[Kerrigan]

Which politicians do you think would be good VP choices for McCain and Obama?

I really have no clue who would be a good choice for McCain. This is such a tight race and each potential pick has great strengths and great weaknesses. I will say though that I doubt it will be Sanford, Lieberman, or Jindal.

As for Obama, a few months ago I would have supposed that Edwards would be a good pick, but obviously things have changed. There is a rumor that Kerry might come from left field as the VP nominee, and Kerry's experience and veteran status could bolster Obama. Plus, Kerry is familiar to voters, unlike Obama. However, I doubt this will happen. Evan Bayh, perhaps?

[besson3c]

Rumor has it that it won't be Bayh because he is slotted to speak at the DNC in a different slot than what is reserved for the VP, although this could be juggled around. The same applies to Biden and Richardson. Other possibilities include Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sibelius, Hillary Clinton, and Wes Clark.

[nonhuman]

If Obama named Richardson as his VP, I would stop being on the fence about thinking he's the least bad choice (and be firmly in the 'he's the least bad choice' camp, not the other way 'round).

For McCain, I really have no idea. Condoleeza Rice might be a good choice, but is probably tainted by association with the Bush administration, and if there's one thing McCain doesn't need right now it's stronger connections to Bush. As much as I'd hate to actually see him in the White House, Huckabee might be an excellent pick for McCain. Would certainly shore up support amongst evangelicals, and Huckabee would balance McCain out personality-wise very well I think (as in he actually inspires people to like him). Romney probably looks pretty attractive too.

I really haven't put a whole lot of thought into it for either candidate (almost wrote 'character' there...) though.

[subego]

I'd like Richardson too.

Personally, I'd prefer Romney to Huckabee, but I think you make an excellent point.

We should call a spade a spade here. McCain's pick is way more important, due to the increased likelihood of said person serving as President.

[nonhuman]

I'd prefer Romney to Huckabee too, but I think in terms purely about what it takes to win Huckabee would probably be a stronger choice for McCain. And sadly that's really what this decision is probably going to come down to.

[RAILhead]

I would LOOOOOVE Lieberman on the McCain ticket.

[stupendousman]

I too think that Richardson would be good on a Obama ticket. He's likable, intelligent, not as far left as Obama and has some of the experience Barrack lacks. I think that Kerry would be a further drag for Obama. On paper it sounds good, but it's my guess that Kerry would bring as many negatives to the equation as positive. Obama doesn't need another guy who looks like a left-wing elitist on the ticket. It won't be Hillary or Edwards either.

For McCain, he needs someone younger and more in-tune with conservatives. Romney or Huckabee would probably fill the role, but I'm not sure McCain "gets" it. I'm afraid he might pick someone just like him, because he puts too much emphasis on his own personal "independence".

We'll see what happens the next couple of weeks.

[besson3c]

How is he not in tune with conservatives? He's voted with him consistently over the last couple of years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is he not in tune with conservatives? He's voted with him consistently over the last couple of years.

We've heard this broken record for some time now. It's time to bump the turntable and let the rest of the tune be heard.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've heard this broken record for some time now. It's time to bump the turntable and let the rest of the tune be heard.

What rest of the turntable? People change. Until McCain starts showing his maverick side again, I have no reason to believe that he is not just as conservative and like-minded as Bush.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What rest of the turntable? People change. Until McCain starts showing his maverick side again, I have no reason to believe that he is not just as conservative and like-minded as Bush.

I'm with you on this. I used to like McCain, but really there's no way he can redeem himself at this point. Either he's become a neocon, he always was one and was hiding it, or he's not got the principles to try and be elected for who he is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What rest of the turntable?

The guy's entire career. He's been a national representative for his state for 26 years and you are trying to pigeonhole him based on statistics for about 4% of it. Over those 26 years he's hardly been a party line toter, to the point where he doesn't really get much respect from hard-core conservatives.

I'll state again - if you think that people will fall for this line of reasoning, despite knowing that McCain year after year has pissed off fellow Republicans because he wanted to do things his way, GOOD LUCK! People aren't stupid. They understand what's going on. If you aren't one of those people, then I guess that's your problem.

It's no different with Obama. If anyone thinks he really doesn't agree with his life-long pastor or does think that maybe offshore oil drilling is okay, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[besson3c]

Again, people change. How do I know that he hasn't just grown more conservative as he has aged? Many people's politics change over time.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, people change. How do I know that he hasn't just grown more conservative as he has aged? Many people's politics change over time.

how does that old saying go?

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

[Doofy]

OK, as per the topic question...

I'd have to go with Obama running as McCain's VP. And McCain running as Obama's VP.

That'd confuse the hell out of everyone.

[Doofy]

If you're not a liberal when you're 25 12, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35 15, you have no brain.

Fixinatedness.

[besson3c]

How about "if you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you hate tax cuts"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, people change. How do I know that he hasn't just grown more conservative as he has aged? Many people's politics change over time.

Lots of them. The thing is, almost ALL politician's who are running for President have changes of opinion not long before they run in order to shore up one constituency or another. Most people understand this isn't a change in core beliefs, but rather a shift to garner more votes in the long run.

I think it's safe to say that it's a bad idea to judge a man after 26 years based on one year's votes right before a Presidential election. I doubt many voters will. People have short memories, but not that short.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lots of them. The thing is, almost ALL politician's who are running for President have changes of opinion not long before they run in order to shore up one constituency or another. Most people understand this isn't a change in core beliefs, but rather a shift to garner more votes in the long run.

I think it's safe to say that it's a bad idea to judge a man after 26 years based on one year's votes right before a Presidential election. I doubt many voters will. People have short memories, but not that short.

It's an awful risky proposition. Maybe you're right, but what if you're not? I used to be a McCain supporter, and had this change in his policies not taken place I would be planning on voting for him almost without question (I do also find his age to be a point against him, plus there's the fact that if he hadn't had this shift in policies the Libertarians might not have sacrificed all their principles and nominated a worthless turd like Barr ...though that seems somewhat unlikely). But the way he's been voting and the statement he's been making lately make him less desireable to me than Obama.

It's not just risky for me, as a voter, who now has to worry about what he'll really do if he's elected, but it's also risky for him as a candidate who's alienating a voter base that the Republicans haven't had access to for quite a while in order to court a voter base that hates him, but would probably vote for him anyway as a Republican. And the fact that he's willing to potentially sacrifice my vote not only needlessly but potentially counter-productively makes me worry even more about what sort of president he would actually be.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lots of them. The thing is, almost ALL politician's who are running for President have changes of opinion not long before they run in order to shore up one constituency or another. Most people understand this isn't a change in core beliefs, but rather a shift to garner more votes in the long run.

I think it's safe to say that it's a bad idea to judge a man after 26 years based on one year's votes right before a Presidential election. I doubt many voters will. People have short memories, but not that short.

What difference does it make if the politician is pandering or not? The bottom line is that they are voting conservative, and we can only speculate why. It seems illogical to base decisions around pure speculation in light of their actual record.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What difference does it make if the politician is pandering or not? The bottom line is that they are voting conservative, and we can only speculate why. It seems illogical to base decisions around pure speculation in light of their actual record.

It's not based on "pure speculation". It's based on past precedent. Name me one politician who hasn't changed positions shortly before a Presidential election in order to pander for votes? It's a reasonable assumption that you shouldn't base your opinion on what a candidate believes based on their votes in this manner.

Even crazier is the leaps that VP candidates usually have to make.
I remember the pained look in Joe Lieberman's eyes whenever he had to support one of Al Gore's crazy ideas that he was against in the past. You knew that Joe was "taking one for the team" and didn't really hold it against him. I think the same thing when I see Obama or McCain supporting stuff they wouldn't have supported 2 or 3 years ago.

[besson3c]

Yeah, but he's voted in line with the Republicans for what, the past two years or so? How do you define "shortly before a presidential election"? It certainly wasn't a given that McCain would be the front-runner in this election given that he lost in 2000.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What difference does it make if the politician is pandering or not? The bottom line is that they are voting conservative, and we can only speculate why. It seems illogical to base decisions around pure speculation in light of their actual record.

Your underlying premise that voting with conservatives is bad is asinine.

Maybe if the Democratic-controlled Congress didn't toss up a slew of crappy legislation, we'd have seen more separation between McCain and core conservatives on legislative matters.

If you want to see a truer contrast between McCain's voting records and those of conservatives, you'll have to go back a few years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Your underlying premise that voting with conservatives is bad is asinine.

Maybe if the Democratic-controlled Congress didn't toss up a slew of crappy legislation, we'd have seen more separation between McCain and core conservatives on legislative matters.

If you want to see a truer contrast between McCain's voting records and those of conservatives, you'll have to go back a few years.

Why did McCain vote for torture? Why did he vote against the GI Bill? These are issues the old McCain would have voted with the Democrats on.

I'm not trying to imply that voting conservative is bad, you could take my arguments and apply them to the left if we had a clear test case there as well.

[BadKosh]

The Liberals from both sides have done more damage than Conservatives. We don't need 0bamas Marxist agenda either. The dems are in chaos and had a chance to get the oil prices down, but decided Vacation was more important. Pelosi couldn't stand following the lead of a Repub. Even a dumb one.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why did McCain vote for torture? Why did he vote against the GI Bill? These are issues the old McCain would have voted with the Democrats on.

Why did Obama say he'd support drilling? Why did he repudiate his lifelong mentor and religious advisor? These are things that old Obama would not have done had he not been on the hot seat in a presidential race knowing these issues might hurt him.

I don't think any of his supporters are stupid enough to believe that any of these changes in positions actually amounts to a change in Obama's core beliefs, anymore than McCain trying to appear to be less testy towards his fellow Republicans makes him any less of the "maverick" he's been over the last 26 years. It's really not that complicated.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why did Obama say he'd support drilling? Why did he repudiate his lifelong mentor and religious advisor? These are things that old Obama would not have done had he not been on the hot seat in a presidential race knowing these issues might hurt him.

I don't think any of his supporters are stupid enough to believe that any of these changes in positions actually amounts to a change in Obama's core beliefs, anymore than McCain trying to appear to be less testy towards his fellow Republicans makes him any less of the "maverick" he's been over the last 26 years. It's really not that complicated.

I agree that what you've listed are Obama shifts, but you haven't answered my questions.

Yeah, but he's voted in line with the Republicans for what, the past two years or so? How do you define "shortly before a presidential election"? It certainly wasn't a given that McCain would be the front-runner in this election given that he lost in 2000.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Liberals from both sides have done more damage than Conservatives. We don't need 0bamas Marxist agenda either. The dems are in chaos and had a chance to get the oil prices down, but decided Vacation was more important. Pelosi couldn't stand following the lead of a Repub. Even a dumb one.

Sounds just like a CNN blog response!

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

0bamas

Is that even worth the trouble while typing?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that what you've listed are Obama shifts, but you haven't answered my questions.

I think the answer depends on the candidate. I think you can make an argument that both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton started their elected political careers with an eye on the White House and as such shifted very early. Hillary particularly. She felt that in order to redefine herself she had to start shifting as soon as she was elected to the Senate. It's been suggested that this strategy is actually what helped lose her the nomination - she shifted too soon and lost the base to someone who was farther to the left than she was.

I believe McCain saw what happened with his first fight with Bush, and the trouble he had getting conservative voters. He knew he couldn't convince them in the long run that he wasn't the enemy if he didn't show support for the current President's wishes. Like Hillary, his redefinition would take more than just a few after-nomination flip-flops. Obama started redefining himself the moment it was clear he would probably get the nomination.

Again...I'm not a genius, and it's pretty clear to me what's going on. I don't think that the average American is any less smart.

[besson3c]

You might be right, but I do disagree with your last comment about the average American being no less smart. Politicians are able to fool people with this sort of crap all the time. At times the hypocrisy can be absolutely staggering to anybody in the know. We've seen this from candidates on both sides.

[forumhound]

as an outsider who might as well be on another planet, Obama + Clinton would make sense, and perhaps McCain + Romney. That's the conventional wisdom seen from very far away. comment from my cubicle mate 'If Obama is muslim, seems like all the more reason to vote for him, we would love him even more." She's from Bangladesh, where they really love Obama and always liked the Clintons. In fact, most of the rest of the world loved the Clintons, for what they did and the drama they untold. cheers!
FD in Nepal

[stupendousman]

in the scheme of things, I think that the jump to the center that candidates do before an election serves a purpose other than convincing the electorate that their core values are different from what they really are.

I believe it helps illustrate how far to the left or right a candidate may go in order to in order to achieve compromise supported by the majority. A President is the leader of all Americans, not just the members of his party. He's got to be flexible and to a certain extent allow compromises which his party may not support in order to get his job done. If a candidate can't move to the right or left on occasion in order to make a situation palatable for the majority of Americans, even when he might somewhat disagree, he's not going to lead very well. That's not to say that core values should be given up - but rather that a man knows what battles to fight and which not to waste resources on.

I think that subconsciously, that's what voters (the ones that actually pay attention) end up taking away from minor position changes. I really don't think that they buy election-time changes of heart.

[Chongo]

Well, it looks like Biden is getting the nod.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

in the scheme of things, I think that the jump to the center that candidates do before an election serves a purpose other than convincing the electorate that their core values are different from what they really are.

I believe it helps illustrate how far to the left or right a candidate may go in order to in order to achieve compromise supported by the majority. A President is the leader of all Americans, not just the members of his party. He's got to be flexible and to a certain extent allow compromises which his party may not support in order to get his job done. If a candidate can't move to the right or left on occasion in order to make a situation palatable for the majority of Americans, even when he might somewhat disagree, he's not going to lead very well. That's not to say that core values should be given up - but rather that a man knows what battles to fight and which not to waste resources on.

I think that subconsciously, that's what voters (the ones that actually pay attention) end up taking away from minor position changes. I really don't think that they buy election-time changes of heart.

A President is not 'the leader of all Americans'. A President is the guy who signs bills and treaties into law after they've been approved by both the House and Senate, or not, and directs the efforts to enforce those laws. He also has some vaguely defined authority when it comes to the military, and a few other fairly unimportant duties.

[Chongo]

Commander in Chief is hardly a vague definition

[nonhuman]

Um, did you actually read that? The definition has changed and shifted over time, and doesn't even mean the same thing it did 10 years ago. Let alone the fact that it's not entirely certain what the founders meant by it when they used it in the Constitution.

So yes, there is a very specific definition of the term as defined by modern law and precedent. However the provenance of the term is questionable, as is the validity of current definitions.

Try reading this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_Presidency

[besson3c]

I can see why people say that Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. All of the problems in this country right now and he's getting grumpy about McCain possibly not picking a pro life candidate - an issue that is really none of the federal government's business anyway?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can see why people say that Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. All of the problems in this country right now and he's getting grumpy about McCain possibly not picking a pro life candidate - an issue that is really none of the federal government's business anyway?

You're right. It's really an issue for the states.

Back to the "leader" debate....

My rebuttal in regards to the President not being the elected "leader" of the United States is this: HAHAHAHA.

That's about all that's required. You're welcome.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My rebuttal in regards to the President not being the elected "leader" of the United States is this: HAHAHAHA.

That's about all that's required. You're welcome.

I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response, but...

First of all, I didn't say the President wasn't 'the elected leader of the United States', I said he wasn't 'the leader of all Americans'. He doesn't lead me, and he doesn't lead you.

But what you said is also true. The President is not intended to be the leader of the country, he's intended to be the leader of the executive branch, just one part of the government, and one that is designed to have little to no power on it's own. Constitutionally, the President has relatively little power and influence. His strongest powers are those to veto laws he doesn't aprove of (and even then he can be over-ridden), and appoint justices to the Supreme Count (and there, too, he can be over-ridden).

Sure he's the Commander-in-Chief of the military (technically just the Army and Navy, but whatever), but he can't declare war, and, of course, the decisions he makes there can be over-ridden by the generals and admirals if they feel he's giving bad orders.

The President is meant to be an administrator. That Presidents have usurped more and more power over the past 230+ years says only that we, as a people, lack the balls take responsibility for our own lives.

[WayzataXC05]

Obama ----> Senator Bayh

McCain (old man/Bush III) -----> Governor Pawlenty