Asymmetrical Information

Oh, well -- pro-lifery frequently falls before high elected office in the D party. Al Gore was reasonably reliably pro-life before he was nominated for v.p. And Kucinich was a shining light before he decided he wanted to be president (he somehow managed to stay anti-death penalty -- no seamless garment there).

Hmph. The comments are LOADING faster, but they don't seem to be remembering my name.

I don't think the speculation is coming from Democrats; I think it's coming from the news media (and no, the two aren't the same thing). Agreed, however, that the speculation is foolish.

..foolish, and not based in any reality that I am familiar with. While I do not circulate amongst the Democrat elite, the local Democrats I rub elbows with pooh-pooh the notion.

There is widespread agreement that any selection BUT Edwards would be sheer folly...

cheers,

DD

This speculation by Democrats is sad and desperate. Guys, wake up: he's pro-life. Considering the party won't even let most pro-lifers on the platform at the conventions, how likely do you think it would be for them to let one on the ticket?

Perhaps they were hoping that if McCain were offered the number two spot on the ticket, his convictions on abortion would turn out to be as malleable as Lieberman's on racial preferences, Social Security reform, school choice, etc.

I seem to remember in the 2000 primary, when McCain was asked what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and wanted to have an abortion he said that the decision would be "her choice".

This is pretty consistant with a "pro-choice" platform.

Now, I believe McCain said he was not going to run for vice president for either party. In fact, I believe his quote on Sunday was something to the effect of "No, no no! I will not be the vice president on any ticket in 2004" so I think the whole thing is pretty moot.

However, I think the democrats liked the idea of taking a relatively powerful, highly popular, republican away from the republican party. I also read an interesting idea someone had that IF McCain had decided he wanted to join the ticket they would have given him some issues that were his pet projects (and regardless of his geneally pro-life stance, it's not one of the main issues that he has been concerned about) and allow him to dictate white house policy on those issues.

As it's not going to happen anyway, I don't think it really matters.

By the way, I don't think Edwards is a lock. There are bunches of democrats who dislike him, including Kerry, and there are lots of interesting qualified democrats in swing states who might be better. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

The problem with all this McCain speculation is that it will make whomever Kerry selects seem second rate by comparison. This may not be fatal to the ticket, but it does reduce the "wow factor" the eventual announcement will have.

Disagree, Kate. He's staunchly pro-life, and has voted that way consistently, and has also made public pronouncements to that effect. Given that the DNC kept Bob Casey off the 1992 speaking platform in his own state because he was pro-life (not because he was going to give a speech about it, either--just for holding the views), I simply can't imagine it. NARAL would go nuts.

That he is even being talked about shows the incredible lack of talent in the Dem party. The best they can come up with for pres is Kerry. They can't find a decent VP candidate. Their most prominent national spokesman is a drunk womanizer with manslaughter in his past.

And they are breathlessly waiting for the most corrupt, scandal-ridden woman in the history of American politics to run in 2008.

Impressive.

In practice, a VP is only as influential and powerful as the Party and President allow --eg. Cheney, on both counts. By comparison, Gore was somewhat influential within the Party but weak in terms of delegated power.

If Kerry/McCain were to win in November, McCain's conservative baggage would render him weak within the Party and over-ruled by the rest Kerry's Administration. If they lost in November, he would be rendered radioactive across the entire political spectrum. McCain loses either way.

I think it was fueled by McCain being asked if he would accept the nomination as Veep (several weeks ago) and McCain basically saying that he would have to consider it. It was only his "no, no, no" bit this weekend that quashed the speculation that McCain himself started. If he had said "no, no, no" originally, none of these rumours would have gained any steam.

Jane/Megan's right: there's no chance of McCain being the Democratic VP nominee. At any rate, Kerry is unlikely to choose a fellow Senator. He doesn't like Edwards much, and respects him less. Despite the flurry of articles suggesting that Democratic donors are pressing for Edwards, Kerry won't pick him unless Teresa tells him it's the thing to do.

Most likely picks, in this order: Dick Gephardt; Bill Richardson; Mark Warner (Virginia governor). Dark horse prospect, if Kerry wants to go with a Senator: Joe Biden. Aggressive and partisan, with over three decades in the Senate, including being the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees, Biden is one senior Democrat who could go head to head with Dick Cheney in a debate, and not look out of his depth. (The Neil Kinnock episode is presumably in the distant past by now.)

What happened to all the speculation that he might pick Tom Brokaw?

That would seem to be one pick which, regardless of the merits, would cause quite a buzz.

While its pretty clear that McCain doesn't want the nomination, I don't think its clear that the Democrats wouldn't back him if he got it. Sure, his pro life would rankle some, but after all, this party made David Bonior, a pro lifer, minority whip in the House. Plus, it enthusiastically backed Joe Lieberman, even though he was way too hawkish for most of the Dem. party faithful,so it's not as if democrats can't form ranks behind a VP that strays from the party othrodoxy on important issues
Jane, while I appreciate your input, the Casey story is more complex that you have posted. It is not true that that Casey was barred just for holding pro life views. He did intend to give a speech that mentioned pro life concerns. I saw Casey say this himself at a speech he made after his heart/lung transplant. Also, he was also snubbed because of his refusal to endorse Bill Clinton at that tim. While it was clearly his pro life stance that got him in the most trouble, his failure to rally behind the presumptive nominee also hurt him.

The main message out of the McCain speculation for me is a positive one: McCain is a great man. Standing as he does above the fray, appealing to members of both of the polar sides in American politics, he is a bright light driving away at least some of the shadows cast by one-sided views, something that is all too rare these days. The whole political landscape would be so different today if he had made it to the nomination instead of Bush (and won the election).

I don't see him as a dem VP, but I hope he goes for it (for either party) in 2008.

In some ways McCain's bipartisan appeal is a little puzzling. As Jane points out, he's pro-life. But more than that, he's a huge advocate of free trade, at a time when the Democrats are burying their heads in the folly of protectionism. The only reason he's considered a moderate Republican I think is because he doesn't stand by the Christian wing that unfortunately dominates the Republican party. But moreover it's because he doesn't play partisan games - if he feels the Republican party is wrong on an issue, he parts company with them. What this says to me is that his bipartisan appeal is due less to his policies, which are much more Republican in nature (he's most vocal against his own party when they're doing something that's completely against what are supposed to be their principles, like expanding the federal government), and more due to the fact that everyone (well, most voters at least) appreciates and respects a politician who actually stands on his principles regardless of which side of the aisle his principles take him to.

McCain 2008!!!!

Nicole, I think McCain's appeal to Democrats is due to many more factors than you list. He also sponsored McCain Feingold, backs the ban on assault weapons, supported the Dems on tobacco litigation, and is far more cautious on tax cuts, going so far as to vote no on Bush's tax cuts on at least one occasion. He's not liberal, but he isn't all that conservative either and of course, there are still in this day and age, lots of pro life Dems and there are pro free trade dems too,like Clinton and Bill Richardson. Admittedly they aren't the majority right now, but it is not so odd to see democrats advocating these positions. True, his willingness to question the GOP othrodoxy help him with democrats, but this can't explain it all,or even most of it, otherwise we would be seeing more Democratic admiration for Chuck Hagel, too.

Re: reasons for dems liking McCain

In addition to what was mentioned, I may be wrong in this impression but he does not seem beholden to corporate interests in the way that many members of congress and the administration do. Recently, for example, he stood (partially) against Michael Powell's ownership rules reforms, he opposed the Bush Clear Skies and related Clean Air Act rollback measures, and in general he takes nuanced stands on positions that seem to reflect more of a thinking man's independent opinion on an issue than what one side or the other is clamoring for. This style resonates with a lot of folks.

Call me "sad and pathetic" if you want, but I liked the idea.

I wouldn't want to hijack the thread by debating the merits of abortion but what does pro life actually mean in this instance? Does it mean no abortions under any circumstances? He disapproves personally but doesn't want to change the law or he favours increasing restrictions as pregancy advances so that it would be entirely at the woman's choice early in pregnancy and totally banned at 9 months minus one day (my own position)? What would this make my view in the American political debate?

Sad to say, I see Bush hatred trumping the Dems ideals at every turn, so I wouldn't rule out a Kerry/McCain ticket if it were sold as the only way to win.

Comments are Closed.