Classic Or Dud: Kerry/McCain In 2004!

If anything, the Dem party needs to turn in the completely opposite dir.

Yeah, that'll get rid of Bush fer sure.

I can't imagine McCain doing it, either. No way in hell he gets the Dem nomination in 2008 or 2012, and he's just thrown away his GOP career. There's no upside for him, other than four-to-eight potential years doing less than he can do as a popular Senator.

that said, i don't think that this will happen. i don't even think that mccain would get Sec of Defense under kerry.

excellent point, eis.

That's because most of those people know very little about him other than he's a war hero, the 'straight-talk express,' he ran against Bush, and maybe Bush's dirty tricks.

He's never been a position to come under major criticism in the limelight.

What it might sway are GOP-leaning non-diehards who vote on feeling or character or whatever.

Eisbar, I never said anything about those with "nice things to say" about him. Respect isn't support. I'm talking support and popularity. I'm sure he's a very nice guy, fun to hang out with, etc. - but completely unsupportable as a politician in my book. And yes, for the 'anti-WTO anarchists' or Greens who aren't hostile to McCain's politics, that just screams ignorance of his views.

you could say the same about pat buchanan, too ... and, of course, he's FAR more unacceptable than mccain ever could be.

Buchanan's 'peasants with pitchforks' faux-populism was popular, but I don't know how much left support he got.

I like it because hopefully they'd be less like either party. Won't happen though. Maybe Kerry can tap him for Sec. of State or Defense.

not to mention that mr. buchanan has a pretty long track record of saying some bigoted things.

i tune in every week for the sexual tension between eleanor clift and pat buchanan

It didn't work out very well...Lincoln got shot, Johnson was impeached and reconstruction ended up a mess with problems that never got solved and were still threatening to tear the country apart in the late 60s/early 70s. We would probably end up with a drunken ex-general like Grant running the country in 2008.

Dick Gephardt needs to be sent out to pasture, I don't even know why anyone would want that loser anywhere near the ticket.

I think they should get Edwards on the ticket and send him to every borderline state and have him just preach on the economy. The guy can talk a good game and I would love to see him go one on one in a debate with that old crotchity bastard Cheney. I don't think they are going to have to go after Bush on Iraq, the current situation is making their case for them. Getting the point across that the long term health of the economy is broken, the health care system is a disaster and the social welfare system is going to collapse with the boomers retiring if not fixed is the things that are going to win swing voters.

McCain isn't going anywhere.

Not me, I don't plan on voting, but I'd think more votes than McCain would get.

i'll still bitch about whoever wins anyways. i won't bother explaining why i am not going to vote right now.

How's that work?

me too. AS PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.

I dunno. I have a feeling that Bush II could actually win this.

Wait... you just described the *current* situation. Though I can see how an argument could be made that America's slacking off the of the world scene might make things worse.

If 2002 taught us anything, it's that a shift to the center isn't a good move for democrats. Karl Rove's "always look tough, never admit you're wrong" strategy for Bush has been very succesful and has repeatedly polled well.

2002 taught us that the Republicans woke up and discovered how to run a ground game (if in fact there were no voting machine shenanigans; I believe there were), while Democrats remained unsure how to respond to 9/11 and an anticipated Iraq war in political terms (that's not the same as running to the center). Paul Wellstone didn't shift anywhere. And a couple of Democratic centrists won elections that year (or since 2000 at least) - Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner, Phil Bredesen, Kathleen Blanco, Bill Richardson.

Republicans have made gains by shifting right and looking strong and principled, while the Liebermans, Zell Millers and Dick Gephardts of the left have been seen as weak and indecisive. A Kerry/McCain ticket wouldn't only alienate the Democratic base (another Rove-proven political no no), but likely alienate voters looking at intangibles like "strength" and "credibility" (in the "never rethinking things" Bush sense).

Yes, a lot of Republican support is from those looking for people who are 'strong' and 'decisive', but as you point out, these people don't pay attention to policy. Yes, policy is the textual field on which this strategy is played out, just barely (Kerry's a flip-flopper), but it's the subtext of candidate's personality that really matters to a lot of these people. Which is why Kerry is standing still while Bush tries to swing at him, instead of running away like Dukakis. But this sort of voter (Nascar Dads and Reagan Democrats, if you will) isn't the only sort of swing voter. There are those for whom policy does matter, but who don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, because they are proccupied with other things (raising kids, putting food on the table, preeminently) or because their principles are in the center and can go either way (on social issues and foreign policy they really are in the center in that they are sympathetic to both left and right positions on things like abortion, gay marriage, the war, etc., but don't like the extreme arguments on either side). Running to the center is exactly what Kerry should be doing in trying to be palatable to these voters (Soccer Moms, if you will).

Even if a Kerry/McCain ticket is a straight shot to the office, history has taught us the VPs from different parties usually result not in bipartisan coalition, but increased burreaucracy and inaction.

Like when? There's no example from modern history. How would bureaucracy increase - I mean, McCain can't veto something. I can't see how his staff would impede a Dem administration, but perhaps this is myopia on my part. I can see all sorts of political problems arising, like leaks or threatened resignations, but presumably there would be an agreement on such stuff in advance. McCain's impulse to speak his mind v. McCain's word fite - he did recently make a comment about how he'd have to learn to hold his tongue - maybe they're negotiating already?

I actually think that McCain as a VP could be good for process, principally because they are close friends, something very valuable in a VP. Also because he's so knowledgeable and experienced. And because presumably he would get his own policy shop to draw up ideas and programs - more stuff gets done. I concede that it could pull Kerry to the right, something I don't want. But I also can conceive of it pulling him to the left - if your sounding-board/devil's advocate is on the right, perhaps you react against it in the other direction?

Dems seem pretty willing to mistake McCain's honesty and (genuine) credibility with is being a moderate.

I certainly don't. I would vote for someone with the ideological profile of Lieberman or Breaux or Olympia Snowe over McCain. But I respect, as you say, his honesty, and something more important - his intention. He is actually in office to be involved in public service, and do whatever he thinks best for the public, free of serious ideological impediment. This is why I respect him and not the vast majority of Republicans in the federal government who are there first and foremost to serve business interests and/or a religious or economic ideology that I don't share. While I object to some or many of his choices, I respect how he arrives at them.

(Repubs staying way to the right, Dems moving to the center, Greens or another party becoming the prominant lefty party),

I think this is a possibility, whether or not McCain is chosen, but it might well increase the chances. Not necessarily good for us Democratic party loyalists, but what if it marginalized the Republicans, accelerating their coming minority status (demographics are moving that way, some argue)? Isn't this what the really left McCain opponents want?

Based on what we know from 2002 and the success of Howard Dean, the Dems should persue a strategy of moving the rhetoric to the left, even if the politics don't.

I certainly like having Dean-style rhetoric of the left as a matter of changing the culture, but I don't think Dean's candidacy proves anything about its political effectiveness in a general election in an out-term. I think the best way to change the culture is to get a Democratic administration in office and a Democratic Congress, allowing such rhetoric from elected officials.

I'd much rather McCain had a hand in doing something he's good at.

Well, he's good at being a Senator. And I think he might like the Senate so much that he wouldn't want to be a VP (though he did run for Prez). And I'd rather have more people like McCain dignifying the disrespected and increasingly undistinguished Senate than the Frists and Santorums of the body.

In the end, I really can't say whether I'm for this. I'm unsure of the political effect but think it would be a good, if not great, one. I don't think Kerry needs the help necessarily, but this is a very important election. I'd prefer anyone in the Dem party as a matter of ideology, but I'd prefer McCain to some as a matter of personality and experience. So I can't necessarily say I'm for it, but I certainly wouldn't object.

Bush Gets Boost From McCain on Iraq

McCain's too smart to see this as a springboard to the presidency. The vice presidency is a dead-end spot in almost every case. Doubly so for him. Kerry would have to offer an especially sweet deal to pry McCain out of the Senate. Obviously, no such sweet deal has been forthcoming, yet. And it isn't likely, either.

I hope this is party of some brillian mccain strategy and the knives come out in the near future.

This one is cute, too.

this is one of those things that makes a mccain win unlikely to me. conservatives still remember that this idea was floated around and are gonna resent him for it. as far as bush goes, he is in the same kind of position gore was in with clinton, where having the outgoing president involved in his campaign has so many cons that it nullifies any pros.

Gore wasn't actually in that position, though.

gore perceived himself to be in that position though