AmericanPapist Comments
Mildly pro-choice?
How do such accomplished, educated, important people make such stupid remarks? (ps: note that this question can be raised by a pro-lifer, obviously but by a pro-choicer as well.)
The choice of Sec. Rice would make absolutely no sense from a political point of view.
She was the National Security Advisor during the run-up to the Iraq war, and her selection would generate a lot of discussion about the original justification(s) for the war.
And because of her abortion stance, she would alienate the base of the Republican Party, something McCain has no need to do.
Agreed that it would make no sense, and I would bet almost all I have that it won't happen. Generally speaking, the running mate is chosen for one of two reasons: to help win an important state or region or to fill a knowledge gap. Condi isn't going to help McCain win a critical state, or even win over blacks (some women who wouldn't normally vote Republican might like her on the ticket, though). On the second matter, since he's already making his candidacy about foreign policy, someone who is more adept to handling domestic matters would be more sensible as a running mate. Condi doesn't bring that to the table, either.
I subscribe to George Will's assertions that when it comes to winning elections, the vice president doesn't matter all that much. As Will says, who actually votes for a president based on who the VP is? If that were the case, Bush should've been blown out in '04. The only VP candidate I can think of that may have actually had an impact in a presidential race is Lyndon Johnson in '60. Before and after that, though...
I imagine McCain will be choosing either Governor Crist or Governor Pawlenty. What other names are being tossed around as a potential GOP running mate?
Conventional political wisdom is that people vote for P, not VP, but that a problematic VP can move some voters to the other candidate. In other words, a VP nominee can only hurt the presidential nominee -- cannot help him. I think that conventional wisdom is correct, although I understand that some people speculate that McCain's age may provide an exception in that some people who might not vote for McCain because of concerns of age could be favorably infuenced by an attractive VP selection. I see the logic of that, but disagree with it. McCain should and will select a highly-vetted, lesser known running mate such as the governer of MN.
Ed,
I actually think that the term "mildly pro-choice" has some utility. It describes a person who is pro-choice but with insufficient passion to likely influence many decisions. In other words, it would be a low priority in connection with judicial nominees and executive orders. The analog would be "mildly pro-life," which, unfortunately, I believe describes John McCain.
Mike, good points, both posts.
An argument can be made that George H.W. Bush helped Reagan in 1980, because Reagan's age was a bit of an issue and people were comfortable with the idea that Bush would be there to step in.
The LBJ point is valid; Kennedy desperately needed to carry Texas, and LBJ helped to assure that.
The best example of a dubious V.P. choice that did not kill the ticket was Dan Quayle. Whatever Quayle's merit might have been, there was no good reason for the choice. Dukakis' running mate was much more solid (Sen. Lloyd Bentsen), yet the Bush-Quayle team won fairly handily.
A surprisingly strong choice was Gore's selection of Lieberman, keeping in mind that they did win the popular vote. There was a notable up-tick in Gore's poll numbers when the selection was announced.
Commenting by HaloScan
