the race card, too.

|8.29.08 @ 9:32AM|#

joe,

She's a governor, and she's the VP candidate (maybe). Your comment only serves to highlight your party's weakness this election. If Palin were the nominee for president, I'd mock her, though I think experience as governor is much more useful in determining how a president or vice president will act than any other gig.

One interesting comment on her possible selection on NPR this morning was that her selection would bring a governor into this all-senator party. But that's true of most of the likely McCain VPs.

I thought she might be his pick a while back, because she's considered to be a reforming maverick, too, only I think it may be true in her case. She resigned a commission seat to protest some nonsense in Alaska--taking on her own party to do so, too. A little principle somewhere in this election would be nice.

|8.29.08 @ 9:32AM|#

Remember what happened to Stacy Kiebler on Dancing with the Stars?

No, but holy shit. There are chicks like that on Dancing With the Stars?!?

|8.29.08 @ 9:36AM|#

Yeah, Pro Lib, I'm really worried about "my party's weakness this election."

Just having a little fun with the speed with which talking points get abandoned.

|8.29.08 @ 9:44AM|#

There saying it is not Palin now. Maybe it is Lieberman. The one thing about McCain is that really doesn't give a shit about what people think about him. Picking Lieberman would piss people off on the right, but I don't think he cares. After you have been through all of the things that McCain has been through in his life, a takes a little more than the thought that the people at National Review will say bad things about you to intimidate you.

John-David|8.29.08 @ 9:49AM|#

CNBC says it is indeed Palin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655

|8.29.08 @ 9:51AM|#

Oh, joe, you're still giddy like a school girl from the convention. Back here on Earth, Obama looks pretty weak, and nothing has been done to address his cipher status, which will be his downfall with swing voters. Just consider this: If Palin is inexperienced, then so is Obama. They're two years apart in age, and she's a governor, which is almost universally considered to be more relevant experience for the White House.

I bet you laughed at the selection of Dan Quayle, too, who was as experienced as Obama. And an idiot, too, but that wasn't common knowledge when he was selected. Face it--the nomination of Obama (or of Clinton) shows that the Democrats have serious problems. Just like the initial nomination of Bush demonstrated a major issue within the GOP. Americans are just getting dumber, I guess.

Experience to me is less about whether they can do the job or not and more about being able to assess their ability, character, etc. when in office. I'd be just as comfortable voting for a well-established CEO without political experience, because they live under a similar spotlight (thought they lack the power of federal office).

I'm voting Babar, in any case, which shows that I'm a hypocrite. He's saying one thing now, but he behaved completely differently when in Congress. He's the least of three evils, I guess.

♪|8.29.08 @ 9:53AM|#

Republicans might choose the lesser half of Sore Loserman? Priceless! We have come full-circle.

New World Dan|8.29.08 @ 9:53AM|#

I think Palin's beauty could backfire. A woman that pretty unsettles many women. Remember what happened to Stacy Kiebler on Dancing with the Stars?


I doubt it. She's not that kind of pretty. Instead of the jealous response, she's more in line with what many women aspire to be: attractive, successful, powerful and motherly all rolled into one package. She'll do well with jaded Hillary supporters and she also has a lot of internet fan boys who like hot conservative women. And there are a surprising number of them.

|8.29.08 @ 9:57AM|#

Pro Lib,

If Palin were the nominee for president, I'd mock her, though I think experience as governor is much more useful in determining how a president or vice president will act than any other gig.

I disagree. I'm a bit eccentric on this, but I think experience is more important in a vice-presidential candidate than a presidential candidate, about whom I'm more concerned with political beliefs.

Presidents are going to have time to gear up during the transition and the "honeymoon." If a vice-president were to take over, it will be in the middle of a crisis; certainly a political crisis, maybe a military, national security, humanitarian, maybe constitutional crisis. The flip side of this is that I'm less concerned about a VP's ideological stances. That's why I think a Poppy Bush/Cheney/Biden-style selection is better than a Quayle/Edwards/Palin-style selection. I realize I'm in the minority on this, though. Most people think it's just natural for the VP to be a protege.

|8.29.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Who Will McCain Pick?

Don't know, don't care.

And Does It Matter?

There is a microscopic iota of a chance I will vote for McCain for prez. He picks me for the VP slot. That's the only way he gets my vote.

Think about it John. Not only will you get my vote, I'm single and lack discretion. The Washington journalists paparazzi won't be paying attention as you cozy up to lobbyists while claiming almost virginal purity. I promise to date only scandalous, trashy B list celebrities while in office, keeping your not very titallating transgressions off of the front pages. Hell if the going gets rough, I'll go the extra mile and get me one of those Russian internet girlfriends.

That's some serious loyaly. Mr. Maverick.

|8.29.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Pro Lib,

I'll get my reports from "earth" from sources other than libertarians. Have you considered the possibility that it is not, in fact, the people who think he really helped himself last night who are out of touch with the reality of the American political scene? That, maybe, people voting for Bob Barr can't accurately project their reaction onto the body politic as a whole?

Saying that Obama did "nothing to address the cipher status" in last night's speech is just silly. Saying he's looking pretty weak is just silly. Freaking Pat Buchanan went off last night about how much good this did him.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:04AM|#

joe,

I guess we could look at the experience level of past Veeps who had to take over and see if it made a difference.

Thinking thru them off the top of my head, I cant figure out an obvious pattern, but need to look up the experience levels for some of them.

|8.29.08 @ 10:05AM|#

I'd say that the evil old man as VP as been discredited a bit ☺ In my mind, the VP is a position for the lesser candidate, though I'd prefer that our bar were higher so that we'd not see Quayles, Edwards, and similarly inappropriate candidates.

One thing I'll give Clinton is that he picked a good complement to himself for VP. Clinton was an experienced governor, and he brought in a VP with Congressional experience. They were more equal in status, which is more my ideal, especially considering that a president can be incapacitated or die in office. People forget with that selection, that Clinton was criticized by members of his own party for picking another Southerner.

Not that I'm a fan of Clinton and/or Gore; I just approve of the types of candidates that election had. Reagan and Bush were similarly well-matched, as were Carter and Mondale. We can have crappy presidents regardless, but I think it's a safer gamble than what we're increasingly facing in the 21st century.

|8.29.08 @ 10:09AM|#

People forget with that selection, that Clinton was criticized by members of his own party for picking another Southerner.

Who would believe, in today's political climate, that such a thing would have ever been written? TOO SOUTHERN?

|8.29.08 @ 10:10AM|#

"Governor of a rinky-dink little state that depends on sucking up federal dollars like a parasite to continue it's existence" isn't exactly the sort of gubernatorial experience that would really help McCain.

Also, good god, I don't think I can handle three months of "and she's really hot!" being thrown around as some sort of qualification. Misognynism much?

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:11AM|#

Just working thru this:

Ford - experienced (25 years in house, 0 executive) - did what needed to be done, which was nothing. Not sure we learn anything from that.

LBJ - experienced - horrible, awful president. Got stuff done - stuff that shouldnt have been done.

Truman - moderate experience - only 10 years as senator - took over during a war and did a good job nuking Japan.

I need to research experience levels further back, but so far joe's premise doesnt hold up, depending of course on views of Truman/LBJ.

|8.29.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Some people are saying that, with the scandals among the Alaska GOP and the overall dissatisfaction with Bush, Alaska might be in play this year. Think of how much Ohio shifted towards the Dems in 2006. Palin would guarantee that McCain will win more than just his home state.

|8.29.08 @ 10:14AM|#

joe,

I don't even remotely agree. Speeches are a dime a dozen. The fact that you're citing a speech to say that he's overcome his deficiencies is what's silly. He's a good speaker. That's not even remotely close to making him a good candidate for president. Where's the beef? There isn't any. It's just another guy with the arrogance to think he was born ready for president. Sorry, I know he's your guy this time around, but I just don't understand the enthusiasm.

On the all-Southern ticket issue, yes, it's true. There has been a tendency to view the VP candidate as someone who "balances" the ticket, particularly geographically. It's not a new idea, of course, and I think it has limited value. As a native of the South, I was pretty offended when I heard (I was living in Minnesota at the time) Clinton and Gore referred to as "The Two Bubbas." Grrr.

|8.29.08 @ 10:14AM|#

robc,

If you're going to take a serious stab at this, you need to put your ideological preferences aside. Seriously, if you're giving Truman an "eh," you're just grading them on how much you personally like their politics.

|8.29.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Pro Libertate,

You're projecting. Most people 1) don't agree with your politics and 2) don't choose presidents the way you do.

|8.29.08 @ 10:18AM|#

Also, good god, I don't think I can handle three months of "and she's really hot!" being thrown around as some sort of qualification. Misognynism much?

At least someone finally had the guts to point out that thinking a woman is attractive is misogyny. Nothing indicates a man's hatred for woman more than finding her desirable.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:20AM|#

"...is no great shakes from a libertarian view, but would at least put a different face on the mildly pro-market, strongly anti-gay GOP."

Of all the things to point out, where the hell did the anti-gay thing come from? Obama is no more pro-gay than McCain, as they both voted against gay marriage.

|8.29.08 @ 10:21AM|#

See, I try to be aware enough to realize that "but I'm right and smart" doesn't mean that my position is a political winner.

Last night was, in addition to everything else, one of the most substantive speeches of the campaign in terms of policy, but since you don't like that policy, you're just reading it out of existence, and using the fact that the speech was well-written and -delivered as evidence that there wasn't any content.

As acceptance speeches go, that was very specific and policy-heavy. No, it wasn't a Ralph Nader speech or an Al Gore speech, but most people don't require that level of policy detail.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Calvin Coolidge - 2 years as governor of an unimportant state (just kidding joe), but number of years in state government. Palin level inexperience. Best President of the 20th century.

Teddy Roosevelt - governor of NY - Other fed government experience. I would call it experienced. Views on his presidency vary, he was one of those "get stuff done" guys.

Chester A Arthur - no elected experience, was a political insider hack type. I know basically nothing about him, seems to have done a good job, so good that he pissed off the GOP and they refused to renominate him.

|8.29.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Nothing indicates a man's hatred for woman more than finding her desirable.

"Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally, but know this: I wrap my rascal TWO times cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation as a way of punishing supermodels."

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:23AM|#

joe,

Seriously, if you're giving Truman an "eh," you're just grading them on how much you personally like their politics.

I didnt give Truman an eh, I gave him a big thumbs up. I just left it open to others to interpret. Did you not see my "good job of nuking Japan" comment? I realize that sounds humorous, but I meant it too.

|8.29.08 @ 10:23AM|#

JINDAL: automatic identity split? well, he would be the face of white collar outsourcing to Bangladesh.

Ali|8.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#

The latter question should be asked and answered first:

Does it matter?

No.

Then, the first question becomes irrelevant:

Who will McCain pick?

I don't care.

|8.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#

Obama on DOMA: For the record, I opposed [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted. …

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. … Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.

McCain voted in favor of DOMA.

|8.29.08 @ 10:27AM|#

My mistake, robc. Still, "Calvin Coolidge best president of the 20th century" and "Opinions vary about TR" means you're grading them on political ideology.

|8.29.08 @ 10:27AM|#

Projecting? I fear that you've drunk more deeply of your brand of Kool-Aid than I have. I've been watching this nonsense for decades, now, and I'm enough of a student of history not to let my heart go all a flutter when some charismatic candidate is thrown at me. I vote libertarian (or Libertarian) because I think the increasing power of government is a threat to all of us. If a Republican or Democrat has some tendency to agree with that view, I'll vote for him or her. And I have.

Besides, you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a particular fan of the LP, and I'm not a member. I think they're as much a hindrance as a help to the cause of liberty.

As for the substance of his speech, I hope you're kidding. It was a good speech, but it didn't tell us what the heck Obama will do in office. We still don't know. I know the type, joe. He'll betray you, just like Bush betrayed Republicans who wanted to believe.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:29AM|#

"Saying that Obama did "nothing to address the cipher status" in last night's speech is just silly. Saying he's looking pretty weak is just silly. Freaking Pat Buchanan went off last night about how much good this did him."

So fucking what? Who gives a shit what Pat Buchanan said? I have seen multiple pundits who said the speech didn't do shit, that it was just more of the same. It is pretty sad that you are pulling out Pat Buchanan as your fucking trump card.
No amount of speechifying can change the fact that Barack Obama is the least-qualified presidential candidate in the history of the Republic.

SIV|8.29.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Can anyone confirm isf sarah Palin has actual welding skills?

I'd be surprised if she doesn't.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:31AM|#

"If it is her, I am sure we will hear a lot of "she is not experienced enough" without a hint of irony and a lot of condesending sexism on the part of the media and the Democrats."

Any accusation of inexperience coming from Barack Obama would be a fucking joke.

|8.29.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Can anyone confirm if sarah Palin has actual welding skills?

If true, Guy Montag may be in his bunk for the rest of the campaign season. And beyond.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Last group:

Andrew Johnson - Governor of Tenn, 1 term in senate, war governor of captured sections of Tenn - experienced - got himself impeached.

Millard Fillmore - 6 years in house, elected NY state comptroller - inexperienced - no idea on how good he was, he did send Perry to open up trade with Japan, also enforced fugitive slave act. Im going to go negative just because there is an unfunny duck named after him.

John Tyler - 3 terms in house, 2 in senate, above moderate experience - "His Accidency", nuff said

Rhywun|8.29.08 @ 10:36AM|#

Obama is no more pro-gay than McCain, as they both voted against gay marriage.

Didn't he make some pro-gay marriage (or at least anti-anti GM) comments in his speech?

I wonder what Palin's take on it is. I've heard Jindal is pretty hard-core anti-gay (and not just marriage).

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:37AM|#

joe,

Still, "Calvin Coolidge best president of the 20th century" and "Opinions vary about TR" means you're grading them on political ideology.

Somewhat yeah. I acknowledge TR as a "got stuff done" guy. But, yeah, CC was the best president of the 20th century. I wont even accept arguments on that. There is no rationale for picking anyone else (that I will accept as a rational rationale).

I will acknowledge FDR as a "great" president, on the grounds that "great" can be either a big positive or a big negative. I judge him as one of the worst, but he did "great" things. Stalin was a "great" leader too. Im not judging the VP->P by that standard though.

|8.29.08 @ 10:38AM|#

Pro Lib, do you ever check your assumptions against the world at large?

Tell me, is the reaction to this speech in the media more similar to your take, or to mine?

Projection. Solipsism.

And I certainly don't need lectures in skepticism from an ideological libertarian true believer.

You can't even come out and acknowledge that Barack Obama's speeches translate into political support - this, a few months after he beat the Clinton machine to win the Democratic nomination largely on the strength of his speeches - and I'm letting my political preferences run away with me? Whatever.

|8.29.08 @ 10:38AM|#

robc,

This is not aimed at this campaign in particular, but I don't care for candidates with only Congressional experience as a rule.

Why don't we make a ghola of George Washington and let him serve as president from now on? I think I trust him, once we've updated him on slavery, the British, and so on.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:39AM|#

"So she's an inexperienced celebrity?"


This question is for you joe: Please tell us anything of note that Barack Obama has done since he was in office? If you support Barack Obama, you surrender the right to call anyone else inexperienced. You also surrender the right to call anyone an arrogant narcissist, unless of course the target of your attack gives speeches surrounded by a faux-greek temple. Hubris is a greek word after all.

|8.29.08 @ 10:42AM|#

B,

Touchy, touchy. Why are the people who hate Barack Obama swearing so much thing morning?

So fucking what? Who gives a shit what Pat Buchanan said? I have seen multiple pundits who said the speech didn't do shit, that it was just more of the same. It's called "statement against interest," Einstein. Pat Buchanan is a conservative Republican with every reason to spin against the liberal Democrat. Yeah, I've seen pundits say the speech didn't accomplish much, either - all of whom are devoted Republicans.

No amount of speechifying can change the fact that Barack Obama is the least-qualified presidential candidate in the history of the Republic. We weren't discussing his resume, we were discussing the effect of his speech on the state of the race. I'd want to change the subject, too, in your shoes.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:43AM|#

9 Veeps -> Pres:

Ranking by experience:
LBJ
Ford
A Johnson
T Roosevelt
Tyler (maybe Tyler above Teddy?0
Truman
Coolidge
Fillmore
Arthur

Ranking in office (my judgement):
Coolidge
Truman
Arthur
Roosevelt
Ford
Fillmore
A Johnson
Tyler
LBJ

Rhywun|8.29.08 @ 10:44AM|#

speeches surrounded by a faux-greek temple

I didn't care about the temple, but then I flipped over to one of the networks and caught the tail end of the event - and the fireworks! I thought that was a bit much.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#

"You can't even come out and acknowledge that Barack Obama's speeches translate into political support - this, a few months after he beat the Clinton machine to win the Democratic nomination largely on the strength of his speeches"

Yeah, his speeches were so powerful, he gained less votes than Clinton did in the primaries. He's a regular Abraham Lincoln when it comes to the spoken word. As a matter of fact, if you have ever read the ununsed drafts of the Gettysburg Address, you will see that Lincoln also made references to bitter assholes who cling to guns and religion. It is just a shame those portions of his speech went unused.

|8.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Palin is ineligible. The Presidency must be the exclusive province of refugees from the World's Most Exclusive Mutual Admiration Society. This is why Queeg must choose Joe Buttonman.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#

ProLib,

Why don't we make a ghola of George Washington and let him serve as president from now on? I think I trust him, once we've updated him on slavery, the British, and so on.

Do we have to set up a situation where he tries to kill the current president in order to restore his memories?

Either way, Im all for it.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:47AM|#

"I'd want to change the subject, too, in your shoes."


So you know me and my political leanings now?

|8.29.08 @ 10:47AM|#

"I know the type, joe. He'll betray you, just like Bush betrayed Republicans who wanted to believe."

You know pro, I am not so sure about that. I think Obama might actually believe this crap, which scares me. Does Obama come in and get his ass kicked in his first two years like Clinton did and find religion and start taking to the right or does he stay left? Clinton betrayed the liberals. I am not sure Obama will, which would do a lot to revive the Republican Party.


Bush didn't betray the conservatives as much as they didn't bother to listen to him when he ran for President. Bush ran as a big government compassionate conservative guy. He promised tax cuts and government programs. Go back and read his speeches. Once in office he did exactly what he said he was going to do, except for Social Security reform which he tried to do but Congress would have none of it. Yes the conservative accusations about Bush are correct. But for conservatives to say they had no warning of things like the No Child Left Behind Act and Prescription Drug benefits is ridiculous. They just wanted to win so bad they didn't listen.

Mike|8.29.08 @ 10:47AM|#

So Seriously, nobody here cares about her experience? They just care about how it would be 'fun' and that's she's good looking?

This woman is selected for vice president and none of you seem to get that! It's not about looks, it's about the best person for the job and she is nowhere near that!!!

GOOD LORD!

Rhywun|8.29.08 @ 10:48AM|#

Barack Obama is the least-qualified presidential candidate in the history of the Republic

And most people couldn't care less. They want image, and after 8 years of Bush Lite I can't say I blame them.

|8.29.08 @ 10:48AM|#

Uh, huh. Now you're getting silly. Let's do a poll: Who is more ideologically pure, Pro Libertate or joe? Regardless of your agreement or disagreement with our positions?

I vote with my head, you vote with your heart. The latter kind of voting is why our government is so messed up. My libertarianism has always been more utilitarian than philosophical. I don't think your government-must-fix-most-things ideology works more than I dislike it on moral grounds.

|8.29.08 @ 10:50AM|#

B asks This question is for you joe: Please tell us anything of note that Barack Obama has done since he was in office?

A good lawyer doesn't ask questions he doesnt' know the answer to.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.

Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.

The act created this Web site, which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.

The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.

The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill

The Obama-McCain bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.

Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007

Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.

Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill

Obama worked with Sen. Kit Bond to limit, through this bill, the Pentagon's use of personality disorder discharges in the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision

But, personally, my favorite accomplishment of Obama's was at the state level, when he sponsored a bill requiring the police to videotape the interrogations and confessions of suspects and witnesses in murder cases. Initially, it was opposed by the Mayor of Chicago, the Governor, the police unions, the police chiefs, victims groups, the Republican caucus, and most Democrats. Then Obama talking each one of those parties into supporting it, it passed the Senate unanimously, was signed into law, and has served as the model for similar legislation in other states.

OK, your turn. What has Sarah Palin accomplished, beyond getting that cop fired?

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:50AM|#

So Seriously, nobody here cares about her experience? They just care about how it would be 'fun' and that's she's good looking?

Based on my quick study, looks like she has exactly the right amount of experience. A few years as governor seems just about perfect.

|8.29.08 @ 10:50AM|#

Pat Buchanan is a conservative Republican with every reason to spin against the liberal Democrat.

In all fairness, there's no love lost between paleocon Buchanan and pro-immigration, interventionist, Israel-loving, neocon McCain.

|8.29.08 @ 10:50AM|#

I read this morning Obama vowed to wean us off foreign oil in ten years. This caused me to laugh aloud.

President PonyPower, to the Rescue!

|8.29.08 @ 10:53AM|#

B, spouting talking points he doesn't understasnd again, writes, Yeah, his speeches were so powerful, he gained less votes than Clinton did in the primaries.

Which is true...as long as you assume that there weren't actually any people voting in the states that reported delegates instead of raw vote totals.

Pro Libertate writes, I vote with my head, you vote with your heart. Of course I do. Doesn't everyone who disagrees with you?

|8.29.08 @ 10:53AM|#

John,

What I was driving at more was that I expect a lot of corruption in an Obama administration. Maybe that's just my years in Chicago speaking, but that's what I expect. I also see signs that he's an opportunist and will switch viewpoints to the extent he needs to to hold office or power.

joe,

Palin isn't running for president. Keep comparing her to Obama and see what good it does in fending off charges that he's too inexperienced. Their level of experience is comparable. McCain had no need to bolster his decades of experience with another Biden-type pick, after all. I hasten to add that I'd like McCain to have less experience doing the things he's done.

|8.29.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Mike,

It's not about looks, it's about the best person for the job and she is nowhere near that!!!

Name me even one time that the "best person for the job" was elected to any position.

Grow up.

KyleG|8.29.08 @ 10:54AM|#

CNN is showing Palin as McCain's pick. Still not voting for them but she does look like a tasty milf.

|8.29.08 @ 10:56AM|#

"Pat Buchanan is a conservative Republican with every reason to spin against the liberal Democrat."

Pat Buchanan is a racist anti-semetic loon. He is anything but a "conservative Republican". He hates the free market, globalism, and has a strange affection for Hitler and Nazi Germany. For Buchanan, it is always Hitler who was the victim and Roosevelt and Churchill the agressors. He is probably the most loathsome figure in all of public life today.

|8.29.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Keep comparing her to Obama and see what good it does in fending off charges that he's too inexperienced.

I really didn't think Just having a little fun with the speed with which talking points get abandoned. was so terribly difficult a point, but I'll spell it out more clearly: I'm not making an argument about experience. I'm cackling as one goes down in flames, and the people who've been making it stand around swearing.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:56AM|#

SugarFree,

Name me even one time that the "best person for the job" was elected to any position.


1789.

I think that was the last time it happened, too.

B|8.29.08 @ 10:57AM|#

"It's called "statement against interest," Einstein. Pat Buchanan is a conservative Republican with every reason to spin against the liberal Democrat. Yeah, I've seen pundits say the speech didn't accomplish much, either - all of whom are devoted Republicans"

Buchanan has made it no secret that he doesn't like McCain. But as I said before, who gives a shit what he says. There are multiple liberal pundits who didn't think the speech was any good. But so fucking what.
It is so hilarious that you think mentioning Pat Buchanan should somehow silence all debate on this board as to whether the speech was any good or not.

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:57AM|#

joe,

The talking points for Pres and Veep are different. An inexperienced Veep candidate does not shoot down the "presidential candidate is inexperienced" talking point.

|8.29.08 @ 10:58AM|#

Pat Buchanan is a racist anti-semetic loon. Which goes to show why he SHOULDN'T be considered hostile to Barack Obama's candidacy?

He is anything but a "conservative Republican".

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Right, Pat Buchanan isn't a conservative Republican. Heavens, no!

|8.29.08 @ 10:58AM|#

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

Oh, huzzah!

robc|8.29.08 @ 10:59AM|#

joe,

Is Buchanan back in the GOP? Did they let him back after joining the Reform Party?

|8.29.08 @ 11:00AM|#

"What I was driving at more was that I expect a lot of corruption in an Obama administration. Maybe that's just my years in Chicago speaking, but that's what I expect. I also see signs that he's an opportunist and will switch viewpoints to the extent he needs to to hold office or power."

I am sure there will be but that will not bother his followers. Did the corruption in the Clinton administration bother any of his supporters? When the corruption is uncovered they will just say "Bush was worse" and of course say Obama is being persecuted because he is black. Elected Obama will do nothing to stop people from playing the race card. If anything it will make it worse. Anyone who points out corruption or makes any criticism of him will be deemed a racist. Further, considering his Chicago background and his campaign's reaction to the Ayers commercial, once he has control of the Justice Department, anyone who seriously and publicly goes after Obama, better have a good criminal defense attorney.

|8.29.08 @ 11:01AM|#

B, digging himself deepter:

Buchanan has made it no secret that he doesn't like McCain. And he's made it clear that he doesn't like Obama, either.

But as I said before, who gives a shit what he says. People trying to get an impression of how the speech went over outside of liberal Democratic circles.

There are multiple liberal pundits who didn't think the speech was any good. You just can't name any, is all. BTW, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Kristol echoed Buchanan, too.

Saying last night's speech 1) wasn't any good and 2) didn't help him in the race is beyond silly. It's a symptom of either a mental disorder or a descent into partisan delusion.

robc|8.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#

Im all in favor of a constitutional amendment banning anyone who has ever lived in the greater Chicago area from ever holding federal office.

Anyone opposed?

B|8.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#

"B, spouting talking points he doesn't understasnd again, writes, Yeah, his speeches were so powerful, he gained less votes than Clinton did in the primaries."


Hahahahahaha, you riding someone for spouting talking points? Hahahahahahahaha. Clinton gained more votes in the primaries, period. If, as you claim, voters are easily swayed by speechifying and if Obama's speeches were as brilliant as you fucking claimed, it shouldn't have been close. But then again, I can't expect a decent argument from someone who claims Pat Buchanan is a conservative Republican.

|8.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#

robc,

You've won this round, Louisvillian! [grumble]

I could also be sort of swayed by Jefferson in that he opposed Hamiltonism.

|8.29.08 @ 11:03AM|#

John | August 29, 2008, 8:54am | #

Jindal's problem is that it is still socially acceptable to be racist against Asians. People are still racist against blacks but they can't say it publicly. In contrast we have court sanctioned institutionalized descrimination against Asians in the form of affirmative action. I could see a black person being elected, Colin Powell could have been and Obama may be, but no way does an Asian get elected to national office

John | August 29, 2008, 11:00am | #

Elected Obama will do nothing to stop people from playing the race card. If anything it will make it worse. Anyone who points out corruption or makes any criticism of him will be deemed a racist.

robc|8.29.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Just as a question, did people really watch the speech last night? Really? Didnt you realize college football was on? Dont you have a good sense of priorities?

|8.29.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Buchanan is not a member of the party. Buchanan doesn't support the war. He doesn't support free trade. He has libertarian ideas about taxes and monetary policy. He is a gold standard propronent and thinks that all government revenue should come from tarriffs. There is nothing conservative republican about him. The only thing conservative or republican about him is that Joe thinks everyone who is a "conservative republican" is evil and since Buchanan is evil, he must be a conservative republican.

|8.29.08 @ 11:04AM|#

robc,

If McCain hadn't made so much noise about picking an experienced VP, you might be right. Instead, someone who can step in and keep American safe is...Sarah Palin?

And yes, Pat Buchanan was "let back in" to the GOP after running on a third-party ticket, just like Ron Paul.

|8.29.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Also Joe. Buchanan hates the Republican party. He has every reason to hope they lose and Obama wins so that some day his brand of wacko politics can take over. Obama could have thrown up on stage and he would have said it was great.

|8.29.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Clinton gained more votes in the primaries, period.

You know, your inaccurate statement is so much more plausible when you write "period" at the end like that. Maybe you should have tried it with "Pat Buchanan is not a conservative Republican, period."

robc|8.29.08 @ 11:08AM|#

joe,

I was going to make the "just like Paul" connection, but I didnt think anyone would seriously answer my question. :)

Maybe its why Im not allowed to run political parties, but I would seriously consider not allowing anyone back in who left in order to run against us.

|8.29.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Patrick Joseph "Pat" Buchanan (born November 2, 1938) is an American politician, author, syndicated columnist and broadcaster. Buchanan was a senior adviser to American presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and was an original host on CNN's Crossfire. He sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996.

Nope, no Republican there. And certainly not a conservative.

robc|8.29.08 @ 11:09AM|#

As an aside, my 10:59 questions were rhetorical. My 11:03 ones werent. Those were serious.

Johnny Nowhere|8.29.08 @ 11:09AM|#

robc,

I tried to watch the speech, because if there's one thing I enjoy watching less than a politician making promises, it's college football.

I fell asleep after the 78th time Obama said, "Thank you so much."

idiotface|8.29.08 @ 11:10AM|#

"It's not about looks, it's about the best person for the job and she is nowhere near that!!!"

Really, the presidential election is a dog and pony show. If you don't believe this, then you are naive. I still remember Dukakis riding in that tank like a kid on his big wheel.

Fluffy|8.29.08 @ 11:11AM|#

John,

Of course Buchanan is a conservative Republican.

Declaring him to not be a conservative Republican because he is an isolationist is like saying Chuck Hagel is not a conservative Republican because he was against the war.

When Buchanan ran against Papa Bush in 1992, it was universally seen as a conservative revolt against the President. Buchanan's flirtation with the Reform party doesn't really mean a lot. Keyes is running on a minor party ticket this year, too, but it would be crazy to not identify Keyes' political biography as that of a conservative Republican.

BTW, I think the Palin choice is a really, really good one tactically for McCain, so naturally that pisses me off. I wanted McCain to make a BAD choice. I would have been happier if McCain picked a child rapist and puppy strangling Klansman as his VP.

B|8.29.08 @ 11:19AM|#

"If McCain hadn't made so much noise about picking an experienced VP, you might be right. Instead, someone who can step in and keep American safe is...Sarah Palin?"


Once again, your choice for President completely nullifies insults about who can make America safe. Calling Obama an idiot when it comes to foreign policy is an understatement, unless you agree with his assessment about Iran's size somehow being relevant when discussing how dangerous they are. Or perhaps you agree that we should invade Pakistan. Or perhaps you agree with Obama's view that the United States should be more like that beacon of liberal democracy,
China. For christ sake, his statements in the aftermath of the Russian invasion were so lame, he had to come out the next day and echo what McCain said.

"There are multiple liberal pundits who didn't think the speech was any good. You just can't name any, is all. BTW, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Kristol echoed Buchanan"

Mickey Kaus. There, I named one. And it is beyond fucking hilarious that you actually cited Andrew Sullivan to bolster your argument. You may as well have cited Keith Olbermann. And it is funny how you cite conservatives as evidence the speech was good, but you ignore the conservatives who thought the speech sucked. Make up your fucking mind. Are conservatives deluded idiots, or are they worthy of citing as evidence to bolster your arguments?

"Saying last night's speech 1) wasn't any good and 2) didn't help him in the race is beyond silly. It's a symptom of either a mental disorder or a descent into partisan delusion"


So now disagreeing with you means that an individual has a mental disorder? Damn, no wonder you are voting for Obama. Your arrogance makes that selection a perfect fucking fit.

|8.29.08 @ 11:28AM|#

B, Let me try putting this in single-syllable words.

joe not say that V P pick too young, not hold office long time, not win votes.

joe say, others say that about Obama, now can't say that.

I hope the use of "office" and "others" didn't cause this incredibly simply point to go over your head once again.

Mickey Kaus. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! Mickey Kaus? Liberal pundit Mickey Kaus, the professional concern troll at Slate? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Lemme guess, Hannnity got Colmes to admit it was a bad speech, too.

And it is funny how you cite conservatives as evidence the speech was good, but you ignore the conservatives who thought the speech sucked. Oh my god. You really don't understand the concept of statement against interest, do you?

Look, genius, when a liberal says the Democratic candidate's speech was great, or when a conservative says it was lousy, that's what we expect. They're probably just spinning for their side. When a conservative lauds a speech by a liberal, or when a liberal pans it, THAT tells us a great deal more, because they are arguing in the opposite direction of where they are supposed to spin.

I'll be sure to keep in mind your very strong feelings, B. By the way, you certaily are grouchy for someone who just watched a presidential candidate you oppose blow his convention speech.

B|8.29.08 @ 11:31AM|#

"You know, your inaccurate statement is so much more plausible when you write "period" at the end like that.

And your citation of Patrich Buchanan means that anyone disagreeing with you about Obama's speech must be an idiot.

The votes were counted, and Clinton had more after the primaries. Maybe you employ "New math". You know, the type where the guy with a lower number of votes actually had more.

"Patrick Joseph "Pat" Buchanan (born November 2, 1938) is an American politician, author, syndicated columnist and broadcaster. Buchanan was a senior adviser to American presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and was an original host on CNN's Crossfire. He sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996"

Absolutely nothing in the above quotation demonstrates that Buchanan is conservative. Lincoln Chafee was in the Republican Party, as was Jim Jeffords. Does it then stand to reason that they are also conservatives? The answer should be obvious. But since you are a moron, I guess it's not.

BakedPenguin|8.29.08 @ 11:35AM|#

Maybe [Palin] should have just used [state troopers] to cruise for ...her girlfriends... if you want have a few sick fantasies this morning.

Well, I wasn't planning on having any sick fantasies, but since you mentioned it, I could see her pardoning the Dahm triplets (NSFW), after they were very, very naughty. (But patriotic).

robc|8.29.08 @ 11:40AM|#

joe,

rob say v p not equal p.
rob say they can still say about Obama, standard is different.

|8.29.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Palin has some advantages for McCain, though she's also a bit risky. First, she shores up the conservative side of the ticket, which is McCain's weakness within the party.

Second, she's got strong credibility as a reformer, which is something voters on both sides of the aisle seem to crave.

Third, she's a governor. No other candidate in this race has that kind of experience.

Finally, she's a woman. Some portion of the moderate Clinton backers will go McCain's direction because of this selection.

The risks? Well, there's really only the one big one--she might not be ready to campaign on the national level. If she's inept, she'll make McCain look bad. I think her relative inexperience is less of an issue, because this decision shows that McCain feels no need to bolster that aspect of his ticket (which will make some voters feel more confidence in him the way the Biden selection highlighted Obama's inexperience) and because the natural comparison is between Obama and Palin.

Except for true believers like joe, it's going to be very difficult for Democrats to attack Palin's inexperience without emphasizing their presidential candidate's lack. There's also the danger of looking sexist if the wrong type of criticism is leveled, which is a parallel danger that the GOP faces in criticizing Obama in the wrong way.

All in all, an interesting and gutsy choice. I'm still not voting for McCain, but I think this was a savvy political move. By the way, this could swing some of the media more to McCain--the narrative for him and Palin is a little more interesting than for Obama and Biden.

B|8.29.08 @ 11:50AM|#

"Look, genius, when a liberal says the Democratic candidate's speech was great, or when a conservative says it was lousy, that's what we expect. They're probably just spinning for their side. When a conservative lauds a speech by a liberal, or when a liberal pans it, THAT tells us a great deal more, because they are arguing in the opposite direction of where they are supposed to spin."

And when a liberal says the speech wasn't any good it must mean 1)"it's a symptom of a mental disorder 2) they aren't really liberals.
Claiming Mickey Kaus and Alan Colmes aren't liberal is akin to claiming Bill Kristol is not a conservative. And it is almost as stupid as citing Andrew Sullivan when discussing Obama's speech.

"And it is funny how you cite conservatives as evidence the speech was good, but you ignore the conservatives who thought the speech sucked. Oh my god. You really don't understand the concept of statement against interest, do you?"
Hahahahaha. I understand perfectly. But it makes little sense to cite people you have repeatedly called idiots, even if they do make a "statement against interest". It is amazing how William Kristol is always wrong, until he praises Obama.

B|8.29.08 @ 12:02PM|#

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! Mickey Kaus? Liberal pundit Mickey Kaus, the professional concern troll at Slate? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Lemme guess, Hannnity got Colmes to admit it was a bad speech, too.

Joe, I will now nullify your argument concerning William Kristol and his statements about Obama's speech. OK, here I go:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!! William Kristol? Conservative pundit William Kristol, the professional concern troll at the New York Times? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

Check and mate.

Rhywun|8.29.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Jindal's problem is that it is still socially acceptable to be racist against Asians

The election of John "They're all gooks to me" McCain will prove that.

|8.29.08 @ 12:23PM|#

At last!

An election where I can tell the candidates apart.

|8.29.08 @ 12:56PM|#

I forgot to mention in my list of Palin positives that I loved her in Holy Grail and in her travel videos.