« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Miscellaneous Morning Tidbits

Lieberman's Star Burns Out. Romney's Dims. Pawlenty's Stays Constant. And Other Miscellaneous Morning Tidbits

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  August 24th, 2008 at 10:21 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Now that the Dem Veepstakes are resolved, on to the Republicans. Here’s what I can tell you.

  1. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CN) star has burned out on the veep spot. I’m told McCain very much wanted Lieberman, but the campaign has heard from enough people to know it won’t happen. Expect Lieberman to be a member of the Cabinet, letting Republican Governor Jodi Rell appoint his successor.

  2. Mitt Romney’s star has dimmed with Joe Biden’s pick. I’m told that a Romney pick, though still on the table, would take off the table a lot of attacks the McCain camp could use against Obama via Joe Biden’s words. Were Romney the pick, the Obama camp would do the same, throwing McCain and Romney’s attacks back at each other. Likewise, I’m told a few higher ups perceive the latest buzz about Romney is being generated by Romney supporters and not by the McCain team.

  3. Still shining brightly is TIm Pawlenty. Biden was a necessary pick to bolster Obama’s inexperience and potentially, though unlikely, help in Pennsylvania. A Pawlenty pick would neutralize the Biden “blue collar” story and put Minnesota and, potentially, Wisconsin in play.

  4. Wild cards are still out there but one card is absolutely off the table. Don’t expect Bobby Jindal to be McCain’s running mate.

  5. Two states are quietly seizing on the disarray with the Nevada delegation. I’m told quite reliably that if McCain picks a liberal Vice Presidential nominee the majority of delegates in two states plan to force a vote on the convention floor. From how it was explained to me, five states must support a motion to vote on the nominee. Two states just might do it and they are calculating on Nevada going along with it, which would necessitate only two other states needed.

One note about the convention in general:

Die hard fiscal cons and social cons are both privately grumbling about the line up of speakers. One person told me, “That’s a lot of squishiness on the platform. Take out the people like the President, Vice President, Romney, and Jindal that they had to put up there and you aren’t left with much of a conservative speaker line up.”

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • obamamamamam

  • obamamamamam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AOYacPmBw

  • obamamamamam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AOYacPmBw

  • Wintergreen

    Meg Whitman should be the number one choice. She would be great for the economy and it would be foolish not to nominate a woman at this point.

    Palin would be great but isn’t ready.

    Pawlenty is just another white guy. Furthermore, he has too much gaffe potential.

    Lieberman would have been great, pulling in tons of independent votes, but unfortunately the “base” won’t go for it. I am strongly pro-life, but I would love to have Lieberman. He’s a good guy. This isn’t some nutty liberal we are talking about.

    Mitt Romney would be a huge mistake. Boring white guy that has Biden-style quotes that could be used against McCain.

    Whitman is the home run at this point.

  • LoneStarLibertarian

    While Mitt Romney said things critical of McCain and Joe Biden said things critical of Obama, that’s basically where the comparisons end.

    Biden said that Obama wasn’t experienced enough to be president. That’s clearly a core competency that McCain can capitalize on. On the other hand, Romney criticized McCain for being too liberal and not having executive experience. Not exactly fertile ground for Obama to say he has the upper hand.

    The only name on McCain’s purported short list that I like almost as much as Mitt Romney is U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. Cantor’s biggest drawback is that he doesn’t bring any executive experience to the table.

    I also like Govs. Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford; Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint; and U.S. Reps. Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, Marsha Blackburn, and Paul Ryan – but I haven’t heard that any of them are being seriously considered.

    The rest would be complete duds.

    Hopefully big government Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, liberal Republican former Gov. Tom Ridge, and Independent Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman will not be on the ticket come Aug. 29.

  • Wintergreen

    needs to realize is that as badly as Bush mismanaged the economy and alienated voters, we are lucky to have a shot at this at all. Bush doesn’t even deserve to be called a conservative after the way he ran up the national debt by about 4 trillion dollars.

    Furthermore, this isn’t the race for the base to threaten sitting out because they think the platform is squishy. Would you rather have a moderate like Lieberman with McCain and win the race, or would you rather risk handing our entire government over to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid?

    If the latter happens, the pro-lifers can kiss every legal advancement they’ve made over the last several decades goodbye.

  • LoneStarLibertarian

    I really like Meg Whitman and definitely think that she should be a part of a potential McCain Administration – possibly in the role as the nation’s first female Treasury Secretary – but I think that it would ultimately be a mistake to put a political novice on the ticket.

    Also, while she was a firm backer of Mitt Romney in the primaries, she said that she didn’t necessarily agree with him on everything – and that was widely taken to mean that she wasn’t as socially conservative as Romney.

    I would love to see Meg Whitman be Treasury Secretary through the first term and possibly run to replace Diane Feinstein if she retires.

    Condi Rice would be another great California senate candidate at a date further from the Iraq War. She purportedly liked to hang out with the economics department at Stanford – which is a very good sign.

  • Wintergreen

    a terrible pick like Biden–a gaffe-producing Washington insider that highlights his weaknesses and destroys his message of “change–we have a huge opportunity to capitalize here by nominating someone like Meg Whitman who isn’t some ho-hum Washington political retread.

    There is a huge opportunity to seize independent voters and the media’s attention here.

    If we just nominate Pawlenty or Romney and the nation’s collective response will be “meh.”

  • LoneStarLibertarian

    Joe Lieberman would be a terrific Secretary of State, I just hope that Gov. Jodi Rell would not appoint herself to Lieberman’s senate seat. Honestly, I believe Chris Shays would be a better senator than Gov. Rell – and I am no fan of Shays.

  • Wintergreen

    “but I think that it would ultimately be a mistake to put a political novice on the ticket.”

    Normally I would I agree with this, but given that our socialist friends nominated a community organizer with a paper-thin resume for the presidency, I think we’d be okay.

    I am a social conservative and no one cares more about ending abortion than I do. Having said that though, I’d rather roll the dice on someone like Whitman who would probably never influence anything on the issue than risk turning everything over to infanticide-supporting Obama.

    We really need to win this race.

  • Wintergreen

    know much about who would end up in Lieberman’s seat.

    His spot in the senate will go to a democrat pretty much no matter what though.

  • LoneStarLibertarian

    Well, I’m not opposed to a political novice just because she’d be new. I’m afraid that even though she is extremely intelligent, the fact that she is politically untested could cause her to make some mistakes on the campaign trail that could potentially imperil our chances of winning in November.

    Disagreement on social issues – thus keeping lots of social conservatives at home – would be one of those disadvantages. And while you can talk until you are blue in the face about how the ticket would still be better by comparison to Obama/Biden, there are many social conservatives who wouldn’t think it’d be better by enough to get them out to vote. That’s just the truth of it.

    It’s not really worth discussing, though, because she will not be McCain’s selection.

  • LoneStarLibertarian

    Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell is a very popular liberal Republican who won re-election by some ridiculously large margin after succeeding her corrupt Republican predecessor. I believe she would get to appoint whomever she wishes, and she would undoubtedly appoint a Republican if that is the case.

    Chris Shays has shown an ability to win tough elections while keeping as close to the GOP line as he probably can while still winning re-election.

  • Wintergreen

    “And while you can talk until you are blue in the face about how the ticket would still be better by comparison to Obama/Biden, there are many social conservatives who wouldn’t think it’d be better by enough to get them out to vote. That’s just the truth of it.”

    You’re probably right, but the do so at their own peril. This is not the election to do it on. There will be other elections to advance social conservatism on. This one is about something far more important: saving our entire government from being turned over to the extreme left wing who WILL turn destroy every advancement social conservatives have made to regain this country’s conscience.

  • olderthangandalf

    Lieberman is a liberal who happens to support the war in Iraq.

    He always has been, is, and always will be a down the line liberal who has taken one position that happened to support a Republican President.

    Lieberman is the one big mistake McCain could make. He would make the Republican base despondent, while firing up the netroots for Obama. The one guy they hate more than George W Bush is Joe Lieberman, and putting him on the Republican ticket would get the Daily Kos crowd enthused again.

  • olderthangandalf

    Why Not Jesse “The Body” Ventura?

    OK, he may be all wrong on the issues and a total wild man, but just think about how different the VP debate would be. He comes into the hall preceded by good looking women in hot pants holding up message cards, maybe wearing a sequiny costume, and proceeds to body slam Biden through the podium. Politics would never be the same.

    Pawlenty, by contrast, is kind of boring.

  • ZootSuit

    Mitt Romney is not my first choice for McCain’s VP — I have at least Mark Sanford, Chris Cox, and Tim Pawlenty ahead of him on my personal wish list — you make an excellent point. Frankly, many (but definitely not all) of the criticisms of Romney against McCain in the primary actually make McCain look stronger in the general election.

    On the other hand, just about all of the criticisms of Biden against Obama are still lingering doubts and very real issues against Obama.

    They are not the same thing.

  • csstudent

    I have to reply to this comment from your post: “Take out the people like the President, Vice President, Romney, and Jindal that they had to put up there and you aren’t left with much of a conservative speaker line up”

    I’m a staunch fiscal conservative and have been appalled by the out of control government spending by Bush and the “republican” congress he had for a majority of his term. With the exception of the tax cuts, I have seen very very little in the way of fiscal responsibility from Bush or leaders of congress from either party.

    I also have problems calling people like Mitt Romney a conservative as well. I heard him speak at the West Virginia GOP Convention and I think he’ll tell you what you want to hear and then go to the next group and flip flop on what he just said if they want to hear the opposite position.

  • ZootSuit

    Bush might have been better than Kerry and Gore but he ain’t no conservative.

  • bs

    You also have Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, Huckabee (Brownback and Huckabee should make the SoCons happy) and Sarah Palin. And at least NPR thinks Pawlenty is pretty far right. But then, of course, you have Lieberman and Ridge in there to offset it.

    All in all, a typical McCain event – something to piss off just about everyone.

  • pilgrim

    Pres. Bush did not enjoy a Republican Congress for the majority of his time in office. He has had to deal with 4 different Senate Majority Leaders. The Ds were in the majority of the US
    Senate for 4 years and the Rs were in charge for the other 4 years.

  • csstudent

    Trent Lott was the Senate majority leader from January 20, 2001 until June 6, 2001. Bill Frist was Senate majority leader from Jannuary 7, 2003 until January 3, 2007. By my math, this is about 4.5 years of “republican” control in the senate.

    Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from the time Bush was sworn in for his first term until January 3, 2007. Again, by my math, that means the “republicans” controlled the House for 6 years.

    I may not be a genius, but to me, that means “Republicans” have had congressional control for a majority of Bush’s two terms.

  • Strelnikov

    Erick Erickson wrote:

    Die hard fiscal cons and social cons are both privately grumbling about the line up of speakers. One person told me, “That’s a lot of squishiness on the platform. Take out the people like the President, Vice President, Romney, and Jindal that they had to put up there and you aren’t left with much of a conservative speaker line up.”

    So who are the nominees to avoid creeping squishyism?

    John Boehner?

  • blh1976

    John Kasich is a no-brainer.

    1.He’s relatively young at 56.
    2.He’s conservative
    3.He’s from Ohio and Pennsylvania – he plays well there and throughout the country.
    4.He’s a great debater – I think he would fare much better against Joe Biden than any of the other oft-mentioned veep possibilities
    5.He was the person who brought us balanced budgets in the 1990s after the GOP take over while actually working with Clinton.
    6.He can actually make the case that he came to DC and changed it
    7.No taint of scandal from the last few GOP years – he was long gone and back in Ohio
    8.He’s not going to make a fool of himself
    9.He would fire up the base like no other selection
    10.He’s ready to lead
    11.And in ’12 or ’16, he’ll be the presumed candidate, and one in the mold of our hero – Ronald Reagan

    Come on Big Mac. Kasich’s the clear choice.

  • csstudent

    I don’t think the Democrat’s would have been any better with fiscal responsibility(although I do agree with the pay as you go philosophy they have brought back). I think Obama with a Democratic congress would be a complete fiscal disaster for this country.

    The thing that irritates me about the republican party is that they try to portray this image that they are fiscally responsible when everything I see suggests the exact opposite. That is why I also believe that McCain with any congress would also be a fiscal disaster for this country.

  • pilgrim

    Reasonable people conclude that Pres. Bush had to deal with a Democratic Party controlled Senate for as many years as he had a Republican Party controlled Senate, not withstanding the extra 4 months and 16 days Trent Lott was Majority Leader in 2001.

  • csstudent

    What did Bush and the republican majority in the House and Senate do that was fiscally responsible during the 4 years that they had total control of Congress? He may have cut taxes and that may even raise tax revenues, but if the government finds ways to spend that money faster than it comes in, that is not fiscally responsible.

    Also, since Bush hasn’t been in office for 8 years yet, the democrats have been in charge for less than 4 years. So even excluding the time Trent Lott was the majority leader(which I don’t see why you’d do that), they have still been there a majority of the time so far. The House has clearly been under republican rule for a definite majority of the time.

    All I know is that when he leaves office, the national debt will be in the range of 10 trillion dollars. In my opinion that is inexcusable mess that both parties are responsible for and should be ashamed of.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    If there were an obvious woman choice, I think that would be the way to go. I just don’t know enough about the very green Palin and Hutchinson may be a little too old and too much of an insider (think a female McCain).

    Pawlenty seems good, but a little drone. I dont think he would be good on the stump and would get crushed by Biden

    Romney can help in MI, CO an NV and has a built in organization and ground game. The closer this race gets, the more pivotal that looks to me.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/25/MNDR12HM1O.DTL

  • pilgrim

    You register here at RedState, a Republican and conservative website, and in 4 months the only comment that you make is to parrot the liberal talking point KnownFact™ that Pres. Bush and the Congress have been absolutely horrible.

    You have had to back-peddle when I pointed out that the Ds have been in control of the US Senate as much as the Rs have been in control.

    The PayGo that you are so thrilled about as practiced by the Ds is just another way to raise taxes every year. Their PayGo is not about paying by making a cut in spending. Their PayGo is all about paying by raising taxes.

  • The_Rebel

    Romney would be as much an attack dog as Biden, and he would give Biden a run for his money in the VP debate. He has executive experience as governor, something that neither of the dems have. Also, Romney has private business sector experience; again, something neither of the dems have. And Romney’s turnaround of the 2002 Olympics dovetails nicely with the recent games in China. Don’t count him out yet, Erick.

  • olderthangandalf

    Bush ran up a deficit not because the Democrats flummoxed him, but because, as cogently explained by Dick Cheney, he and his team deeply believe that “deficits don’t matter.”

    Up until the 2006 elections, things were close enough in the Senate and enough under control in the House that if it were a priority, he could have made headway on cutting the deficit. He didn’t because it wasn’t a priority.

    Maybe he was right. Maybe jump starting the economy and fighting terrorism after 9/11 were more important than controlling governmental red ink. That’s a fair discussion to have. But to pretend he wanted to control spending but was frustrated just ignores his options and his administration’s words.

    One other point – and this bears on whether he made the right choice – while the dollar value of the deficit has grown enormously in dollar terms, it is significantly smaller, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in 1992 when his dad left office. I’m a fiscal hawk who believes in balanced budgets, and who thinks Bush not only could have but should have done better (especially taking demographics into account and the drag on continued GDP growth that may cause), but it’s important not to overstate the real scope of the problem.

  • Oz

    People made an exception with Cheney, but I wouldn’t want to make that comparision on the trail.

    I’d really like to see Kasich run for Governor or Senator or something useful (just like having Carly run for Senate against Boxer).

  • Oz

    I would think its one of those three more than likely.

  • JSobieski

    but neither is Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and a whole bunch of others.

    Kasich would rock.

    My dream ticket back in January was Thompson-Kasich.

  • pilgrim

    I agree that, post 9/11, controlling deficit spending was not a priority of the Bush administration. I just get sick and tired of hearing liberals whine about how the Republicans were in complete control of the Congress from Jan. 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2007. That is a lie that repeated often enough is accepted as a knownfact™.

  • Pentagon16

    GREAT pick, no downside but lots of upside.

    Romney would be a disaster on so many levels.

  • tcgeol

    Lieberman is a liberal. He’s not a crazed anti-American like most, which speaks well of him, but there is no question that he is a solid liberal. Most of us aren’t crazy about McCain’s conservatism, but we are willing to take the chance. Why purposely try to irritate the base for no obvious reason? Lieberman would bring in a few votes, but I have to think that he would lose more than he would gain as VP.

    If we have to nominate liberals to beat liberals, we have more pressing concerns as a party and a philosophy than winning the presidency this time.

  • aaronbg

    MrBrown

    NicFit

    Wintergreen

    and a few others I haven’t bothered checking on.

    This is not a coincidence, this is purposeful obfuscation in order to create divisions equal to or greater than the Democratic crack up that we have witnessed this election season.

  • Wintergreen

    I can’t think of a way to replay to your post that doesn’t include synonyms for “silly” and “paranoid,” but I failed.

    I’ve been reading this blog for months and with the election approaching I decided to sign up.

    I think it’s hilarious how some bloggers think that being on a blog longer than others gives you more ‘cred.’

    “He can’t be a conservative…he just signed up on Sunday and everyone knows that to be a real conservative you have to sign up before that.”

    LOL.

  • aaronbg

    …But I would say that anybody touting Joe Lieberman for VP is not conservative.

  • Wintergreen

    and I think either Whitman or Lieberman are our best bets to help us win this election, so you may as well get used to it.

    In case you haven’t noticed, this isn’t exactly a favorable year for Republicans, and since one of those two could help us keep Barack from teaming up with Pelosi and Reid then I would fully support McCain if he chose this.

    Advancing conservative ideals (which were completely lost under the crazy spending of Bush) will have to wait for another election. If we can just hold the line on this election and keep Barack out of office, it will be huge victory.

    That’s reality.

  • aaronbg

    Conservatives have been holding the line since Reagan. Joe Lieberman is 100% against conservatism.

    So you are a conservative…ok, then why jump directly to Lieberman. Do you really believe that there are no acceptable Republicans who could still help us win the election? Why, if you are a conservative, do you believe that conservatism will lose?

    Instead of bending over and making our party into dem-lite why don’t we battle in the realm of ideas, you know conservatism vs. liberal/progressive. Is your faith in conservatism so low that you can’t defend it and instead just try to appeal to those who would destroy it?

  • gamecock

    60 votes

  • Wintergreen

    Fact is that this isn’t a favorable election year for Republican candidates at all.

    Some boring white guy retread as a VP that no one is interested in isn’t going to help us win and it’s definitely not going to capitalize on the opportunity we have with the lame Biden pick.

    Given that it’s a crappy year for Republicans, I’d much rather take Lieberman or Whitman to help us win than risk losing everything to Obama. Lieberman is extremely conservative in comparison to Obama, and as VP he wouldn’t be in a position to harm anything anyway unless McCain died and I’m willing to take that chance to help us beat Obama.

    The “base” lashing out at McCain for picking someone like that might make them feel good in the short run, but they’ll all look really stupid when Obama, Reid, and Pelosi turn our country into a nanny state and repeal every restriction on abortion there is.

    P.S. I’m really conservative, and I’m going to vote for McCain, but I’m no Republican. I refuse to join the Republican party until it actually acts on what it says it stands for. Bush adding 4 trillion dollars to our national debt as a so-called “conservative” is disgraceful.

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    It makes me wonder if we need a new moby classification?
    What would be a suitable name for newbies that come in and tout liberalism’s policies and standard bearers as being a necessary evil we conservatives must accept in order to win elections? The best analogy I have for them are the German Werewolves of WWII. They were trained to operate behind enemy lines and occupied territories to cause all sorts of mischief and disarray. We could call them werewolves for short. What do you think?

  • Wintergreen

    Point to one “liberal policy” I’ve “touted” there, champ.

    The two of you need a healthy dose or reality for this election.

    You can sit there and fling mud and spin crap, but the truth is that

    1) A Lieberman or Whitman would help McCain reach independents that he’ll need to win.

    2) A Lieberman or Whitman could help him with Hillary supporters.

    3) Pawlenty and Romney won’t garner any of the above interest and will help McCain lose.

    4) By ‘punishing’ McCain conservative voters will only be punishing everything they care about by delivering our entire government gift-wrapped to the extremes of the extreme left wing of liberalism.

    That’s reality whether the two of you accept it or not.

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    JOE LIEBERMAN!!! That’s about all I need to say to you werewolf.

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    JOE LIEBERMAN!!! That’s about all I need to say to you werewolf.

  • Wintergreen

    liberal policy. He is a politician that would help McCain appeal to independents and win the election.

    If you don’t have any rational adult thoughts to add to this conversation then get out of it. Your comments belong in a sandbox somewhere.

    You called me a “Werewolf?”

    LOL.

  • aaronbg

    There are some actual conservatives who McCain could pick that would energize the base and still not affect the independents perception of McCain. Eric Cantor has been pointed out by EPU and others. My point to you is that you immediately go to Lieberman who is a liberal, with a lifetime ACU rating of just under 17!!!!

    How can you make such a large jump from your “conservative” principles when there are other options on the table. Do you believe that McCain will gain so much independent support that the conservatives won’t matter. That is quite a huge gamble as well. So what is your political affiliation since you have stated it is decidedly not Republican?

  • tcgeol

    but I guess your reply above is pretty close.

    By your argument, McCain could pick Hillary as VP and the base wouldn’t have a reason to complain. After all, she couldn’t influence politics, right? VP is a stepping stone for presidency, and we all know it. Lieberman (and Whitman) would be better than Obama, but so would Hillary and I don’t want her either.

    It just doesn’t make sense – you won’t become a Republican because the party has compromised its values for political expediency, but then you want the office of VP to go to a liberal because of political expediency.

  • SteveLA

    Joe Liberman is a nice guy on defense, but lousy on social issues, even to me.

    Going Joe makes no sense.

    Michael Steel on the other hand, saw him on Fox last night…need that guy in McCain’s cabinet.

  • aaronbg

    You and I have disagreed on many things but I know you are a Republican and you get it.