Skip

Would it have been Kerry-McCain or McCain-Kerry?
June 12, 2004 3:39 AM   Subscribe

Kerry unsuccessfully courted McCain as his running mate. He deliberately didn't officially offer the position, but apparently it's solid that he unofficially offered it. Very interesting news. (NYTimes link)
posted by eyeballkid (74 comments total)

 
We're better off. Kerry could have a damp towel as his running mate and still clean Bush's clock.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:59 AM on June 12, 2004


As it turns out, the following people also didn't accept the VP nomination that they weren't offered:
Rudy Gulliani
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Arlen Spector
Lincoln Chafee
Elizabeth Dole
Jeb Bush
Trent Lott
Pat Robertson
Rick Santorum
Barry Goldwater
Richard Nixon
Adolph Hitler
PT Barnum
posted by Jugwine at 5:09 AM on June 12, 2004


McCain's a fool for staying a Republican--he should have switched to Independent immediately after the party acted like animals toward him in 2000.

That said, he needs to realize that he's never getting his party's nomination, and this was his best chance at getting into the White House. A true unity ticket that's not just lip service would be a good thing for this country.
posted by amberglow at 5:17 AM on June 12, 2004


This is news? I think it's more an example of how hard it is to shake a non-story from a media which really, really, wants it to be a story.

Why doesn't as much attention get paid to legislation worming its way through congress? Less sensational, I suppose, but vastly more useful.

I'm glad someone discovered that it was really offered. It probably involved some reporting.

The VEEP position offers McCain less power, and potentially less airtime. He could do more in the Senate, so he's choosing (again) to stay. If Bush could push that pharma-slut Frist into Senate majority leader position, maybe Kerry could do the same with McCain...
posted by Busithoth at 5:32 AM on June 12, 2004


EB: Yes, you called it.
posted by quasistoic at 5:45 AM on June 12, 2004


He deliberately didn't officially offer the position, but apparently it's solid that he unofficially offered it.

Ahh, so he didn't actually offer the position to McCain, but he could have offered the position to McCain. Possibly.

This clears things up immensely. Thanks, Liberal Media!
posted by tapeguy at 5:51 AM on June 12, 2004


he needs to realize that he's never getting his party's nomination

Not as long as the Taliban wing of the Republican party continues to pull all the strings and hold all the power....
posted by Rastafari at 6:08 AM on June 12, 2004


McCain's a fool for staying a Republican--he should have switched to Independent immediately after the party acted like animals toward him in 2000.

Politically though, an outspoken moderate Republican like McCain has a tremendous amount of power when his party is in the majority, but only barely. The GOP needs his vote, so he can make demands. If he became a Democrat, he would just be one of many, and in the minority to boot. His views would no longer be sought out, no one would try to cut deals with him.
An outspoken conservative Democrat like Miller is in the same position of power in his party, always threatening to side with the other side, but because the Dems are in the minority already, it doesn't really matter.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:11 AM on June 12, 2004


McCain and Miller are two very different things. McCain likes getting attention, and does use his position and prominance to push a few of his pet bills through. But he enjoys being seen as honest and principled, simply by being average but surrounded by republicans.

Zell, onthe other hand, seems to be a democrat in name only, and actually works to undermine the party in his own state.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:26 AM on June 12, 2004


I've heard Miller is actively campaigning for Bush...is that true? (and ugh!)
posted by amberglow at 6:29 AM on June 12, 2004


This is news?


I think it is, if only throw some light on how Kerry thinks. The fact that he seriously considered putting a Republican - popular yes, but with a very conservative record on social issues - on his ticket is interesting.
And come on, you guys know the official/unofficial offer thing is part of the political game: the story here is that Kerry offered and McCain turned it down.

On preview: yes, Zell is campaigning for Bush. Why he stays in the party is beyond me.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:31 AM on June 12, 2004


And come on, you guys know the official/unofficial offer thing is part of the political game: the story here is that Kerry offered and McCain turned it down.

No, I think I know how the game works perfectly: There was no story, so one was made up. The "story" is that McCain turned down what was never offered.

In this light, I'll be issuing a press release later this afternoon about all the movie stars that won't be sleeping with me tonight.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:46 AM on June 12, 2004


I was also asked by a candidate to be his running mate.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:47 AM on June 12, 2004


which one, mcsweet?
posted by amberglow at 6:50 AM on June 12, 2004




president pampers!
posted by mcsweetie at 6:54 AM on June 12, 2004


just like Reagan! ; o
posted by amberglow at 6:55 AM on June 12, 2004


There is a story here - they float a trial balloon to see if it'll work. To ignore that story is to be deliberately obtuse. Kerry says "Would you consider the VEEP" McCain replies "No farking way" Kerry says "I didn't offer it, I asked him to consider it." Done and done. Kerry's people _did_ approach McCain with a soft offer.

Metafilter: Deliberately Obtuse since 2004.
posted by swerdloff at 7:20 AM on June 12, 2004


Kerry should consider France.
posted by hama7 at 7:25 AM on June 12, 2004


I thought the McCain VEEP was a good choice on Kerry's part. Kerry gets a very well liked and respected politician, gets the AZ vote, and gets a very vocal, very smart person to talk policy with. McCain would be on his ass about a lot of his policy decisions and I think both of them would sit down and listen to one another and think about the other's position. (Try that with the current administration.) I voted McCain in 2000, and would vote for him again (unfortunately, I'm stuck with "pharma-slut" Frist [vg. busit]). I know he has more power in the senate, but as VEEP he is only a chicken bone away from teh presidency.
posted by jmgorman at 7:30 AM on June 12, 2004


But if Kerry is the strong candidate Democrats claim, able to beat Bush because of his strong résumé ... Vietnam service, medals, policy, gravitas, etc., etc. Why exactly does he need a very conservative Republican on the ticket?

Strikes me as an implicit admission of candidate weakness.
posted by BlueMetal at 7:51 AM on June 12, 2004


Kerry is in a bit of a pickle. Gephart? Nope, can't have two extremely boring candidates, would put the poor convention folks to sleep. Edwards? Nope, would completely outshine the personality (what personality?) of the main candidate, and doesn't offer much gravitas. Clark? He's crazy, and didn't even have much appeal among Dem primary voters. Fuggeddaboudit. I'm interested to see what kind of person he comes up with, and I'm starting to wonder when he will make the selection. He sure could use a second pair of hands to try to get his campaign fired up for once.
posted by dagny at 8:00 AM on June 12, 2004


Shame. Two war vets versus two draft dodgers.
posted by Postroad at 8:12 AM on June 12, 2004


I think Bill Richardson is his best choice. Helps out in New Mexico vote, with the latino demographic, and Bill's got charisma to spare.

Rove's machine already has a number of salvos primed and ready to fire against Richardson, (Chinese acquisition of compact nuclear device plans while he was secretary of energy, for instance) but Cheney's armor has been dinged lately, so a blow-for-blow could get very illuminating.

I don't need to try to be obtuse, thank you very much.

I think people were really just trying to tickle McCain's love of Teddy Roosevelt into having him convert parties, as he did. Of course, the result would be vastly different...

Kerry's right to bide his time right now. He's in no hurry to choose, (and isn't the trend that the person who raises the most money for the candidate gets to be the Vice President? True for Gore and Bush I.)
posted by Busithoth at 8:44 AM on June 12, 2004


But if Kerry is the strong candidate Democrats claim, able to beat Bush because of his strong résumé ... Vietnam service, medals, policy, gravitas, etc., etc. Why exactly does he need a very conservative Republican on the ticket?

Strikes me as an implicit admission of candidate weakness.


Well Kerry is already leading Bush in the polls without having yet chosen his runningmate so it doesn't follow that he would need a strong veep to put him over the top. I think this McCain as veep phenomenon has likely been more eagerly pursued by the press than by the Kerry campaign- even if they have shown a modicum of interest....

I for one don't understand how McCain, as a man, can support Bush. The Bushies smeared his wife in the primaries and claimed that McCain, whose sister died of breast cancer, was objectively pro-cancer. Forget about joining Kerry, how about just sitting this one out and not endorsing ANY candidate?
posted by crank at 9:11 AM on June 12, 2004


Hahaha. Very funny.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:38 AM on June 12, 2004


It was worth a shot, because Kerry-McCain would have won the election. At least he got it over with now. By November no one will remember.
posted by smackfu at 10:16 AM on June 12, 2004


I think the DOE thing will hang a Kerry-Richardson ticket. I would stay miles away from him if I were Kerry. Also, Kerry doesn't need to have a latino on the ticket to court the latino vote. He just needs to court the latino vote a little bit. Gore didn't do it at all in 2000 and it really hurt him, particularly in Florida.

Having said that, I can't offer a constructive alternative, but I'm more than a little disappointed that McCain wouldn't even consider it. Regardless of whether or not he would end up on the ticket, that ACT of considering it might be enough to affect some positive change in his party.

My view is that the GOP has been co-opted by the extremists, and the only way back to have a bona fide conservative party in this country again is for the party to start having a real internal debate about what it stands for. The first step is having some of the true conservatives in the party start making some bold gestures.
posted by psmealey at 10:32 AM on June 12, 2004


... none of which will happen in my lifetime, but I can always dream.
posted by psmealey at 10:43 AM on June 12, 2004


I really don't think that the DOE stuff would hurt Richardson. Kerry will win NM without Richardson, but Richardson could make the difference in some other SW states, and possibly Florida.

Kerry has three different strategies for a running mate: military, the south, swing states. Clark would be a good choice for the first (or Zinni); Edwards or Clark the second; any of the three the third but especially Richardson, I think.

Kerry is running very strongly with Latinos, and I suspect that were this not the case Richardson would be his choice. But since he's got their votes almost locked-up (except for S. Florida anti-Castro conservatives), I think he'll be looking more carefully at the other two considerations. Kerry doesn't need a southern strategy, but it wouldn't hurt. Edwards is a strong candidate who would play well everywhere; Clark bolsters the defense credentials of the ticket beyond dispute; both will help a bit in the south. I dunno. This calculus would seem to indicate Clark—and I like Clark a lot, he was my choice—but my gut tells me that Edwards is more likely than Clark.

Zinni would be good, though.

I speculated on the McCain thing, but didn't believe for a second that TPTB would even consider it. That Kerry did surprises me a great deal. McCain in many ways is a lot more conservative than many people think; but I don't think that's as big a roadblock in the context of the incumbant as people think. This is the most divisive President in modern times, moreso than Clinton or Nixon. I strongly suspect that it would be a powerful symbol for a bipartisan challenge to Bush, and something the majority of Americans would feel very optimistic about. That would bode well for the administration, even giving conflicts between Kerry and McCain. But McCain won't consider it, so that's that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:48 PM on June 12, 2004


EB you called it.

He certainly did.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:10 PM on June 12, 2004


I don't think McCain supports Bush at all. I think he hates Bush, and he hates Rove. But he believes in many of the Republican ideals, and so he sticks with the party. Sadly, sticking with the party apparently means having to support an asshole.

Question: if Zell Miller is basically a Republican in Dem clothing, why do his constituents give him the Democratic nomination for his state? I mean, when he runs, do the Republicans run anyone against him, or do they just concede?
posted by graventy at 1:11 PM on June 12, 2004


It's gonna be Edwards.
posted by konolia at 1:28 PM on June 12, 2004


McCain is not going to leave the Republican Party as long as he holds out any hope that he can be pivotal in rebuilding it after Bush is through trashing it. I disagree with him on a lot of things (even some of the Campaign Reform specifics), but I respect him, and cannot dismiss him on any level.

As for Kerry, any success at hands-across-the-party-line to any high-profile disaffected Republicans would help him, but I can't think of anyone who could survive the rath of the Rovian full-court smear campaign that would ensue (I'm sure hama7 already has received his talking points for all possible 'turncoats'). There are a few card-carrying GOP members I would be pleased to see in Kerry's cabinet, and I'd like to see the Senator name a "shadow cabinet" before the election just to show the true mettle of the man, but there's no chance of either side allowing that to happen.
posted by wendell at 1:41 PM on June 12, 2004


clark clark clark clark clark
posted by jpoulos at 1:54 PM on June 12, 2004


I do not have seven paragraphs of opinion to share on this topic.
posted by y2karl at 3:09 PM on June 12, 2004


Not even cut and paste from somewhere else posted in tiny type?

(I keed, I keed...)

posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:30 PM on June 12, 2004


I'm sorry but McCain is all talk. Look at his voting record, he votes with the GOP 95% of the time. McCain as an "independant thinker" is his own PR. He's never leaving his party, even after they treated him like complete and utter shit in 2000.

Even if Kerry did ask and even if McCain said yes, chances are the differences would have made this an impossible political situaion.
posted by skallas at 4:25 PM on June 12, 2004


Yes on ban on raves. Yes on abortion bills. etc

McCain is a fucking fraud, and if Kerry went with him he would lose that important swing vote because he would be literally saying "There is no difference between the two parties" to swing voters. And I bet you there are more swing voters than GOP types who *might* vote Kerry/McCain.
posted by skallas at 4:34 PM on June 12, 2004


Finally, skallas points out the obvious! Thank you! Kerry actually having McCain as a VP and being accepted by the core of the Democratic Party is as likely as Bush dumping Cheney and picking Rudy Giuliani and being accepted by the core of the Republican Party.

McCain is a domestic conservative which would be abhorrent to Democrats and Giuliani is a social liberal which would be unacceptable to Republicans. I maintain my faith that enough Americans still understand the difference between a presidential election and American Idol. This isn't a PR popularity contest- at least not entirely.

If anything, the Democrats should be crapping their pants over if and when a Republican decides to ask McCain to be his running mate- or if McCain chooses to run for the big one in 2008.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:16 PM on June 12, 2004


Zell Miller is literally a Democrat in name only. He is not welcome to caucus with the party, and he goes to the Republican luncheons. I've heard that Daschle calls Snow, Collins, McCain and Chaffee to swing votes before he calls Miller. The guy is a looney, and definitely has exactly ZERO power in the Democratic party.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:48 PM on June 12, 2004


Bill Richardson already said that he didn't want the nomination, actually.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:00 PM on June 12, 2004


If anything, the Democrats should be crapping their pants over if and when a Republican decides to ask McCain to be his running mate- or if McCain chooses to run for the big one in 2008.

Why would the Democrats crap their pants if McCain is asked to be on a GOP V.P. slot or runs for President in 08? On the contrary, it would be a very joyous event .....especially for this particular Democrat........(I don't want someone to be president JUST BECAUSE he belongs to my party....I want someone in office whose political philosophy comes closet to mine....and if that means voting for John McCain, so be it...)
posted by Rastafari at 7:33 PM on June 12, 2004


Kerry should consider France.

Yeah, and Bush might as well ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to replace Cheney.
posted by homunculus at 7:53 PM on June 12, 2004


Rastafari nails it. If there is an honorable and decent Republican candidate I'd vote for him. I'm a lifelong Democrat but I've voted for Republicans and will again when they're the better candidate, no matter what the office.

Righties talk about irrational Bush-hatred because they're projecting their own Clinton-hatred; which had nothing to do with the man and everything to do with rage about losing the White House which they thought they permanently entitled to after 12 years. But the outrage against Bush is anything but irrational: it's based on what he actually does. If Bush were a hard-working, informed, principled and committed public servant who held to real American values, I'd vote for him. I'd stick a damn Bush bumper sticker on my car. But he's none of things. He is the freakin' opposite of those things.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:04 PM on June 12, 2004


Why would the Democrats crap their pants if McCain is asked to be on a GOP V.P. slot or runs for President in 08? On the contrary, it would be a very joyous event .....especially for this particular Democrat........(I don't want someone to be president JUST BECAUSE he belongs to my party....I want someone in office whose political philosophy comes closet to mine....and if that means voting for John McCain, so be it...)

Because, as just discussed, McCain has a great personal image that, as you just proved, makes Democrats want to vote for him, despite the fact that he's actually one of the most conservative Senators in Congress right now.

No offense, but if your philosophy is that you oppose abortion, gun control, strengthing social security, and most social programs, then exactly what Democrat do you want to be representing your party if McCain's the kind of guy for you? McCain might be really nice about it, but he still stands for everything that I oppose as a Democrat with the exception of campaign finance reform.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 PM on June 12, 2004


Not as long as the Taliban wing of the Republican party continues to pull all the strings and hold all the power....

Sorta like when the Taliban Wing of the Democratic party pulled the strings to actively undercut Dean and foist an unispiring and doomed mediocrity like Kerry upon on.

pot.kettle.black
posted by RavinDave at 8:29 PM on June 12, 2004


More on McCain's "moderate" level. This site concludes that he's not only a conservative, but the fourth most conservative Senator holding office today.

Is that still a "better candidate" for you, Rastafari, as a "lifelong Democrat?" I'm not trying to attack you here, but unless McCain is saving kittens and cancer patients from burning buildings I don't see exactly what level of "honor and decency" he has that overrides all the core positions of lifelong Democrats such as yourself that he opposes.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:35 PM on June 12, 2004


::points to XQUZYPHYR's comment::

Bingo. As skallas already alluded to earlier, McCain is not liberal, AT ALL. More honest than Bush? Probably. But no less conservative than most Republicans. Pro-choice does not equal "centrist". Just ask Tom Ridge.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:40 PM on June 12, 2004


Sorta like when the Taliban Wing of the Democratic party pulled the strings to actively undercut Dean and foist an unispiring and doomed mediocrity like Kerry upon on.

Yeah, because that's the same thing.
posted by bshort at 9:52 PM on June 12, 2004


Um .... How exactly is it any different? From where I sit, I see both parties choosing their candidate long before the first primary vote was cast and actively undercutting the other candidates. Please -- tell me how the shafting McCain got from his own party in 2000 was any different than the one Dean got.
posted by RavinDave at 10:14 PM on June 12, 2004


...unless McCain is saving kittens and cancer patients from burning buildings I don't see exactly what level of "honor and decency" he has that overrides all the core positions of lifelong Democrats such as yourself that he opposes.

McCain may be pro-life, but unlike some of other rabid conservatives, he is NOT working towards outlawing abortions (as far as I know), so his position is not that much different that many pro-life Democrat (which is 100% fine with me...if your upbringing tells you abortion is wrong, that's fine, but DON'T take that right away from ALL women...)

I'm guessing McCain is staunchly pro-2nd amendment (pro-gun) and although I don't understand why these NRA types have such a hard on for guns, how much more liberal can gun laws get? Free guns on demand?

I started to like McCain because of his stance on campaign finance reform. And since then, my admiration of him has grown the more I knew about him. Then the whole confederate flag controversy happened, and he actually apologized for not speaking out against the flag...which is something pResident Bush wouldn't ever do.

This is what separates McCain from Bush. And to RavinDave, can you please tell me when you have seen one Democrat treat another Democrat the way Bush treated McCain during South Carolina campaign?
posted by Rastafari at 11:10 PM on June 12, 2004


>Then the whole confederate flag controversy happened

Rastafari, McCain voted YES on the flag desecration act. He's a pretty conservative mofo. I'm sorry but the anti-abortion apologism doesn't work. In fact he's another stealth anti-abortionist. He voted on TWO bills that would put up more barriers to entry to abortion. The guy is conservative as all get-out.

The bills in question

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/votes/?votenum=282&chamber=S&congress=1052


https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/votes/?votenum=277&chamber=S&congress=1052

Laci and Conner's law:

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/votes/?votenum=63&chamber=S&congress=1082

YES

Some defender of abortion, eh?
posted by skallas at 11:26 PM on June 12, 2004


Oh, look how liberal he is.

Man, he's failing to qualify as a moderate Republican. I'd say he's clearly a conservative paleocon with a couple rare but HIGHLY PUBLICIZED exceptions.
posted by skallas at 11:32 PM on June 12, 2004


RavinDave, can you please tell me when you have seen one Democrat treat another Democrat the way Bush treated McCain during South Carolina campaign?

Pretty much compliments the treatment of Bradley and his supporters, when team Gore took umbrage that he dared stay in nomination race. Just ask that mud-spattered "cripple", Bob Kerrey. You can glibly ignore it by ascribing it to overzealous partisans, but there was was a distasteful organized pattern of intimidation from the entrenched Left. They were not significantly different than their counterparts on the Right.
posted by RavinDave at 12:27 AM on June 13, 2004


Skallas,

Voting for the Flag desecration act and the whole confederate flag controversy were 2 separate events. The desecration act -- in my opinion probably unconstitutional / against free speech, but a feel good/populist legislation for the masses and a no brainer vote -- was different that the confederate flag controversy.

That was during the 2000 S. Carolina primary, and both Bush and McCain were going for the conservative base, and at the time both came out for flying the confederate flag over the capitol, but only McCain had the guts to come out and say he was wrong, WRONG, on the issue, and sincerely apologized for it. Can you imagine an act of such faith from Bush/Rove/Chaney machine?

And for the abortion thing, yes, I can see him trying to restrict abortion (but come on, how much more can you actually restrict it, short of outright banning it?), but he is not one of those (again, from the Taliban wing of the Republican party) who want to outlaw it.

From that perspective, I thing he comes from the Reagan school of thought -- probably want to make it as hard as possible without outlawing it altogether. I doubt he would want it banned if he was ever elected president.
posted by Rastafari at 12:35 AM on June 13, 2004


RavinDave,

Sorry, but that's not even in the same ballpark. Face it, there is no equivalent to what Bush & Co. did to smear a fellow conservative Republican to win the nomination:

1. Spreading rumors that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was his black love child (remember, this is S. Carolina, where they still fly the confederate flag over the state capital...200 years AFTER losing the civil war)

2. Spreading rumors that McCain was AGAINST cancer research when his OWN sister died of cancer

Of course, there are MANY other such stories....and this done to a bona-fide war hero (McCain won't have NAY problem finding others to vouch for his whereabouts during the war, or Kerry for that matter), and why S. Carolina Republicans OVERLOOKED all that and voted for Bush is beyond me....

So, in essence, Ravindave, your examples do not hold water to what I'm talking about...
posted by Rastafari at 12:48 AM on June 13, 2004


>but come on, how much more can you actually restrict it, short of outright banning it?

That's how stealth/baby step gateway legislation works. Eventually its so hard to get an abortion, public opinion has been massaged to be against it (why look at the "mandate" to pass all these bills!), an outlaw or severe restriction (only if the mother will die) is just part of the process.

You're kidding youself if you think someone who votes like that gives one shit about abortion.
posted by skallas at 2:39 AM on June 13, 2004


Kerry and Small Yappy Poodle would destroy Bush/Cheney.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:33 AM on June 13, 2004


So, Kerry courted McCain and failed, did he at least get to dry-hump him?
posted by Eekacat at 6:52 AM on June 13, 2004


Rastafari, I think you're really searching for a way to avoid the fact that you're in complete denial about McCain. He is against abortion. He has voted for EVERY SINGLE bill that restricts it. He has openly supported overturning Roe v. Wade. He wants doctors prosecuted.

And that's just abortion. He also supports a flag burning amendment, state's rights for the Confederate flag (ironically, while also supporting "anti hate-speech" measures) and has supported almost all previous GOP tax plans, a balanced budget amendment, wider application of the death penalty, mandated internet filtering, school vouchers, censoring of TV and music, increased restrictions on Cuba, and reducing affirmative action.

I repeat: what, as a Democrat, do you see this man doing that no Democrat would do to excuse everything he will also do because he's, you know, a Republican?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:23 AM on June 13, 2004


Kerry and a stick picked up off the ground will beat Bush/whoever (Cheney will be gone, says your psychic friend)

I'm with XQUZ--if you care about certain issues, you can't really be happy with McCain. I like him as a person, and love that he's a thorn in Bush's side (and more well-liked), and willing to criticize the administration on tv, but as our veep--nope.

I think (and hope) it'll be Edwards.
posted by amberglow at 10:12 AM on June 13, 2004


That said, he needs to realize that he's never getting his party's nomination, and this was his best chance at getting into the White House.

amberglow, you said this in the same thread, suggesting that you'd vote for him since it's a cross-platform ticket that our country "needs". Now you're saying that he wouldn't be a good vice president. Which is it?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 AM on June 13, 2004


Well....maybe you are all correct about my perception of McCain.....(I can admit when I may be wrong on certain beliefs and issues...sometimes....besides....it's not like I'm actually ever going go have a chance to VOTE for the guy...unless I'm moving to Arizona.....which I'm not....)

/please, no comment about me finally seeing the light...
posted by Rastafari at 10:41 AM on June 13, 2004


bluetrain: It was his best chance at ever being there, but i can't bring myself to support him. As soon as there's a unity ticket where both members support the same core values that most closely match mine i'm there, and that would be a good thing, not just any Repub. with any Dem.

This "unity" ticket (which isn't happening) wouldn't be anything other than just lipservice to true unity--of beliefs and values and goals. Kerry and McCain disagree on every single thing except for vet's rights/benefits.
posted by amberglow at 11:01 AM on June 13, 2004


And Bush. They agree on Bush. Also fundamentalist Christianity. (remember McCain's self immolation over Falwell et al?)

I think the reason so many Dems have a secret crush on McCain is his willingness to cheerfully admit he's wrong, or doesn't know something, and his refusal to march in lockstep with his party leaders - shocking behavior in politics these days and something neither Bush nor Kerry is willing to do.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:02 PM on June 13, 2004


You will all bow to my superior prognostication skills when Kerry announces Mark Warner, current Dem Governor of Virginia, as his running mate.

The Kerry campaign recently announced that they were putting some heavy advertising dollars into VA. No recent democrat has even pretended to have a chance at winning VA, but for some reason Kerry does? The only explanation I can find for this is that having Warner as his running mate could give him the state.

Warner ran on a very moderate, but still Democratic, platform and subsequently turned around a screwed up state budget by cutting costs. He is respected by moderates, and could possibly deliver a few Southern states, including a state (VA) that Bush never thought he could lose. Warner was born and raised poor and earned a fortune (enough to make the BushCheney war chest look small) in the cellphone/tech industry.

I plan to vote for Kerry, but he doesn't excite me enough to actually volunteer and campaign for him. But if Warner is his running mate I'll contribute every spare minute and dime I have to the campaign.
posted by sreilly at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2004


shocking behavior in politics these days and something neither Bush nor Kerry is willing to do

$$$$$$$$$$

and he is very funny and down to earth in interviews too. just think about his awesome, witty moments with Jon Stewart. he does seem to carry himself quite lightly. and that's hard not to like, it's a rare thing in politics, as CunningL points out. he's the smiling, decent extreme-right-winger most liberals can't avoid to like (plus his sacrifice in Vietnam is such an enormous plus, you must respect a guy like that)

I'm surprised nobody mentioned an important factor: McCain's old, and after those hellish 7 years as a POW is health could be better.
Kerry has had cancer. prostate cancer is not leukemia, OK, not nearly as bad/lethal, but still he needs a healthy, possibly younger (at least not older) running mate.

I concede that everybody's healthier than Cheney, but still I think it's a factor
posted by matteo at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2004


I plan to vote for Kerry, but he doesn't excite me enough to actually volunteer and campaign for him. But if Warner is his running mate I'll contribute every spare minute and dime I have to the campaign.

I know I made a big stink about McCain, but please enlighten me about Mark Warner (I know nothing about him...). Is he from the Edwards/Lieberman-moderate-Dem school of thought; or is he headed for the Z. Miller/DINO stripes.

I know you can't be liberal to get elected to governorship in VA (although I'm still amazed by election of Douglas Wilder...!)
posted by Rastafari at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2004


Kerry has had cancer. prostate cancer is not leukemia, OK, not nearly as bad/lethal, but still he needs a healthy, possibly younger (at least not older) running mate.

As opposed to that bastion of youth and fitness, Dick Cheney. No offense, but what the hell does a President need a "healthy, possibly younger running mate" for? Spare parts?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:14 PM on June 13, 2004


if Kerry dies, XQ. President Tsongas, anybody?

also, read all my above comment. I mentioned Cheney's health already.
posted by matteo at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2004


Spare parts?

That just reminded of how people used to say that Dubya was an early, flawed clone of his dad. : >
posted by amberglow at 3:58 PM on June 13, 2004


reminded me
posted by amberglow at 3:59 PM on June 13, 2004


two words: bill nelson - you heard it here first.
posted by specialk420 at 5:13 PM on June 13, 2004


(plus his sacrifice in Vietnam is such an enormous plus, you must respect a guy like that)

I was on a plane with him once and saw him struggling to put his bag in the overhead compartment. He can't lift his arms above his shoulders because they were broken repeatedly in captivity. (His wife has to comb his hair for him) When you see a moment like that, and you realize how little whining he's done about it, you can't help but feel a rush of warmth.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:46 AM on June 14, 2004


« Older anniversary   |   Where is this country headed? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post