Has Arizona Senator John McCain seriously considered in effect bolting his party and running as Veep with his friend Senator John Kerry? Or has he simply dismissed formal overtures from the Kerry camp and thinly-disguised pinings of The Modern Day JFK?
According to the Washington Post, the answers are YES and NO. You can read about it all in detail here, but basically the one sticking point for McCain is that by running with Kerry he might a)diminish his credibility, b)find he has less influence as Veep than staying in Congress. David Ignatius writes:
- The bitter political divide in America worries McCain, especially when the nation is at war. He knows that for many Americans, he has become a symbol of a bipartisanship that could overcome these divisions -- and bring Red and Blue America closer together. That call to duty is powerful for McCain. He'll be 68 later this summer, and he knows that his time to shape American public life is now.
The Kerry camp has made overtures, and McCain has taken them seriously. He has tried to imagine the details of how such a partnership would work in practice. But the more McCain thinks about such a unity ticket, the more difficulties he sees.
McCain's problem is that while he genuinely likes Kerry as a friend, he disagrees with him on many important issues. Take Kerry's recent statement that he favors bilateral negotiations with North Korea. McCain has never favored that approach and thinks it would be a potentially dangerous mistake. How, he wonders, would the two reconcile such a sharp disagreement on one of the most important foreign policy issues facing the country?
Or take the sensitive issue of gays in the military. Kerry has indicated he wants a reexamination of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy favored by the military. McCain disagrees. How would they resolve that one?
Indeed, McCain's appeal has been that although he is a mixed bag of political beliefs -- much like California's highly-popular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- he won't compromise on certain things. And he is brutally blunt. More from the Post:
- Advocates of the national-unity approach, like me, argue that the fact that Kerry and McCain disagree is the whole point of their running together. They would each have to give ground on issues that matter to them, for the sake of the larger issue of the country's welfare. And they would have to work out a governing formula that allowed McCain to remain a Republican and be faithful to his values while working alongside Kerry.
That logic moves McCain, but it doesn't convince him. He wonders what would happen when the country faced its first serious foreign policy crisis. Let's assume that McCain was given special responsibility for defense and national security issues as vice president. That might allow McCain to insist on his preferred policy for North Korea. But he worries that if Kerry agreed to such a power-sharing formula, he would be fundamentally weakening the office of the presidency.
McCain knows that people respect him because he says what he thinks. And since he would continue to speak out if he were vice president, he fears a Kerry White House would inevitably -- necessarily -- put him on ice. And perhaps most important, by running with a Democrat, he would lose the chance to do what he most wants, which is to help broaden and revitalize the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
So the Arizona Republican probably means it when he says he won't run as Kerry's vice president. He rejects the idea not in principle but in practice. And he means it, too, when he says he plans to support George W. Bush and campaign for his reelection.
So, with time running out, where does this leave the Kerry folks?
- The Kerry campaign thus has two options if it truly favors a national-unity strategy. It can think through the problems that McCain is worrying about and try to woo him anew with a structure that could bridge differing viewpoints without destroying the coherence of a Kerry White House. Or, it can look for another moderate Republican such as Sen. Chuck Hagel or Sen. Richard Lugar, who, like McCain, are symbols of independence and bipartisanship.
We'd also argue that with all the acclaim of Ronald Reagan he might also consider the one Democrat who had the same likeability figure, and we don't mean Howard My-Mouth-Is-My-Shepard Dean: John Edwards. But perhaps that's a pipe dream (and Kerry will thrust upon the national stage a hack for Veep like Richard Gephardt):
- What makes McCain so appealing as a unity candidate came through in a speech he gave last month on fiscal discipline. "I am a proud Republican," he said. "I revere Ronald Reagan and his party of limited government. Sadly, that party is no longer. The current version of the Republican Party is engaged in an outrageous spending binge, and they're being steadied and encouraged by the Democrats."
Indeed, like him or not, McCain speaks his mind and doesn't seem to be looking at the polls or worrying about bigwigs' noses being out of joint (which is why he is not beloved in the Senate). That was one of the appealing things about Reagan, who did compromise and take a half-a-loaf if he had to: he stood steadfast for his beliefs. But in 2004 there's a sense that polls Are King in both camps, protestations to the contrary. So, who will Kerry pick? And will Bush stick with Cheney (latest rumors the past few weeks had Tom Ridge being vetted just in case, and Rudy Giuliani being perceived as a great way to energize the ticket.)??
UPDATE: The New York Times has a piece saying McCain has repeatedly refused Kerry's hints that he'd like him to run with him.
"Hints" is the word since it has not been posed as a direct question -- and the two reportedly play a kind of verbal game. But McCain has remained firm in his insistance that he is not interested, the Times reports.
As a citizen of Arizona since moving here in 1945 I find the idea of John McCain leaving the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George Bush 1, and George Bush 2 no more than a foolish dream of the left.
They don't understand that members of the same party can disagree on some subjects and agree on others.
Look at the primary campaign between Bush and Reagan, strong talk. They became a team.
The folks on the left believe if you disagree in any way...you're the enemy.
I don't mean center of the road Dems, I mean the Kerry left.
A unity ticket worked for Lincoln in 1864, but by then the Civil War had become the only real issue.
Ronald Reagan proposed running with a liberal Republican in 1976. I'm not sure how even that would have worked if they had been elected together.
Like it'd matter - McCain wouldn't do it because he'd be giving up immense power in return for a job "not worth a pitcher of warm spit", but if he did do it, then it would not affect the outcome of the race....President Bush would still be re-elected.
When a major Party starts talking heavily about its VP pick, you know its in very deep trouble - the plain fact of the matter is that Kerry has to convince people that Kerry would do a better job than President Bush...having a man who is a combination Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Ronald Reagan as his VP pick doesn't matter in the least - Kerry will have to win this on his own. The Democrats know they've picked a loser, and they're walking around in a dream world now in which a flabbergasting VP pick will turn it all around...picking McCain, if McCain were to accept, would cause a huge media flurry and Kerry jumping to a 15 point lead over President Bush in the polls...and then Kerry would still have to get out there and provide a coherent message which makes him the clearly better alternative to President Bush...the drift down in Kerry's polls would resume with a vengence.
Watching all of this, its rather amusing in my view - I'm watching right before my eyes the complete melt-down of a political party. 2004 will make 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.
I heard McCain on with Hannity a few days ago saying that he'd never be Kerry's VP, because he doesn't agree with his platform. This has been widely ignored by the media, interested in using McCain to pimp Kerry.
Look this is all very simple, McCain as Veep is a story, it’s interesting, is sells mouthwash and sneakers. Kerry picking a democrat is a snore, a bore and frankly it’s the same thing that drives all of the Hillary as Veep non-sense. What I find amusing is that you all will ascribe to this story every conceivable motive from “Kerry is in Trouble” to the liberal media os propping up Kerry and ignore the single most plausible explanation. That the media is in the business to sell cans of soup, McCain as Veep does it, Kerry picking a democrat does not.
I return you now to your chorus of sycophancy.
Actually, I do agree with DeMent: the media is in the business of making mountains out of molehills. Having said that, however...
You know, it's a wonder that we "right-wingers" managed to even survive around here before you came, DeMent. Your class and relevance speak for themselves. Can you also teach us how to Piss on Others from a Great Height, just like you? We'd be evah-so-grateful!
Jim,
You know, you guys kill me, I have come on this board in the past with relevant, if not contrarian points of view and have been told how wrong I am, how biased I am, how deluded by the liberal media I am and how misinformed I am by people who are no less wrong, biased and deluded then I am. It’s the nature of on-line “debate” if I thought that people here were really interested in sustentative debate, my attitude would be completely different. I often comment on a site that is so right wing they make George Bush look like a new dealer and my attitude there is completely different because they respect, and * encourage * sustentative discussions.
Here if you have a contrarian points of view you typically get labeled something and then told how wrong, biased, and misinformed you are. Read Mark Noonan’s posts. Oh how “amused” he is, how “the democrats have picked a “loser”, and how the (presumably) democrats are in complete melt down mode. All assertions, all opinions and no one ever challenges him on this drivel, ever, ever, ever. But I come along, give my opinions (which are agents the grain of most people here) and all of a sudden I get asked to support my assertions, to back up what I say with links, I am told I’m wrong or get a bunch of non-sense about my “tone”.
If there were something other then an atmosphere of veiled hostility to contrarian points of view my attitude would be 180 degrees different, but it’s not. And if you ask me why I post, the answer is simple; it amuses me to be the stone in the shoe. And if all you’re really complaining about is the snarky tone then I would suggest that, collectively, you all attempt to have a discussion rather then come out of the gate with all of the reason when some one with a point of view that is different is wrong, biased, and misinformed.
Oh and have a nice day :)
Actually, all this McCain for Kerry's Veep stuff simply reminds me of one newsroom truism: slow news day. There's nothing going to be happening for the next few weeks on the campaign trail, so the handlers AND the media need something to justify keeping those reporters out in hotel rooms with the Senator.
As I have said, I agree with you, Rick.
Yes, you have every right to be a stone in the shoe.
Yes, you're right when you suspect it's the snarky parting shot that set me off.
I make no apologies for trying to deflate "martyred" poses however; twitting those who assume them is what enjoy- irrespective of political orientation. I'm sorry you don't like that...but talk of "veiled hostility" to your point of view as a justification for acting like a prick doesn't cut the mustard; it doesn't excuse you or anyone from at least acting like an adult in debate. This "Oh, I stand against the ignorance and mockery of the world, the pain of it all!! Take that, Philistines!" stuff is more appropriate to Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space".
And what is this about a demand for "collective action"? The only person anyone can answer for is oneself. You seem to be treating everyone else here a some kind of monolithic bloc (the VRWC, perhaps?) About as stupidly moronic as lumping in all liberals as "The Left" (cue scary music)
The idea of McCain as Kerry's veep is interesting. I did not know that courting a veep from another political party was a practical consideration.
It has inspired my idea of a presidential ticket for 2008: McCain/Lieberman. Two known quantities who have a history of knowing when to work with their esteemed opponents (not enemies). It would be a long shot, but I'd like it.
Jim,
Fair enough.
I'd rather Leiberman/McCain, Jon, since for some reason I feel (not think, so of course it's irrational) that I can know where he stands better. But then, I doubt Leiberman would change parties, and I doubt he'd get his own party's nod.
Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space".
I liked Dr. Smith! He was a very interesting character. I'm talking about the OLD "Lost in Space", the TV show we used to watch when I was a boy, _not_ that crappy movie they made out of it. Anyway...
"I often comment on a site that is so right wing they make George Bush look like a new dealer"
George Bush _is_ a New Dealer. He couldn't be more a New Dealer if his name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself. Spend! Spend! Spend! He never met a government program he didn't want to throw more money at. Whatever happened to the OLD Republicans?, the Republicans who believed in limited government, fiscal responsibility, fiscal integrity, and a sound dollar? Died with President Reagan and Senator Golwater, I guess. I'll have to vote Libertarian this year. No matter how goofy many of them may be, at least they don't advocate more and ever more government.
I'm glad McCain is refusing to have anything to do with Kerry. Both men served in Viet Nam, but McCain didn't turn around and start smearing his fellow soldiers as war criminals. And I think McCain is one of those old-style Republicans. I'm proud to have voted for him in the 2000 primary.
Senator Goldwater
Steven,
Ah, McCain would spend money like there's no tomorrow as well if he had the chance...and raise taxes into the bargain because he's one of those sad examples of a GOPer who wants to be the tax collector for the welfare State.
Actually, Steve, reagan pretty much ran up record deficits during his term in office, and doubled the federal budget in his first two years in office as well. You can blame that on Congress if you'd like, but the fact of hte matter is, Ronald Reagan's name was at the top of those budgets. I admire Reagan as much as anyone, but the "small government, spendthrift" Republican was NOT ronald reagan, despite the hagiography to the contrary.
Well, I've voted in every election since 1968 and not once have I based my vote on who is running for Veep.
Nor do I think this story is selling very many cans of soup. My take is that it gives the networks a chance to use John kerry's name in a sentence that doesn't end in 'is a total goober'.
I doubt whoever Kerry chooses for VP will help him very much. Dukakis choose Lloyd Bentsen while Bush Sr. chose Quayle, yet the majority still voted against Dukakis. Conversely, before that, Reagan had chosen Bush Sr., who was the worst President in my lifetime next to Carter, who was by far the absolute worst. Yet that didn't hurt Reagan any. So, it doesn't seem that VP's make all that much of a difference. Except Agnew, of course. Him I loved. The _style_!
No one ever, ever, ever challenges Mark Noonan here? Other than me, you, and a half-dozen other people I can think of, Rick?
Rick, your pose of martyrdom and your constant unveiled insults at me and my readers haven't endeared you to others around here, and making yourself out to be a martyr about the whole thing is even less endearing.
You often make rather assertions in a very pompous and condescending air, and when you are asked to provide some sort of link or other reference for them you usually respond by either completely ignoring the request, or by a stuffy, haughty sniff--and no references.
It doesn't make you or your arguments look good.
Whenever you ask me for references, I either give them, or admit that I don't have them and that thus I am only giving an opinion.
See the difference?
Perhaps not.
You do yourself poorly, my friend, and have only yourself to blame.
And by the way, why would it be surprising that you have an easier time discussing things with people on the hard right? My experience is that those people are often surly, curmugeonly types convinced that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I imagine you have much to commisserate with them on. ;-)
Well, I've voted in every election since 1968 and not once have I based my vote on who is running for Veep.
Which actually bolsters the view that Kerry-McCain or Kerry-Hillary speculation means Kerry's in trouble. If Kerry had anything going for him we wouldn't be seeing month after month after month of McCain speculation by media types.
I seem to recall that by this time in 1992 the Clinton camp was already convincing newspaper editors across the country to publish position papers dscribing what Clinton would do (supposedly) if elected.
What are we getting from Kerry? "I was against accepting the nomination at the convention, before I was for it."
Dean wrote:
"And by the way, why would it be surprising that you have an easier time discussing things with people on the hard right? My experience is that those people are often surly, curmugeonly types convinced that the world is going to hell in a handbasket."
Yes, that describes me very well.
Dean,
Going to hell in a handbasket? Going!?!?!?
Dude, we've been toasting in hell in said handbasket for some time now...we of the hard right are just trying to dig our way out of it.
:o)
Steven,
One of these days you've just got to come to Las Vegas so we can have a beer or two....
Rick,
As Dean points out, I get challenged...the problem, however, is that my drivel is rather hard to contest...I assert, boldly, that the Democrats are in meltdown and President Bush is heading for an historic landslide...how do you contest that? Its mostly one of those "time will tell" sorts of things...unless, that is, you've got some evidence the Democrats are not in meltdown and/or that President Bush is not headed for an historic landslide...
Mark:
Thank you. Next time I'm there I'll look you up.
I would actually agree that Democrats are in full meltdown mode.
HOWEVER. Things change at the drop of a hat in politics. Reagan was well behind Carter until the last week or so of the election season. It remains my assertion that any one thing could tip the balance for Kerry:
1) Major bad economic news on the eve of the election.
2) Major terrorist attack on American soil on the even of the election.
3) Another minor blowup in Iraq.
My view is that any one of these could tip the election to Kerry, and that odds are one of them will occur. Even if they turn out in retrospect to have been exaggerated, they'll kill Bush's re-election, and Kerry will win in a squeaker.
But of course, I have that standing bet with you, Mark, and I expect to collect. :-)