Kerry- McCain?

[Gordon B]

Andrew Sullivan column in favor of the ticket

Kerry would shoot up in the polls and in the betting lines if he picks McCain. Despite McCain's claims of party loyalty, I think he would accept if Kerry chose him.

I'd seriously consider voting for this ticket for the reasons given by Sulivan.

Nonetheless, I think it's a pipe dream. The Democratic Party activists would rather lose to Bush than have a pro-life Democratic Vice President, IMO.

Alan Colmes asked McCain the other night if he would consider being Kerry's Vice President. McCains answer?

"No, no".

Unlike Hillary's "I don't forsee that happening", or "I will not be asked" ambiguity, McCain was very firm in his answer.

[Dr Dave]

I'm not voting because it ain't gonna happen. As I've posted elsewhere, John McCain may be the conservative that Democrats like best, but he's still very conservative, and has given no indication whatever that he'd consider changing his political stripes.

[walto]

Yeah, this poll is kind of like, "Would you vote for John Kerry if he were female ?" (or reasonably honest or short or whatever).

[bluenoter]

I'm not voting either, for the reasons noted above.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I'm with Doc. Although I'd be willing to bet there are more conservative Democrats than there are liberal (hell, even moderate) Republicans left in the federal government.

The premise is ridiculous. Wishful thinking. The Democratic base would probably lose their lunch but maybe it would lure some "Reagan Democrats" back.

But ya gotta admit, the ticket has potential to kick some serious ass.

[Gordon B]

Kerry will never ask McCain but it's not because McCain wouldn't accept. It would be stupid for McCain to say he'd consider it because he'd appear to be disloyal for no apparent gain. He'd have to be presented the opportunity as a done deal.

Let's be honest, there's a pro-choice litmus test and McCain fails it.

I don't agree with Walto's comment. If John Kerry were female he wouldn't be John Kerry. If the question is, "Would you vote for a woman with Kerry's political views", that would be a fair (but boring) question.

Suppose my question were "Would you want John Kerry to consider selecting a hypothetical pro-life, pro-defense Republican as VP in order to shore up his foreign policy credentials and increase his chances of beating Bush?

[walto]

Would Kerry have to pay any attention to him/her after the election, or could it just be thought of as a nice ruse to gain votes from the right-winged-but-gullible crowd? Is there a way Kerry could assure the faithful lefties that he has no intention of paying the slightest attention to this Repub. after the election without the rubes discovering that this assurance had been made?

[Underhound]

I like McCain but he has already made it clear that he wouldn't accept a spot on the ticket and that he is working for Bush's campaign in AZ.
To change his mind at this point would mean the unleashing of the attack hounds who would (rightfully) paint him as a dishonest flip-flopping liar.

[walto]

"If John Kerry were female he wouldn't be John Kerry."

FWIW, I don't think that's true, but it's probably a debate for a different thread.

If John Kerry were female he wouldn't be John Kerry.

And lets face it, that'd be one ugly woman.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And lets face it, that'd be one ugly woman.

I dunno. A little more botox.... And maybe a six pack in me.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I dunno. A little more botox.... And maybe a six pack in me.

Well, if you're gonna spice up the pot like that, then yeah, maybe I'd do her.

[Monte Smith]

I wonder if Kerry has ever been pawed by the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Perhaps that's why said Senator is always so excited at those rally's.

It would take more than just a six pack for me to do him.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Suppose my question were "Would you want John Kerry to consider selecting a hypothetical pro-life, pro-defense Republican as VP in order to shore up his foreign policy credentials and increase his chances of beating Bush?

Doing something very much like that didn't help Gore too much.

Originally Posted by Pete C

Doing something very much like that didn't help Gore too much.

Excellent point!!!

[Gary Sisco]

McCain could take Bush on his own, this time out, but he chose not to run. I don't think Kerry-McCain would work or that McCain would go for it, anyway. He'd be all done in AZ if he did, and he's way too ensconced in the DC Power Club to risk that.

McCain's done some pretty heavy stepping on the Constitution himself in the past couple of years (McCain-Feingold was the worst attack on the 1st Amendment in years, and anyone who'd sidle up with her for any reason puts him or herself outside the pale with me, anyway). I voted for him against Bush last time around in the Repub primary, but he's since revealed too much of his real self for me to vote for him again.

Truth is, at the national level, there's almost no one I can vote for who doesn't violate one or both of my litmus tests. I won't vote for anyone who isn't pro-Second Amendment and pro-abortion rights. That pretty much rules out anyone running for president or likely to.

Thank goodness my man Gentleman Jim Jeffords announced that he's running again for another six years in the Senate -- a guaranteed victory in Vermont. He'll be running as an independent and all the repub big mouths who yapped -- being completely ignorant about VT politics -- about his "using" the repub party to get elected and then abandoning it, will get to see just how much pull the repub party has in VT. Nearly none. Even as an independent Jeffords will cream all challengers, from any party. He doesn't need (much less have to "use") the repub party to do it. He doesn't even really have to campaign with any seriousness, as his victory is guaranteed regardless, *because* he abandoned the party in what used to be a one-party (repub) state for more than a century. Of course, that was back when the repubs cared somewhat anyway for the republic, which doesn't even get mentioned by them anymore, and there's a whole generation of them that doesn't even know what the word means or why it's the party's name.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Rainman

McCain could take Bush on his own, this time out, but he chose not to run. I don't think Kerry-McCain would work or that McCain would go for it, anyway. He'd be all done in AZ if he did, and he's way too ensconced in the DC Power Club to risk that.

McCain's done some pretty heavy stepping on the Constitution himself in the past couple of years (McCain-Feingold was the worst attack on the 1st Amendment in years, and anyone who'd sidle up with her for any reason puts him or herself outside the pale with me, anyway). I voted for him against Bush last time around in the Repub primary, but he's since revealed too much of his real self for me to vote for him again.

I agree with Gary on McCain-Feingold. I don't like McCain much, myself but knowing how uncompromising he is, think that he would keep Kerry from moving too far left of center. If Kerry picked McCain, it would also be a strong signal that Kerry was committed to winning in Iraq.

Kerry keeps saying that Bush should replace Rumsfeld with McCain because he knows it isn't going to happen. D'Imperio and Kroesen have about as warm a personal relationship as Bush and McCain. If Bush called Kerry's bluff and made the change what would Kerry do, praise Bush?

Why are defense secretaries much more secure than NBA coaches?

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Doing something very much like that didn't help Gore too much.

And Gore was already considered to be relatively hawkish on defense among the Dems, sort of a junior Sam Nunn, IIRC...sort of like Kerry himself, I imagine (Kerry was one of the least questioning voices in the Senate with regards to the recent $25 billion Iraq spending request).

[Gary Sisco]

Winning what? What's the goal? What does "victory" look like?

And I thought victory had been achieved last May? I'm still reading about "last May, when the war ended....." even though many more Americans and Iraqis both have been killed (and tortured and humiliated) since the war "ended" than while it "on."

One of the reasons I *won't* vote for Kerry is because of his insistence that he could be a more effective Bush than Bush. Why in the world would I want to vote for him in that case? I'd rather have an ineffective Bush than an effective one. Nitwit. Kerry's just showing his party how to lose again, that's all, even when victory is theirs for the grabbing.

Strange Liberation baby

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Tanager

And Gore was already considered to be relatively hawkish on defense among the Dems, sort of a junior Sam Nunn, IIRC...sort of like Kerry himself, I imagine (Kerry was one of the least questioning voices in the Senate with regards to the recent $25 billion Iraq spending request).

That was the Gore who ran against Dukakis in 1988, not the Gore who ran against Bush in 2000. He's changed his spots on numerous occasions.

I expect Kerry, if elected to be more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy as President, despite his Kennedylike voting record. The Bush hating left will be marginalized by Kerry's election, IMO. The news coverage will be less biased against American national security interests if Kerry wins.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The news coverage will be less biased against American national security interests if Kerry wins.

That would be quite a loaded statement if I could figure out what the hell it means.

[clinthopson]

Obviously, McCain won't be the pick, but it's an intriguing thought since McCain seems to have a modicum of integrity, unlike almost every other pol out there.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Obviously, McCain won't be the pick, but it's an intriguing thought since McCain seems to have a modicum of integrity, unlike almost every other pol out there.

Today's front page of the NYT has a story on Kerry-McCain. McCain would be giving up his Senate seat and Chairmanship of the Armed Service Committee in 2006 if he ran for VP. The only way he would take it would be with strings attached--some sort of power given him by Kerry.

Clint, you are right that McCain has integrity but have you really studied his positions? Issues2000.org is the best non-partisan site for discovering major politicians' past statements on issues.

McCain's positions on the issues

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Alan Colmes asked McCain the other night if he would consider being Kerry's Vice President. McCains answer?

"No, no".

Unlike Hillary's "I don't forsee that happening", or "I will not be asked" ambiguity, McCain was very firm in his answer.

Well...he also said he wouldn't support Dubya in the last election, too.



Guess what...

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Today's front page of the NYT has a story on Kerry-McCain. McCain would be giving up his Senate seat and Chairmanship of the Armed Service Committee in 2006 if he ran for VP. The only way he would take it would be with strings attached--some sort of power given him by Kerry.

Clint, you are right that McCain has integrity but have you really studied his positions? Issues2000.org is the best non-partisan site for discovering major politicians' past statements on issues.

McCain's positions on the issues

Thanks for the site referral Gordo.

I certainly don't agree with McCain on all issues, i.e. choice and death penalty but his record shows a general consistency in his positions which I think indicates some integrity.

In a lot of ways he reminds me of Barry Goldwater who I thoroughly disagreed with but always respected.