Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Five More Biden Points

1. The word is that Kaine was finally tossed out because he’s somewhat pro-life. And I imagine one fear there was that the Hillary people are spoiling for a fight at the convention.

2. One reason Biden was picked is that he was perhaps the least offensive non-Hillary choice to Hillary. Another woman (Sebelius) would have angered her, as she is THE woman.

3. It turns out, contrary to what you might read here, almost everyone likes Biden in DC. Jesse Helms, we read, liked him. And so one talent it’s hoped he will display is being aggressive without seeming mean.

4. NLT writers and readers, for understandable reasons, are rather singularly Thomas-centric. The fact that Joe did him wrong (and he did) I doubt will be a major factor in the campaign.

5. The general perception of Biden is that he’s no towering genius, but hardly the lightweight you sometimes read about here. He’s viewed as a fairly dignified man of great experience, if not quite a statesman. Pawlenty, in truth, will seem puny by comparison. So I think it’s somewhat more likely now that McCain will have to go with Romney. He likes Mitt even less than Barack likes Joe (and I’m not at all sure Barack dislikes Joe). So if you have last-minute advice for Mac here, you should give it.

Discussions - 25 Comments

The conservative duty (and pleasure) will be to tie Biden to his time on the Judiciary Committee. America does not love leftist judges.


Two senators on the ticket will make each seem airier than they are individually.

Polenta looking better than ever--he's actually run something.

Pat Caddell (interesting guy) on Fox just said Biden would make a good Sec State but not above. Peter Principle. As for Mac's choice now, I WISH he could choose Lieberman (could he become pro-life?). But really, I think this takes some pressure off the choice.

But to the unconverted, doesn't Obama seem somewhat puny in comparison to Mac?

Is it that great a crime for one's #2 to look like a #2?

I agree with Ken. He doesn't have to pick Romney. He can pick anyone who has run something.

Who really knows whether Pawlenty or Polenta or whatever his name is has done a good job running something?. Romney has done well in running several things. I admit that the Democrats going with two senators does present Mac with an opportunity.

Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin! She would be a brilliant choice to defuse all of the old-Senate-blah-blah problems the talking heads talk about. She, like McCain, has stood on her principles (pro-life) in her own life, lived them, and not backed down on them.

From watching the speeches today,

1. If Joe Biden could have found a campaign spokesman as effective as Obama, Biden might be the Democratic nominee. Obama did a great job selling the Biden story and record in his introductory speech. It was a reminder of why Obama is going to be tough to beat.

2. Obama's campaign message has gotten sharper. His focus on stagnating living standards and an overextended foreign policy that relies on bluster hits home. The themes are even more effective for being partially based on reality.

3. The story of Biden's working class, Middle America roots highlights how difficult it is for Obama to connect the story of his life to the experience of many Americans.

4. Romney was mostly ineffective in the Republican debates. McCain made mincemeat out of him and McCain is an inferior debater to George W. Bush (if the 2000 Republican primary debates are anything to go on). Huck did well in the primary debates but those were for a conservative audience and substance is not Huck's strong suit. McCain would hardly want his veep nominee to look lost on foreign policy. Jindal has looked great on the interview shows but he looks very young and is still in his freshman year as Louisiana governor. It could make for a bad contrast with Biden.

The critique the McCain camp has of Obama is "Is he ready to lead?" Until two years ago Sarah Palin's most impressive political credential was that she was mayor of Wasilla, AK. That's not exactly Rudy Giulliani territory. She has been governor only since December 2006. Palin would be savaged as an inexperienced affirmative action pick who shows that McCain doesn't really mean all that talk about experience.

I am not sure why Tim Pawlenty is less impressive than Mitt Romney. Pawlenty has been governor longer and unlike Romney he's actually won re-election. Romney's claim to distinction seems to be that he has tremendous personal wealth which he was able to squander in a lame run at the presidency. Unlike Pawlenty, who has real blue collar roots, Mitt Romney comes right out of Republican central casting: smooth good looking super-rich businessman who seems like he's most at home at the country club or hosting a game show.

The exciting Republican picks, Palin and Jindal, just are not ready for prime time yet. However competent they might be, they have not payed their dues. That is political reality. It is best, then, for McCain to go with a "do no harm" pick such as Romney or Pawlenty, with Pawlenty being the better choice, in my view.

A question: is it correct to say that Biden's roots are "working class"? His family was poor, but his father had been part of the yaght and polo set, and had lost his money. Does being poor make on "working class" in America, or is there more to it? Just curious.

Obama is trying to cover McCain's visibility,putting an old Senator like him on the same stage,enhancing
Obama appearing fresh at people's eyes

McCain-Lieberman is my vote anything else follows a logic I am not capable of seeing to victory, frankly because I can't get myself to believe it as credible. You can't really know until you try it(and alas it seems time machines don't exist), but I think McCain-Romney ends in defeat.

Conservatives have made no secret about disliking McCain and he is old. Make him promise one term and let him focus on ending Operation Iraqi Freedom in a proper manner. Let him serve with his estranged-democrat friend. If there really is a widespread desire (and I doubt it) among the Hillary people to see her elected in 2012 then such a pledge has strange promise from this angle as well....

Again, Sarah Palin!

George Bush wasn't in office that much longer that Palin.

McCain-Lieberman will play very badly at the convention. If there were a way to get past that comfortably, the pairing would play well in the general election. Obama (used to, anyway) talk about being above partisanship. McCain-Lieberman is certainly not a ticket about partisanship. The parts of the electorate who I speak to are sick of watching party politics. This isn't really a matter of hating parties, but rather that the parties as they currently operate don't really seem to serve the public interest very well. They both seem entrenched and self-serving to the American public. That's why they are sick of them. Something completely different might be in order.

But I don't see that playing in a Republican convention, at all. "Hello, Party! We are rising above you!" really won't fly.

The one-term thing is silly. You let the people decide the presidency. McCain may well be a one-term president, but why should he or the American people lock him into that? He might be wonderful. If Lieberman isn't, he can be retired and those young guys we like, Jindal, Palin, etc., are there and more known and experienced, prime for the choosing.

Great, Kate: You really can't show up at the party convention and say "Hello, we're rising above you!" The one-term is silly, wouldn't work, etc. Palin is out of the picture, but I still think she'd be best. I've been to Wasilla--it doesn't seem like an easy place to govern.

The other evening, Dick Morris suggested that nominating Kay Bailey Hutchinson for VP would attract some of Mrs. C's voters.

Richard, that woman makes me sick. Probably for all of the reasons that make her attractive to Clintonians.

I tend to think of Hutchinson as a typical Republican Senator. What has she done that makes he stand out?

You can't show up at the party convention and say "hello we are rising above you"? Sounds like the possibility horizon of someone who can't spit in the face of his torturers and tell them to do their worst. A rather hilarious barrier for those whose general arguments on foreign policy downplay "soft power".

1) Yeesh...please stop with the Sarah Palin nonsense! You GOPers surprise me. McCain - being a responsible leader - won't pick her (nor should he). Sarah Palin is not qualified to be POTUS! Period. And the idea that just because she's a woman she will get the Hillary voters is iffy (e.g. how many Hillary voters kill animals themselves? lol). You cannot run against Obama's inexperience and then select a totally inexperienced female. Ridiculous.

2) Next...as much as I like Romney, I don't think he should be the pick. It makes it too easy for the Dems to portray the ticket as elitist and wealthy. They've already started that with the "number of houses" silliness. Romney is also not very likable AND he's a mormon (which turns other people off). He reminds people of slick Wall St.-ers. He does not have the common man touch.

3) McCain needs to choose someone who "does no harm". Certainly not someone who will outshine him (like Rudy). I'm not that familiar with Pawlenty, but from what I've read, he seems like a safe pick. I don't see the VP as helping, but it could hurt. If he went with Huckabee, I think a lot of potential center-left voters would be turned off (but of course it would shore up the socon vote).

My vote? Fred! Sure he's old, seems lacklustre, ran a bad campaign - but this is VP (not POTUS). He'd be good in keeping a strong message on track. He'd be good in the VP debates. The fear of McCain dying wouldnt' be a problem because you could see Fred being POTUS. The conservatives would be happy. I don't think he annoys too many in the center or center-left so that if they were going to vote McCain that they wouldn't just because of Fred. And *HE* (unlike Biden) actually does bring GRAVITAS to the ticket.

>Please, where is this requirement to be President of the United States that many are using?

Wouldn't you say that being even keeled would be preferable? If so, then why has the GOP hanged their hat on someone that has a reputation of not being even keeled?

In other words, even though it is a disjointed explaination, I don't put much stock in the "requirement" to be President.

slick, you make some good criticisms of the available possibilities. but fred (who often looks half dead) who make the ticket too geriatric.

Mr. Lawler should take the time to familiarize himself with Gov. Pawlenty. Pawlenty is the two term conservative governor of a blue state who managed to buck the trend and get reelected in the Democratic landlide in 2006. Prior to being governor he was a state legislative leader. He has far more experience than Sen. Obama. Joe Biden is not going to make Gov. Pawlenty look puny.

Of course no one wants to address the so-called requirements to become President of the United States.

The Constition is clear on what is required, but what we have now is people putting subjective requirements on what should be a qualified candidate.

So, you have to be from an Ivy League school, have some or al ot of government experience (no matter of it is just as lawmaker, legislative, but a leader, executive, would be nice), have some amount of money or the ability raise a shit load of it, ...

What else of the subjective requirements have I missed?

I am not saying that Obama would be a good President, but he is a qualified candidate and so is Palin for the matter!

Are the folks on this site, a possible most of those in America, saying that what we want is an elite class to rule over the United States!?!

That is NOT what our founding was about and that is NOT what I took 2 oaths to defend!

So, again, Palin for VP and maybe for someday P!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12733