54 posts tagged “republican”

With speculation that McCain is going to make his pick this week... my vote still goes to Sarah Palin -- "could be a home run."

All of the others seem like the same old song and dance.

Quick.  How do you make a hardcore, Bush-loving, Republican's head explode?

Oh yeah, this way:

Republican John McCain pledged to take the lead in combating global climate change if elected president in a speech that set him apart from the policies of President George W. Bush.

In remarks he prepared to give at a wind technology firm in Portland, Oregon, on Monday, the Arizona senator said he would seek international accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would offer an incentive system to make businesses in the United States cleaner.

"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington," McCain said in remarks he planned to give at the Vestas Wind Technology plant.

This is also further proof that evolution exists.

I keep hearing that once it is official when Clinton has dropped out of the race that the Democratic Party will have to undergo a healing process.  I also keep hearing that the easy way of doing this is for Obama to make Clinton the VP on the ticket.

But the way this campaign has gone on the left side of the aisle, you really have to sense the canyon that healing process will have to cross is wide.  And as Novak reports, a VP nod just ain't going to happen:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

A footnote: Support is growing in Democratic ranks for Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland as vice president. He would bring to the ticket maturity (66 years old), experience (six terms in Congress) and moderation (rated "A" by the National Rifle Association). He is very popular in Ohio, a state Republicans must carry to elect a president.

So the question is going to be can the Democratic Party heal?  My guess:  Most likely.  If McCain could heal the Republican Party -- my guess is that it will happen with the Democrats.

But if this holds true...

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

...Obama has his work cut out for him.  Or it is game, set, match for McCain.

Jennifer Rubin over at Commentary Magazine has a great post about Obama and his contention that he is the "great bridge builder" and that he will be the one to lead a new era of bipartisanship.  However, his record shows nothing more than just being an ideologue:

He has essentially taken up every cause of the left (from opposing confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito to supporting a bevy of tax increases) and has been absent from any of the truly bipartisan efforts, few that they may be, since he got to Washington (e.g. the Gang of 14).

As the most liberal Senator according to National Journal, he is further from the middle of the Senate and less inclined to compromise on strict party line voting than Senator Mitch McConnell (the ninth most conservative Senator) is on the other end of the spectrum. Is someone more doctrinaire in his voting record than McConnell on the Right (and Dick Durbin and John Kerry on the Left), the best person to lead us into a new era of bipartisan co-operation?

Worse still, John McCain actually can lay claim to being a bipartisan role model, which made his primary run so problematic with the GOP base. His list of bipartisan efforts on global warming, judges, campaign finance, immigration and spending reform is long and substantitve.

Bipartisanship implies compromise.  If Obama went to Washington voting on his core beliefs, then based on his record, I believe compromise runs against his core belief system.  And that is fine -- but why do one thing and say another?  Oh, yeah, that is what politicians do.

And then there is Iraq.  And as Jennifer, again, correctly points out, Obama shows no sign of even considering the other argument on Iraq.

...Obama has shown no inclination to process new information and adjust his views accordingly. Indeed, there appears to be no new data that would persuade him that the answer to Iraq is other than: “Leave immediately.” If that is not the definition of an ideologue (or a “dogmatist” as Obama would say), I do not know what is.

So Mr. Obama, if your campaign literally runs on the personification of hope and that anything can be overcome, then when glimmers of hope are seen in Iraq, why is your first and only thought to still abandon our new ally?  And if you are indeed the savior of the cluster that is Washington politics, then why didn't you put yourself out there and try to create bridges when you were there?

In my opinion, Obama is just another politician.  He will not be the savior of our great Republic.  And neither will McCain for that matter.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, I think McCain has shown that he is willing to take on Washington politics, he has rubbed his party the wrong way in the name of bipartisanship, and he has put his personal political gain on the line with a controversial issue like Iraq.

With bipartisanship comes controversy and the creation of friction.  I don't think Obama wants people to dislike him in his own party.  His record clearly shows that.  And maybe that is why so many Democratic politicians are jumping on his bandwagon.  So don't buy into the rhetoric.

Hmm...

Looks like Palin's pregnancy might have sidelined a potential VP bid.  But by the sound of it, she may have had some meetings with McCain -- and it looked like she was definitely on the short list.

Hopefully, we will see more of her in the future.

Drudge had that headline on his page earlier tonight as he linked to an AP article that showed Romney and McCain campaigning together in Utah.

A tanned and rested Romney said it was fun to be campaigning again and nice not to feel any pressure.  "I don't have to worry about goofing up," he said.  He brushed aside questions about a No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket.

Wishful thinking Matt?  Does the rumor have legs or is it just a headline to drum up speculation?

Part of me thinks that McCain has got to give his selection for the VP slot a lot of thought and reflection.  I think it is too easy to pick Romney.  And really why should he?  Name recognition?  Uniting the party?

McCain won the nomination.  And he won by pretty good margins.  It wasn't a knock down, drag out fight like the current Democratic nomination.  So would it really be about "uniting" the party?

In my opinion, I think McCain should do what he has always done and that is buck the status quo.  This election is going to be won or lost in the middle.  Romney would be an average choice in my opinion.  I think he needs to go with a VP candidate that is both a straight shooter and politically attractive.

I still think Palin is at the top of my list for the post.  Human Events had this article on Palin (thanks Zak for the link) however unlikely the possibility.

“I’ll tell you, I think that the possibility of this ever happening is so far out there, that it’s tough to get my arms around and even contemplate,” Palin told us, so I don’t have an answer.” But, she quickly added, “I would like to see a governor on that ticket. I do think a governor understands, being on the front lines there, serving the constituents, how to administer. I think that’s very important for a team that would be serving in the White House.”

The one trap McCain cannot fall into is his potential administration looking like Bush's, especially with the likes of Obama harping on the failings of Bush all of the time.  I think a McCain/Romney ticket would make it too easy.  I say make it hard.

Palin is attractive, ethical, and almost maverickesque in her political style.  That is what will bring in the independents and solidify a win.

Wow.  This is big in my opinion.

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Here is the latest from the LA Times regarding the barbs being traded between McCain and Obama over Iraq:

Reacting Wednesday morning in Tyler, Texas, McCain taunted: "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. . . . It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' " Some in the town-hall audience laughed.

"If we left . . . they wouldn't be establishing a base," the Arizona Republican said. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends."

Obama responded at a rally in the sports arena at Ohio State University in Columbus. "I have some news for John McCain," the Illinois Democrat said, leaning into the crowd for emphasis. "There was no such thing as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Brilliant comeback.  How original.

The funny thing about this exchange is that to me McCain wins.  McCain is (and has always) been the one pointing to the Bush administration with regard to the foul ups they have presided over when it came to Iraq.  And when McCain points out the obvious with an invitation to tell the world what you are going to do about it -- Obama recoils to the old Bush got us into this mess line.  But what he isn't saying is that his position is to leave Iraq ASAP (which in turn will allow al Qaeda Iraq to get stronger, not weaker).

McCain's plan of supporting the surge is at least a constructive plan that is geared toward helping the Iraqis.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq and blaming why they are there doesn't amount to a hill of beans of how we are going to deal with them.

I am reminded of a scene from Apollo 13 where there is a heated exchange between the two crew members over what caused the explosion on the spacecraft and Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) has to intervene:

[after a dispute has broken out between Haise and Swigert]
Jim Lovell: All right, we're not doing this, gentlemen. We are *not* doing this. We're not going to go bouncing off the walls for ten minutes, 'cause we're just going to end up back here with the same problems! Try to figure out how to stay alive!

And that is how I feel about Iraq.  We need to solve the problem and the current surge is doing more to take on al Qaeda Iraq than what we were doing before.  The more we support the Iraqis, the more they will be able to take on al Qaeda by themselves.  But the damage is done, the oxygen tank has already exploded, and our *presence* in Iraq is all but assured for some time.

I would prefer for Obama to be straight with his supporters with respect to that obvious point; however, he doesn't choose to see the obvious and neither do his supporters.  And for that -- I cannot support such a candidate with regards to the Iraq issue.

Do you think it is as simple as pulling out all of our troops from Iraq?  Well guess what, nothing is ever that simple.

McCain is right about one thing and that is the Iraq issue will help or hinder him.  And as long as it continues to work and Petraeus works his plan -- the more I think Obama will lose in November.