in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Free Beacon | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 | |
| B’berg | 2012 Watch: Gingrich Seeks to Ease Fundraising Woes as Las Vegas Checks Slowing Down |
0 |
| The Hill | Scandal: Pelosi might have skirted House ethics rules on campaign solicitations |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
McCain to announce Pawlenty for veep “soon”?
Hot Air’s got the links to all the latest speculation on McCain’s veep selection process, and all signs right now are pointing to MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The Captain thinks the Gov. would be a good pick:
Well, I live in Pawlenty’s state and have met him on a couple of occasions, and this pick would not make me too glum at all. Pawlenty has a good center-right track record, especially on holding the line on taxes with a hostile Legislature. He demonstrated real leadership during the bridge collapse and its aftermath, keeping the gas-tax-increase advocates at bay and convincing the rest of the state to ignore them. He’s also pro-life, and a humble but telegenic man who will inject a little vigor into the campaign.
The WaPo has run a pretty good set of articles making the cases both for and against Pawlenty.
What do you think?
Related re: Obama’s veep selection process: [Va. Gov. Tim] Kaine ‘very, very high’ on VP shortlist
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
11 Responses to “McCain to announce Pawlenty for veep “soon”?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
Pawlenty would be one of several good choices, but I’d still go with Romney: polls show that, with Romney on the ticket, McCain wins Michigan and (probably) the election. Without Romney, Michigan flips to the Obama camp. Those 17 electoral votes could be as crucial as Florida’s or Ohio’s in prior elections.
Pawlenty’s got a good center-right record, as Ed points out, but (IIRC), he barely won reelection last time. I have to wonder about his ability to deliver Gopher State votes.
Pawlenty would be a far better choice than Lindsey Graham. And Pawlenty did survive a heavy anti-Republican tide in 2006.
I am not a big fan of picking a VP in order to carry a particular state. Ask President Kerry how the Breck Girl changed North Carolina from a red to a blue state in 2004. Geraldine Ferraro failed to deliver New York in 1984, Lloyd Bentsen whiffed on giving Texas to Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Jack Kemp did not help Dole in New York in 1996. On the whole, one is skeptical of the VP’s prowess in delivering elections to the nominee. Instead, pick someone who does not harm the ticket.
With that in mind, Kathleen Sebelius seems the best choice for Democrats. She has no foreign policy experience whatsoever and like the Messiah has a history of making dumb, even dangerous statements. But she is a woman, and the Democrat Party’s Victim Dictum says that qualifications and ability do not matter – only rage, resentment and entitlement do. Picking Tim Kaine or Chuck Hagel would make the al Qaeda wing of the Democrat Party happy, but their Man already heads the ticket, and selecting a non-woman as VP would cause Hillary supporters to go nuclear. He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned will need their votes in November. Thus Sebelius or someone else who does not carry the dreaded Y-chromosome is the Democrats’ best choice.
The elections of 2008 are shaping up to be the Affirmative Action Elections, and an Obama-Sebelius ticket is the ultimate triumph of identity politics over common sense.
Yeah, but… Typically the early “all signs point to” are wrong. Usually an intentional slight of hand to throw off the opposition.
Will be interesting. I don’t know if that would tip MN or not. I agree with Anthony, Romney in MI might be better.
Obama picking any female but Hillary will cause the Hillary wing to go ballistic. As for McCain, the Republicans have the luxury of several top notch VP choices. Romney would be good, as would Pawlenty. I think the best choice would be either Sarah Palin or Michael Steele. Palin brings the seriousness of the oil crisis into full view, and that is a definite winner for the Republicans. Michael Steele is another conservative that would energize the base. To pick another white guy just continues to perpetuate the stereotype that “Republicans are racists”. While I am not into, and do not recommend “Identity” politics, we have too many good minority candidates on the bench to not start using some of them.
McCain has to do something dramatic. And something dramatic is Palin. Like M.D., I’m not a big believer in picking the VP in order to get some battleground state.
That trick never works.
Kaine is Obama’s best bet. Sibelius would be interesting, too. But: while I’m one who believes that the Hillaryistas–at least those who are truly Democrats or independents–will in the end eat their spinach [I doubt that those "white working class blahblahs" have voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1976. (Dare we call 'em DINOs?)], the media will start blathering on about how the red cotton hoodie/denim skirt/checkerboard trainer set will never accept a woman who ain’t Hillary. Obama’s too smart to let that happen.
Isn’t Sibelius the one who was embarrassingly wrong about tornado casualty figure in her state? Or am I mixing that up with someone else?
I wish he’d pick Palin too. She brings so much to the ticket. It’s not going to help McCain a bit to have the same old ticket of a couple of white guys.
Anthony, you’re thinking of Obama’s gaffe. He claimed 10,000 people died in the Kansas tornados. The actual figure was 12. But I’m probably a racist for pointing that out…
Sibelius was the one who claimed that the Kansas National Guard couldn’t help with the tornado disaster relief because most of its equipment was in Iraq. Not true, of course:
The only downside to Governor Palin is her inexperience: two years as governor. Compared to her, the MSM will paint Obama as a grizzled veteran.
In every other way, she’s excellent. She would be the first candidate for national office many of us could get really enthusiastic about since Ronald Reagan. She’s been careful with the taxpayer’s money, firm against corruption, and knows what can be done about energy better than anyone else on the national stage. And her popularity rating in Alaska is over 80%.
Whether McCain selects her or not, if He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned wins this fall, I’d like to see her run for President in 2012.