McLieberman and Conservatives

Reihan calls this Stuart Rothenberg argument for a McCain-Lieberman ticket "exactly right":

But wouldn’t social conservatives, in particular, go bananas, since Lieberman is moderate or liberal on most issues other than Iraq? He supports abortion rights, generally votes with organized labor and is an unapologetic environmentalist. Conservatives would revolt, wouldn’t they?

Probably not. While there would be the usual fist-pounding from some “movement conservatives,” their anger at the selection would quickly dissipate when they saw the fury unleashed by liberals and Democratic bloggers.

I call it hogwash. You'll recall that a similar "he has all the right (i.e. left) enemies" argument was advanced concerning the scads of social conservatives who were supposedly rallying around Rudy Giuliani - not only would 9/11 and the war trump abortion and gay rights for many values voters, the theory ran, but the mutual disadmiration between Rudy and the cultural left would make him a natural ally for the social right. I found it mildly convincing myself, based on Rudy's early poll numbers. And look how that turned out.

Now obviously asking conservatives to vote for a rightward-migrating liberal hawk for vice-president - especially one who's always talked a somewhat religiose and socially-conservative talk, and who presumably would be up for a road-to-Minneapolis conversion on various issues - is different from asking social conservatives to vote for an unapologetic social liberal for president. (Joe Lieberman also doesn't come with Rudy's, ah, colorful personal life.) And I'm sure that plenty of conservatives would talk themselves into voting for a ticket that included the "Independent Democrat" from the great state of Connecticut. But "plenty" doesn't mean "all," and I don't think that Rothenberg presents a particularly strong case that Lieberman would gain enough independent votes for the GOP ticket to offset the damage picking him would do to McCain's relationship with the right-wing base. (And not only the base: There are plenty of pro-life independents out there, and if I may rely on anecdotal evidence for a moment, I think a lot of them are itching for an excuse to turn the GOP out of office on war-related grounds.) All Lieberman adds, so far as I can tell, is a patina of bipartisanship, which would be useful in a race against Barack Obama but not useful enough to make up for the fact that on an issue-by-issue basis, a McCain-Lieberman ticket would have all the weaknesses of an bipartisan marriage of convenience and almost none of the strengths.

The only imaginable world in which McLieberman makes sense, I think, is the political world that we would be living in if events had turned out differently (that is, vastly better) in Iraq. As I wrote a few months ago, during the Giuliani bubble:

In the period between 9/11 and the decline of the U.S. fortunes in Iraq, it was possible to imagine a scenario in which a successfully-prosecuted war on terror became a realigning issue, delivering the GOP a 60 percent majority and branding the Democratic Party as the peace party (and not in a good way) for a generation. All sorts of things might have followed under this scenario, but one possibility is suggested by the Brooks-Kristol notion of a McCain-Lieberman ticket. That pairing little sense now, I think, but in the context of a successful Iraq invasion – followed by cries of “on to Tehran” and “on to Damascus” – it isn’t so outlandish to imagine a GOP that absorbed a lot of Lieberman-style socially-liberal, fiscally-moderate hawks (call it the Dennis Miller vote) and in the process became large enough to make the pro-life vote much less crucial to its fortunes. In the election of 2008, with democracy successfully extended to Iran and Syria, al Qaeda broken and Osama executed, and our rivals in Europe, Russia and China cowed, this McCain-Lieberman GOP might have sat athwart a new political center, with a weakened, much more left-wing Democratic Party to one side and perhaps a disgruntled right-wing rump to the other.

But this is not the world we live in, to put it mildly, and in the world we do inhabit, running a hawkish unity ticket on the GOP line in '08 makes almost no sense at all.

Comments

And you think Obama and McCain have pastor problems? Giuliani had an honest to God pedophile priest (Alan Placa) on his campaign team AND resolutely refused to throw him under the bus.

I don't know too many conservative evangelicals that would have voted for THAT. Nor do I know too many liberals who would vote for a guy who proudly keeps a pedophile on his campaign team.

Posted by calipygian | May 12, 2008 10:13 AM

The problem with what Reihan is saying is that it assumes that Republican voters give a shit about liberal blogs.

Posted by Freddie | May 12, 2008 11:24 AM

How much of an expansion in the U.S. military presence throughout the world would we expect to see if John McCain got his way? A discussion has started at http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=21 where you can join in the debate.

Posted by PanamaJohn | May 12, 2008 11:40 AM

How much of an expansion in the U.S. military presence throughout the world would we expect to see if John McCain got his way? A discussion has started at http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=21 where you can join in the debate.

Posted by PanamaJohn | May 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Then there's the elephant in the room. McCain is OLD. I'm not saying this on the grounds that he is senile or anything, but the concern about who would take over (the Vice President) should his health decline is more relevant than ever. To suggest that suddenly an Independent "Democrat" might become President in this situation would provoke some concern, no?

I think calculations about who might take over should McCain, at his age, have a sudden decline in health is going to be part of the discussion about his veep pick.

Posted by MrProliferation | May 12, 2008 12:06 PM

The only people who think a McCain/HoJo ticket make sense are people who believe in High Broderism, aka Inside the Beltway types. All of this talk only gives HoJo more attention(which is what he is really after). If HoJo really did become McCain's running mate, do you think Harry Reid would be able to let him stay in the caucus? No!! Besides, what does that say about Republicans if the best they can do is to choose HoJo as Veep nominee for John McBush?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 12, 2008 12:15 PM

I love the reference to "the Dennis Miller vote." Miller's shows can't stay on the air and he's supplanted Joe Piscopo in the "Biggest Career Nosedive For A Former SNL Cast Member" department.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 12, 2008 4:21 PM

Okay, the Bush presidency was a disaster and Cheney would not make a good candidate even if he was younger and more appealing, but strategically, it was a desperate move for them to install Cheney in the #2 slot, because nobody thought of him as a future president.

With a 72 year old candidate, the Republicans have to think about a VP who would be ready to run in '12 or '16 if McCain wins, and a guy whose stock they want to invest in for '12 if he loses.

Leiberman isn't even a Republican and he's 66 years old. He's also a one time loser who didn't excell on the campaign circuit.

I think it's a mistake for McCain to move to his right to solidify the party base (who have no place else to go) rather than to contest the moderates, but if he's going to make a play for the moderates, HE has to do it, not his running mate. Better to get an appealing younger running mate who can sincerely be sold to the right and let McCain be McCain.

Posted by seth Berkowitz | May 12, 2008 4:31 PM

Why would Lefty Bloggers be furious?

It would prove us right all along, and justify our actions in removing Joe Lieberman out of the party and further make sure that there is no way he'd ever retain his senate seat next go around.

Posted by MNPundit | May 12, 2008 6:40 PM