I'll try to run down what I see as the pros and cons of Huck-as-running-mate in the near future; for now, I recommend Ramesh Ponnuru, Noah Millman and John Heileman on the subject.
« Whither Ron Paul? | Main | Learning To Love Big Brother (II) » Should McCain Pick Huckabee?06 Feb 2008 02:56 pm Comments (33)
I'd like him to pick Mary Cheney, so I could have the pleasure of seeing the entire GOP convention faint on the spot. 
The real issue here is whether McCain should try to appease his numerous conservative critics by moving right, or stay the current (independent) course. Dean Barnett has a pretty sharp observation over at THE WEEKLY STANDARD -- ------------------------------------------------ "The consensus opinion is that McCain has to somehow rally the Republican base, and get busy extending olive branches. But that's a recipe for disaster. When a candidate gets the nomination, he's supposed to tack to the middle. Insisting that McCain make a mad dash to the right to soothe bruised feelings of the past is insane. If McCain follows that path, he'll turn his underdog campaign into a hopeless one. It may pain conservatives to admit this, but McCain's positions on water-boarding and global warming are more popular than those held by the Republican mainstream. Unless we want McCain to diminish his chances at victory, we should be encouraging him further into the middle." ------------------------------------------------ Since McCain seems to have a problem with conservative intellectuals and pundits rather than Joe Sixpack, maybe it might be better if he picked Huckabee who *does* have solid Christian conservative credentials and is a good campaigner too? This will drive Limbaugh & co. nuts, but it is not clear if religious grassroots voters will be offended. He would then try to *directly* increase his appeal to the base, while largely avoiding the party elite (other GOP politicians, talk radio, evangelical leaders etc.).
MARCU$ writes: "The alternative -- and probably less risky -- strategy would be to choose somebody like Fred Thompson as a concession to the GOP elite." That would be pretty funny, too - two past-prime geezers with blond trophy wives a couple of decades younger than they are. That'll look great on the podium. I like my Mary Cheney idea better.
Huckabee doesn't help the funding problems of the ticket. He doesn't help soothe the conservative media elites. To pile on, Huckabee is a much better stump speaker. If he were to give the VP acceptance speech at the convention, no one would remember McCain’s speech. The difference in age between Huckabee and McCain would look like Bush/Quayle all over again. I think McCain would try to play strength and get Powell, Clark, Franks, Schwarzkopf, or possibly even Patreaus as a VP.
MZ Forrest writes: "I think McCain would try to play strength and get Powell, Clark, Franks, Schwarzkopf, or possibly even Patreaus as a VP." Hell, why not Rusty Calley or Ahmed Chalabi? Okay, so Chalabi's not eligible, but how can anyone be so delusional as to think a public sick of the goddamn war wants a ticket that says ALL WAR ALL THE TIME? Unbelievable. Why not just dig up Reagan's corpse and name it President Forever?
This is too early to start discussing possible Veep candidates for McCain. There's still a bunch of prima... oh hell, let's talk. Huckabee would appeal to the social conservatives of the Southeast but would be anathema (sp?) to the GOP elites. Thompson would be a traditional choice but would cause "Old Geezer" jokes to proliferate. Giuliani will cause the 90 percent who didn't vote for him to run away in droves.
Which strength would you have McCain play Moe? Yes, I think it would be a loser of a ticket, but I'm inclined to believe that having an (R) next to your name this year pretty much kills your chances anyway. Defensive VP picks never help. Edwards didn't help Kerry a bit. Lieberman didn't really help Gore either. Since it appears the Republicans have found their Bob Dole, maybe it would be appropriate to put a Jack Kemp next to him, but we all know how that worked.
"Which strength would you have McCain play Moe? Yes, I think it would be a loser of a ticket, but I'm inclined to believe that having an (R) next to your name this year pretty much kills your chances anyway. Defensive VP picks never help. Edwards didn't help Kerry a bit. Lieberman didn't really help Gore either. Since it appears the Republicans have found their Bob Dole, maybe it would be appropriate to put a Jack Kemp next to him, but we all know how that worked." He'll pick some amiable boob and he'll get his ass kicked, which is what I want to see happen anyway. The GOP has earned it, big time. But if he really wants to thrill the base, he should pick Michael Reagan or Sean Hannity. Even if they oppose him now they're both huge whores who would never be able to say no.
"Which strength would you have McCain play Moe? Yes, I think it would be a loser of a ticket, but I'm inclined to believe that having an (R) next to your name this year pretty much kills your chances anyway. Defensive VP picks never help. Edwards didn't help Kerry a bit. Lieberman didn't really help Gore either. Since it appears the Republicans have found their Bob Dole, maybe it would be appropriate to put a Jack Kemp next to him, but we all know how that worked." He'll pick some amiable boob and he'll get his ass kicked, which is what I want to see happen anyway. The GOP has earned it, big time. But if he really wants to thrill the base, he should pick Michael Reagan or Sean Hannity. Even if they oppose him now they're both huge whores who would never be able to say no.
Huckabee as VP makes no sense on so many levels that I'm not sure where to begin. His religiosity is too overt, even for many Republicans, and would play very poorly to many swing voters, and "movement conservatives" hate him just as much as they hate McCain. Plus there's the "Is this guy really ready for prime time?" issue, which stems from comments like "We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country" after Bhutto's death. And finally, how about Wayne DuMond and his 1000 other pardons? It's hard to think of a worse choice for VP. Surely, if McCain wants to shore up his standing with social conservatives, there are other VP candidates who pass all the litmus test questions, but don't have so many problems on other fronts.
Huckabee as VP makes no sense on so many levels that I'm not sure where to begin. His religiosity is too overt, even for many Republicans, and would play very poorly to many swing voters, and "movement conservatives" hate him just as much as they hate McCain. Plus there's the "Is this guy really ready for prime time?" issue, which stems from comments like "We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country" after Bhutto's death. And finally, how about Wayne DuMond and his 1000 other pardons? It's hard to think of a worse choice for VP. Surely, if McCain wants to shore up his standing with social conservatives, there are other VP candidates who pass all the litmus test questions, but don't have so many problems on other fronts.
Ponnuru raises the issue of how the VP role has changed with Gore and Cheney. I actually think that this point bolsters the argument for Huckabee. Throughout the campaign, he has been repeatedly touting the fact that he has more experience actually running a government (10-1/2 years) than any other candidate in either party. McCain's obvious strength is foreign policy, so he needs his running mate to be someone who can not only advise him on domestic matters, but also help him administer the executive branch. In addition, I think that no one else on the radar screen would be a more effective advocate for McCain between now and November than Huckabee, given his demonstrated ability to speak, debate, and connect with people. If Obama is on the other ticket, Huckabee is the only eligible Republican that comes to mind who might have a chance of being in the same ballpark in terms of likeability, personal magnetism, and rhetorical skill. He also might help McCain overcome the enthusiasm gap by rallying the (not insignificant) evangelical portion of the base, as well as younger voters, with whom he has been doing quite well in the primaries. Frankly, many of the talk show hosts are already on record that they will never vote for McCain. Why should he cater to their wishes at this point? He needs to do what HE thinks gives him the best chance to win.
Governor Pawlenty would be a good VP selection for McCain. He has similar strengths as Huckabee, but it more popular with conservatives. He could also help out in Midwest states. It might be a good idea to promise a Cabinet position such as Secretary of Labor to Huckabee.
> "Ponnuru raises the issue of how the VP role has changed with Gore and Cheney." Exactly. 9/11 highlighted that - with constitutional scholars floating serious scenarios as to how Congress can elect a Speaker to be Acting President if so many Reps have been killed that it lacks quorum. But even before that, the Clinton administration was a conscious move towards a tricephalous co-presidency - Bill, Hill and Al - possibly as a way of neutralising voter concerns about Bill's character, much as theGOP in 2004 sold Cheney as the experienced driving instructor who could apply the brake if the Bush dauphin went over the speed limit. One could suggest that the relationship between President and Veep 1993-2000 was not unlike the relationship between President and Prime Minister in France (except that a US President can't do a Raffarin and sack an unpopular Veep... only an unpopular Def Sec). One could take this further and argue that the relationship between President and Veep 2000-2008 has been not unlike the relationship between President and Prime Minister in, say, India, Ireland or Germany. Often the eventual nominee will have to throw the second-spot bone to a strong rival who commands a block of delegates, either to get the nomination at all, or at least to stop said rival and his or her loyalists sitting out the general election campaign in a huff. Eg, Kennedy picking LBJ in 1960, Reagan tapping GHW Bush in 1980, and Kerry/ Edwards in 2004. I suspect that, with the Dem primaries using proportional representation, and with the GOP libertarian/ Christian/ K Street alliance fracturing, the likelihood will grow that even Super Tuesday won't give a clear winner who will go to the convention with an absolute majority of delegates in his or her pocket, and the power to pick whomever he or she likes as running-mate. The days of the anonymous, forgettable or lightwight (where on earth IS Dan Quayle these days?) Veep may have gone. Maybe Mondale started it in 1984 - I'd estimate a lot of people would remember "first female on a major-party presidential ticket" than would remember Fritz. Quick! Who was Ford's Veep nominee in 1976? Who was Dole's in 1996? No Googling!
I had thought Huckabee had been successfully Dean-ized by the Media and right-wing pundits, as a Jesus freak by the one, and a socialist by the other, but his showing last night puts the lie to this perception. Two points-- 1. a McCain-Huck ticket could be great-- think Reagan-Bush, appeasing two important voting blocs. 2. this could work in the general if the election is against one or the other, Hillary OR Obama, but probably NOT if it's against both. A Hillary-Obama ticket would destroy McCain regardless of who he teams up with, simply judging by the enormous voter turnout we've seen for the Dems. But, a Hillary-Obama ticket is highly unlikely.
> "A Hillary-Obama ticket would destroy McCain regardless of who he teams up with, simply judging by the enormous voter turnout we've seen for the Dems. But, a Hillary-Obama ticket is highly unlikely" Hillary and Obama hate each other so much that they'd pass up the chance for a landslide majority in the Electoral College? Those two would let personal vengeance trump ambition?
"Hi Barack, this is Hillary. Here's the deal. You've got 48%, I've got 46%, but there's still eight hundred superdelegates. Let's be civilised about this. Me for President, you for Veep, in 2008 and 2012. For eight years, you get some easy, sexy, high-profile 'ministry without portfolio' in my Administration. You tour the world, battle global warming, give condoms to Africans, rebuild bridges with the UN, get photographed with Bono and Mandela. Then, in 2016, I retire and endorse you. You'll be 54 - no more jibes about inexperience. How about it?" Having said that, the ability of a President to install his or her Veep (originally handpicked by him or her) as successor, after retiring, seems limited. In the past 80-90 years, I count exactly two examples - Truman and Bush I - and both only lasted one term. Eisenhower and Clinton were popular, but couldn't do it (albeit there were electoral, uh, irregularities in both cases).
Seems to me that Huckabee has successfully Dean-ized himself. The odd combination of his positions on evolution and on progressive/populist social policies, taken together, puts him off in a corner almost all by himself in contemporary American politics and gives him an uncanny resemblence to none other than the boy orator of the prairies, William Jennings Bryan, scarcely a Burkean "conservative of doubt," to use Andrew's phrase. Given McCain's age, the most useful characteristic for a vice president may be competence to come off the bench if necessary and lead the nation in foreign affairs (in the way that some NFL teams sign on a 40-something quarterback for that express purpose). Only a few years ago you might have expected Powell or Rice to fill that slot. Now it's harder to say. Ironically, McCain himself would have been good as that kind of elder statesman benchwarmer.
I don't buy that Huckabee will win McCain any evangelicals he doesn't have already -- what about Weld? Especially if he is running against Obama?
Weld? Ahem, WELD????? What are you, a Hillary operative? Why are people so concerned about McCain's age? He's doing great, he doesn't need a Dan Quayle. He needs an affable social conservative, preferably from the South, and preferably with the common touch, to silence the Dobson types and because Hillary is likely to attract the less fortunate, those who are economically downtrodden. In her speech last night she started paraphrasing Emma Lazarus. Huck (most unlike Romney) could make headway with these people. Voters were annoyed at McCain for being honest in Michigan, telling them that their jobs are gone for good. Huck can do better with them. Huck can be the face of "compassionate conservatism" in ways that McCain just can't get away with because of his focus on foreign policy and his realism about the economy.
MD writes: "Huck can be the face of "compassionate conservatism" in ways that McCain just can't get away with because of his focus on foreign policy and his realism about the economy." Realism? He's an ignorant fool on economics. He acted surprised when he was asked if his idiotic "Fair Tax" would lead to a massive black market. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be that clueless and be winning primaries, but then I consider that his voters think the Earth is 6000 years old and it makes sense.
MoeLJ - since I assume your "he" means Huckabee - I read MD as saying: 'Huck can be the face of "compassionate conservatism" in ways that McCain just can't get away with because of *McCain's* focus on foreign policy and *McCain's* realism about the economy.' That would make more sense given the context.
Given that McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for "as long as necessary" without any idea of how to pay for it, I hesitate to put "McCain" and "realism about the economy" in the same sentence. Bin Laden wanted to do to the US what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, and due to dear Georgie's Excellent Mess-opotamian Adventure plus the sack of blundering kooks who insist on continuing it, it looks like Bin Laden will get exactly what he hopes for. Exit US, Squandered Empire.
MD - Why are people so concerned about McCain's age? He's doing great, he doesn't need a Dan Quayle. McCain is not doing great, health wise. He also has what some people call a touch of mental confusion and outbursts. He is Bob Dole 2.0 Generally, whomever McCain selects as VP is sort of a moot point. McCain is going down if he gets the nomination. Bush's poor performance, and McCains age and many personal and intellectual flaws and his long record of lies and treachery in the Senate - virtually guarantees the country gets a Democrat.
"Generally, whomever McCain selects as VP is sort of a moot point. McCain is going down if he gets the nomination. Bush's poor performance, and McCains age and many personal and intellectual flaws and his long record of lies and treachery in the Senate - virtually guarantees the country gets a Democrat." Is that an opinion or an open prayer?
I already wrote on FDL that if Huckabee is the VP, this cuts into McCain's appeal among independents. McCain might pick someone like Coburn to appeal to the South.
"I already wrote on FDL that if Huckabee is the VP, this cuts into McCain's appeal among independents. McCain might pick someone like Coburn to appeal to the South." Coburn's just as nuts as Huckabee and he lacks Huckabee's geniality - he's a cranky old bastard, in fact.
> ' I hesitate to put "McCain" and "realism about the economy" in the same sentence' I assume what MD meant was McCain's "straight talk" about "those jobs aren't coming back", as opposed to Huckabee's plans for tithing taxes or what have you. > 'Bin Laden wanted to do to the US what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan...' I s'pose that, yeah, the USSR would have lost a lot of international credibility if, by 2079, it was still occupying Afghanistan. Fortunately for them, the Soviets pulled the Red Army out of Afghanistan well short of a hundred years, and so they remain a respected and feared superpower to this day.
Rod Bush writes: "Fortunately for them, the Soviets pulled the Red Army out of Afghanistan well short of a hundred years, and so they remain a respected and feared superpower to this day." This is what the Rod Bushes of the world want for the US - for it to be a "feared superpower" regardless of the justice or morality of its actions. If torture-loving scum like the Bushes are to drive American policy in the future we deserve to fall. Fortunately the scumbags are being rejected by both right and left now. Rod Blaine can go shit in his cowboy hat.
"another is Haley Barbour." That's an interesting idea. I think he needs someone noted as being good with the economy. They also need to be acceptable to Pro-Life voters. I think his support of embryonic stem-cell research may have hurt him with the kind of Pro-Lifer who is still voting Huckabee. On other things most indications are that mass deportation of illegals and support for waterboarding are not all that popular in the general election. (Although I think there is support for punishing human traffickers and businesses that hire illegals en masse) Further the average voter I really don't think cares either way about McCain-Feingold or the Gang of 14. So I agree that most of the anti-McCain "energized movement conservatives" are largely out-of-the-loop. Their day in the sun is past and there on the verge of returning to the kind of marginalization they largely deserve. That does not mean legitimate concerns about McCain on economics, war, or "the culture of life" are non-existent. I just think expecting perfection is not plausible. There was even a few issues, much fewer to be honest, where I disagreed with Thompson.
Oh, forgot the main issue. No, I don't think he should pick Huckabee. I think he should pick a Pro-Life non-Senator age 50-62 who has a good record on the economy. I don't think he should go younger than Obama as this could potentially exacerbate the image of him as old, but picking someone his age or older would be pushing it too far the other way. (So no fellow septegenarians like Ron Paul) Those are specifications, I don't have any particular name in mind though.
On the other hand, if Hickabee wins, who does HE pick for VP? I suggest that the only possible choice is Kirk Cameron.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Should McCain Pick Huckabee? - No
Last night Fox News broadcast a segment with Rove as an analyist asked this very question.
His observation that V.P.’s don’t bring anything real to a ticket. I agree with this assessment. In the end it comes down to the two candidates in the election.
Rove said something along the lines of – “the candidate himself (McCain) needs to project the message of unification”
Inasmuch as McCain needs to mend fences and unify the base it will be up to him. V.P picks is a “bucket of warm spit” (someone said that about the office). It guarantees nothing. Promises of cabinet officials & members of his team say more about how a candidate will govern than his V.P. pick.
Posted by Fitz | February 6, 2008 3:46 PM