Yeah…

Wouldn’t want his second choice to look like a second choice, eh?

Posted by: eric at June 11, 2004 05:18 PM

There was some enthusiasm for this idea from surprising quarters such as on Dailykos and DU, the general argument being that beating Bush is all that matters, and if McCain can bring that closer to happening than any other VP, then he should be the pick.

The problem with that reasoning, as I saw it, is that it had an underlying assumption that McCain would be content serving as a typical VP and general figurehead for Kerry’s administration being bipartisan in nature. However, McCain is a pretty powerful Senator in his own right and a media darling by any account, and to trade that in while abandoning his power base inside the GOP for the VP position alone wouldn’t make sense. It’d have to be almost a co-Presidential arrangement where McCain was in charge of foreign affairs and Kerry domestic for it to be attractive for McCain, and I don’t think there’s a precedent for that in US history (assuming one doesn’t believe that Cheney is the true power behind GWB).

Posted by: tagryn at June 11, 2004 05:30 PM

Anyone but that narcissistic sociopath Hillary

Posted by: Jay - MN at June 11, 2004 06:03 PM

C’mon, this is all just a way for Kerry to make the Republican Party look divided. His so-called friend is using him.

If he could be blamed for losing the the election for Bush, Republicans would never forgive him, and curse his name. Changing parties might give him a new democratic following, until he had to declare what he stands for. After they used him up, he’d be garbage.

The short term power of office, while enduring the constand debasements - would not be worth it. The following decades out of politics would kill him.

Posted by: Agrippa at June 11, 2004 08:56 PM

The thing that amazes me isn’t that the media is hyping the McCain speculation, but that Kerry actually took the bait!

A lot of conservatives (and others) tend to exaggerate McCain’s “deviations” from their dogma which are genuine, but the man is thoroughly Republican. The idea he’d join a Democratic ticket is about as likely as the idea that Barry Goldwater would.

Now, I don’t blame the media types for speculating - it’s a “sexy” idea, and there’s not a lot to write about on the campaign front. But what’s alarming is that Kerry and his people apparently took the idea seriously, and viewed it as desirable!

Even if McCain did want to be Kerry’s VP for some ungodly reason, it’d be pretty awful for Kerry, who’d have to flip-flop even more to reconcile his views with his running mate’s, and it’d violate the rule that you don’t want to be overshadowed by your running mate to boot.

Posted by: David C at June 12, 2004 07:56 AM

Among the Republicans for Kerry crowd there’s a lot of support for McCain. A few weeks ago they conducted a letter-writing campaign to urge McCain to “work with” Kerry.

Posted by: Howie at June 12, 2004 10:13 AM

The logic that I’m seeing is the Left has decided that the greatest evil in the world is GWB. Period. The only concern is to remove him from office. Primarily because he didn’t make the same mistake his father did and let the UN call the ball. For this reason he is the most inaccurately maligned and hated person the world has known since Nazis marched in Paris.

My perspective is somewhat different. My president decided on a course of action (before or after 9/11 is irrelevant to me since the Clinton administration enacted an official policy to remove Hussein from power) and presented his intentions to the UN/World Community as “fair warning”. They discussed it long enough for France to object to having its economy impacted by UN actions. (France was illegally trading with Hussein’s government, but that doesn’t get much play in mainstream media.) Then Germany decided that it had something to lose by supporting Clinton’s mandate, followed by Russia. In the mean time, the Left was raging (as they’ve done since Gore lost in November, 2000) about the actions taken by my President. All the while, unlike his predecessor and (if the DNC has their way) successor, he has ignored the opinion polls and staid the course. Because he, and a good number of the rest of us, believe it is the right thing to do.

There was a lot of resistance to military action in Iraq, even prior to the State of the Union speach last year, from the Left. They didn’t want anything to happen. They wanted to leave Hussein in power, as Clinton had done for 8 years, and ignore the human rights violations they cry about so loudly when discussing conservative leaders, and ignore the UN/World Community’s mandates over the previous 12 years, and ignore the violations of the Geneva Conventions (I believe that is the part about “WMD” that got so much attention, as long as it was negatively effecting my President). And, from where this conservative sits, it looks an awful lot like sour grapes over the “legacy” of the previous administration and its failure to continue with Al Gore.

As for the “weapons of mass destruction”, I have one question - where are they? Saddam Hussein was suspected of having them in 1991. Our government and military made comments to the news media that led me to believe that THEY believed he had them. The UN accused him of having them, leading me to believe THEY believed he had them. Hussein admitted to having them, leading me to believe HE believed he had them. Everyone who has recently had an opportunity voice their doubts about Iraq’s, or more accurately Saddam Hussein’s, possession of WMDs did NOT speak up all through the 1990’s denouncing the UN inspections nor the sanctions against Hussein’s regime. Where was Sean Penn then? Susan Sarandon? Al Franken? … Hello? Not one of them had a problem with the idea of Hussein possessing WMDs while Clinton was letting him torture and murder those who lived under his rule. The facts, if one looks for them, indicate there WERE WMDs IN IRAQ. The purpose of all the UN mandates and inspections was to determine WHERE THEY WERE AND THAT THEY WERE BEING DECOMMISIONED. This wasn’t a fishing trip, it was a clean-up job. The fact that our military and inspectors haven’t found these weapons does NOT mean they didn’t exist - Saddam told us he had them - it means that Saddam has disposed of them in a manner that endangers those of us who were supposed to feel safer about the UN resolutions. And the thought that GWB “went it alone and snubbed the World Community” is a load of bull. What he did was he did NOT subvert the sovereignty and interests of the United States to those of other nations. That is the job he was elected to do and he is doing it. The lack of popularity is not a factor for a leader, a lack of character should be.

As for the economy, it was headed downhill when he took office (8 years of Clinton had built a false prosperity, IMO) and 9/11 turned the dot-bomb problem into a disaster worthy of FEMA intervention (again, IMO). If you feel the Bush tax-cut was irresponsible, if you feel like you need to put that money back into social programs for needy folks, send it to me. I won’t bore you with details, but I could use the cash. It seems that those of us who work hard to stay off of socialist programs also struggle to maintain an income that feeds and houses our families. For some reason, the Left always wants to put money in the hands of people who find no value in it rather than into the hands of those who appreciate not only its value, but its usefulness as a tool for economic growth and stimulation. I’m not saying there aren’t people who need help, I know I have over the past several years. But the fact of the matter is “if the government keeps the poor, then the government will keep them poor.” That is what I see and hear from the Left, their gift to their constituents is a sense of entitlement to live off the “fat” of those who don’t buy into it. And, of course, the “rich” don’t pay enough taxes to satisfy those living off the government teat. That’s like trying to fill in the Grand Canyon with a teaspoon. GWB’s tax cut put money back into everyone’s pockets, and mostly into the pockets of those with children to feed and house. And, from my personal experience, has put the economy back on the road to recovery. Something I did NOT experience during Clinton’s “golden age” of bubble-building.

Last, and most likely least, I will not debate GWBs military record. The records indicate he served rather than have someone grant him an illegal “pass” from service. Aside from that, the records (to my knowledge) indicate nothing else - whether he was AWOL or not. There is no proof either way EXCEPT that he was never recorded as AWOL. I know this is not proof enough for W-bashers, and they’d find another reason if it was. As for Senator Kerry’s military record, it seems quite distinguished. Multiple Purple Hearts and sent home early. Very impressive. What were those wounds? And how aggressively were the PH’s pursued by Sen. Kerry? Do the records indicate? I read that at least one was a superficial wound, less than what most G.I.s experienced on their daily patrols. And that Sen. Kerry was adamant about getting his Purple Hearts. And then he was sent home early. I wonder why John McCain wouldn’t accept his offer of the Vice Presidency. Hmmmm.

Posted by: ex-Lib at June 12, 2004 11:08 PM

A complete set of the actual records can be found on-line by one veterans group for those interested enough to formulate their objective opinion at:

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

ex-Lib might also want to check out why Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star, rather than simply believing what Karl’s Rovers have been disseminating about Kerrry’s Purple Heart awards.

Sometimes it good to think for yourself. You’d be surprised at what you can accomplish.

Posted by: sgposs at June 13, 2004 02:05 AM

P.S. Ex-lib.

Also check out the reasons why Kerry was also awarded the Silver Star.

Why would Karl’s Rovers want to make an issue of this now that the records are clearly available for all to see and read for themselves?

Why would vets wish to dishonor the service of a man, who so clearly served his country with distinction?

Even among staunch republicans, it seems out of character, at least for the vets that I know, to turn on one of their own when discussing their service records.

Posted by: sgposs at June 13, 2004 02:18 AM

My favorite quote from McCain on the VP subject came from an interview on the radio last week. When asked if he would entertain being Kerry’s Veep, he replied: (and I am paraphrasing from memory)

“While I was a POW in Vietnam, I was kept in the dark and used as a tool for propaganda…why would I want to sign up for THAT again?”

Corrections, or the actual quote, are welcome, but that was the gist of it.

Posted by: Dark Jethro at June 13, 2004 08:08 AM