Back in July Delegate Todd Gilbert, former chairman of this very committee, caught alot of flack for suggesting that Barack Obama was a “borderline communist” and that he held “Marxist views.” Putting aside for a moment the complex arguments that could be held about whether or not Obama’s views fit into Marxist thinking (and the far simpler and petty argument that this is simply race or red baiting), the comments indicated how many conservatives view Obama as a radical, even dangerous, departure from the norm of American politics and conversely just how fiercely the left will defend their guy after losing many elections over these sorts of issues.
So it came as no surprise when Joe Biden chose to simply laugh off a serious question from a Florida reporter about how Obama’s views might be viewed by some as fitting into the mold of Marxist thinking:
What was the campaign’s response? From the Orlando Sentinel:
Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.
“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”
And yet, as a State Senator in 2001, Barack Obama didn’t seem to want to shy away at all from questions about the redistribution of wealth. Or rather, just what the best way to do it is:
That’s the Democratic nominee for President agreeing, in principle, that the redistribution of wealth needs to occur in this country and that the civil rights movement didn’t go far enough towards that ends.
Over the past few days the Obama campaign has been highlighting a series of high profile “defections” (mostly retired Governors who disagree with many of the party’s platform planks to begin with). The being said, Obama still hasn’t impressed many, including America’s most famous non-Italian plumber:
Joe the Plumber all but came out of the water closet for Sen. John McCain on Friday, saying that his famous exchange with Sen. Barack Obama made him “scared for America” and that he doesn’t trust the Democratic presidential candidate on taxes.
The plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher, burst into the headlines after he buttonholed Mr. Obama less than two weeks ago during a campaign stop in his Holland, Ohio, neighborhood and quizzed him about his tax policy. On Friday, he said that he wasn’t impressed by the Illinois senator in their encounter.
“When I was face to face with him, my honest first impression was that I expected something more. I had heard so much about ‘his presence’ in the media that I was surprised to find that he seemed very average,” Mr. Wurzelbacher wrote in a live online chat on WashingtonTimes.com (read the transcript with Mr. Wurzelbacher here).
“My gut feeling as he answered my questions? I was scared for America,” he wrote in response to a reader who asked “When you were face to face with Obama, what were you thinking and how did it feel?”
From Delegate Chris Saxman (hat tip to Suzanne Curran:
Friends,Over the past few weeks, I have heard from many of you expressing concern and frustration over polling numbers. And while the other side is trying to distract voters by spending millions of dollars to plan a huge election night party, our team is continuing our hard work of contacting voters and sharing Senator McCain’s and Governor Palin’s positive plans for America- and that work is paying off as reflected in a number of polls this week showing that this race is much closer than the main stream media would have us believe.On the side bar, I have included several links to some of this week’s polling. Yesterday’s IBD/TIPP poll (which was found to be the most accurate pollster of the 2004 campaign season), showed the race tightening to just a 1.1% difference.Earlier this week, many were surprised by an Associated Press-GfK poll, which also showed the race within 1%.The truth is, this race is closing in fast, for many reasons:
In the survey, Obama receives 47 percent of the vote compared to McCain’s 45 percent. But the survey indicates Obama has been gaining ground in Virginia. In a Mason-Dixon poll earlier this month, McCain led Obama by a margin of 48 percent to 45 percent.
The poll finds Obama with a 30 -point lead in Northern Virginia, 61 percent to 31 percent. McCain leads by 23 percentage points in the Shenandoah Valley, and by 15 points in Southwest Virginia. He holds a smaller 11-point edge in the Richmond media market, but Obama now has a 5-point advantage in the critical Hampton Roads region.
Virginia
All White Women Working Class Whites McCain 43.6% 48.3% 53.7% Obama 44.6% 40.5% 36.6% Someone Else 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% Undecided 5.9% 6% 7.5% Refused 3.8% 3.9% 0.7%
It’s not over till Election Day. Do your part by volunteering for get-out-the-vote calls and knocks all next week and during the 72 Hour period, Click here to see where we need help, then click here to sign up for shifts. Be sure to denote which shifts you can work in the message box on our form.
I think nearly every American would agree that the governance of the last eight years has been far from perfect, with mistakes, both small and large, on both sides of the aisle. However, change has far too often been used as a cover for a radical agenda. There have been few more eloquent letters written on the subject this year than the below piece:
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.
Many Democrats have been blowing off the McCain campaign’s attempts to bring to light Barack Obama’s true relationship with Bill Ayers, head of the left-wing terrorist organization Weather Underground in the 1960’s. They say that Obama was 8, he had nothing to do with the attacks, Ayer’s is just an old reformed radical.
And there is some truth to that. Obama cannot be held morally responsible for Ayer’s actions. That would just be irresponsible for Republicans to make that claim. The larger, and far more important issue, is Ayer’s current work, and his vision for American education. From Investor’s Business Daily:
“School reformer” is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s.
Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.
An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.
With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”
Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.
As Stern points out, “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”
If Ayers was just another nutty professor, we’d be lucky. But he wields great influence in academic circles and has had Obama’s ear. He’s the author or editor of 15 books. Chicago’s current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has employed Ayers as a teacher trainer for Chicago’s public schools and consulted him on the city’s education-reform plans.
Look closer. Ayer’s agenda remains a radical one, even if he has embraced the pragmatism of Saul Alinksy’s world view in his old age. Insiders have repeatedly admitted that Ayers served as the “guiding light” of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, and Ayers’s own projects have recieved funding. One such project:
One of Ayers’ descriptions for a course called “Improving Learning Environments” says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation.”
I’ll let that speak for itself.
Much has been made about the near “miraculous” fundraising totals that Obama has pulled in throughout the campaign. However, about a week ago, some major media outlets started seeing just who it was that donating to the Senator’s campaign. What they found was as disturbing as it was interesting. From the Washington Post:
The Republican National Committee wants the Federal Election Commission to investigate the source of thousands of small contributions to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, a committee lawyer said yesterday.
The RNC’s chief counsel, Sean Cairncross, said that there is mounting evidence that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it “looked the other way” as contributions piled up from suspicious donors, and possibly even from overseas, which would be illegal.
“We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election,” Cairncross said.
He pointed to a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances in which donors made repeated small contributions using fake names, such as “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro.” FEC auditors told the campaign that Good Will gave a total of more than $11,000 and Doodad Pro $17,130 — far above the maximum allowable individual contribution of $2,300.
Newsweek also reported that earlier this year, two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip paid $33,000 for a bulk order of T-shirts from the campaign’s online store. (Those purchases count as contributions.) The brothers had listed their address as “Ga.,” which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza. The campaign later returned the money.
And the New York Times (yes, THAT New York Times):
The donations included thousands of dollars in excess donations, made in increments of $25, from someone named Good Will in Austin, Tex., who listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You.” It also cited another donor named Doodad Pro, from “Nunda, N.Y.,” with the same employer and occupation.
Both donors were flagged by the commission in warning letters sent to the Obama campaign by August. The campaign was supposed to have responded within 30 days. But its campaign finance filing in September showed it had failed to refund more than $10,000 in donations from each, although Obama officials say all of the money has now been returned. A campaign has 60 days from when it receives an excess contribution to address it.
Republican officials asserted that if the Obama campaign had missed such obviously questionable itemized contributions, there could be much more in the form of fraudulent donations in the amounts below $200 that do not have to be reported.
The Democratic candidate’s donors also include “Derty Poiiuy,” an individual with a scatological sense of humor who has given $950. “Mong Kong” has contributed $1,065 and lists an address in a nonexistent city. “Fornari USA” gave $800 and listed the address of an apparel store of that name near San Francisco.
The Republican National Committee filed a federal complaint this week, alleging that some of Obama’s small donations are illegal because they come from foreign nationals or exceed the limit.
Obama’s contributions have also exposed a loophole in the law, which does not require disclosure of the identities of donors who give $200 or less, making it impossible to determine whether they are legitimate without a federal audit.
Lawrence Norton, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel, noted that the law was written when “no one conceived that a candidate could raise millions” in such small amounts. “It certainly is a case where the 1970s law is not in step with current campaign fundraising practices,” he said.
Exactly why a donor would use a name like Derty Poiiuy is not clear. “It’s part of phenomenon that we’ve never seen before,” FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said. People who make up names when donating to federal candidates violate laws against making false statements, but Biersack could not recall anyone being prosecuted for such a crime.
Biersack said the FEC cannot conduct an audit unless there are significant questions about a candidate’s fundraising. “Odd names by themselves aren’t enough. A lot of people have odd names,” Biersack said. “I have certain sympathy for that.”
The number of fake names attached to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign contributions continues to inch up as news outlets and political researchers page through thousands of pages of donor listings.
Turns out, they’re not that hard to come by. New discoveries from a cursory review of the listings include Edrty Eddty, who donated $250 in July 2008 and Es Esh, who gave $325 in July. Esh hailed from this unusual address: “fhdfhdfh, Erial, NJ 08081″ Eddty listed his, or perhaps her, employer as “Poiuyttrrewe / Qwertyuio” — the letters, more or less in order, found on the top line of standard computer keyboards.
…..
The AP contacted 123 of those donors — in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland — and interviewed them about their citizenship and donations. The review found that Obama’s campaign accepted contributions from at least three foreigners.
And the NY Times has even more:
Last December, someone using the name “Test Person,” from “Some Place, UT,” made a series of contributions, the largest being $764, to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign totaling $2,410.07.
Someone identifying himself as “Jockim Alberton,” from 1581 Leroy Avenue in Wilmington, Del., began giving to Mr. Obama last November, contributing $10 and $25 at a time for a total of $445 through the end of February.
The only problem? There is no Leroy Avenue in Wilmington. And Jockim Alberton, who listed his employer and occupation as “Fdsa Fdsa,” does not show up in a search of public records.
An analysis of campaign finance records by The New York Times this week found nearly 3,000 donations to Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, from more than a dozen people with apparently fictitious donor information. The contributions represent a tiny fraction of the record $450 million Mr. Obama has raised. But the questionable donations — some donors were listed simply with gibberish for their names — raise concerns about whether the Obama campaign is adequately vetting its unprecedented flood of donors.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Events, Foreign Affairs, MSM, POTUS
Ok everybody, sorry it took me a minute to get set-up. Clogged wireless up here in H’burg (as it should be, with over 75 strong Republicans). So let’s cut to the chase:
10:34 Alright. I’ll post some analysis when I get home, but the short of it: McCain delivered.
10:33 McCain: Welcome to the real world, and fundamental belief in the power of America is what will save it.
10:32 Obama: the thing I don’t know really don’t matter. I’ll figure it out. But I do know it all needs to be fixed.
10:30 So we’re going to tax the same small businesses who are striving for the American dream?
10:30 Oooo, overtime. And we may finally see just how humble these guys are.
10:28 So what about conventional weapons aimed against Israel?
10:26 McCain gets the sham of the UN Security Council. With Russian and China, no non democratic nation will EVER be taken to task for their actions on the international stage.
10:25 Two questions in five minutes?
10:22 So now Obama’s time machine goes both ways. Obama: He can see through time.
10:19 The situation in Russia has gotten away from us. Do you really trust Obama to deal with such a complicated situation? McCain is absolutely right–Putin has formed a cult of personality fused with extreme nationalism fueled by a sudden surge in oil based wealth.
10:16 McCain had a great point–We’re on the edge of doing what we did in Afghanistan in Iraq. Iraq is a synthetic creation of the British; we are on the precipice of having a nation in Iraq that takes responsibility for it’s own destiny. Nationality doesn’t form over night…..even well into the 19th Century citizens of the U.S. viewed themselves as from their states first. This takes time.
10:11 I hope my juice lasts through the end of this debate
10:10 So you’re going to blow up one powderkeg in order to get to another? The situation in Pakistan is not cut and dry, Senator.
10:07 It requires someone who actually knows what’s going on.
10:06 The Obama Doctrine “Eh, we’ll deal with that when we cross that bridge”
10:05 So when you have an open act of aggression by a nuclear power or an ambitious country sitting on top of a powderkeg of natural resources, that doesn’t count?
10:01: Just as a brief aside, I want to point out this important piece from someone who was nearly killed by the terrorism of William Ayers. h/t Powerline
9:56 The free market will develop the products, Senator Obama. Is their unfairness in the system? Yes. But you can find the product you want and get the coverage you need if you’re willing to put out for it.
9:53 As someone who takes advantage of the free market for insurance, you can find what you need.
9:48 Barack Obama has never seen a piece of pork he didn’t like.
9:47 Wow Brokaw. Just wow.
9:46 Mind telling us what else was in those bills? You know, these things are a just a wee bit more complicated than saying “we’re going to fix x.” Logrolling happens, deals occur, and all of a sudden a good bill turns bad.
9:44 When we change, let’s do it as Americans. Let’s know lurch towards European socialism.
9:43 Hmmmm. Curveball. Let’s see where we go.
9:42 Well, see Senator McCain, we can only look at records when you have one.
9:41 Thank you for tackling this one.
9:39 So while we’re handing out all that money, we’re going to nail businesses to the wall? You mean these very same businesses that are PAYING these people?
9:38 Senator Obama: Already planning your re-election bid? Just have to get it out on taxes.
9:37 Here we go. Entitlement spending must be reformed.
9:36 Small businesses like eBay used to be. Small businesses are the economic engine powering what we have left.
9:35 That’s Obama sacrifice: Taxes.
9:34 More on class warfare.
9:32 So where are you going to find the money for this?
9:31 Back on the time machine.
9:30 John McCain: Reforming before reform was cool.
9:28 Either enforce the rules, or grow a pair and be like Leher and just let them go at it.
9:27: Again with priorities. Note what’s not on that list? Entitlements.
9:24: Bringing back the entitlement debate. I’d rather say “transfer payments,” but this is start.
9:22: Bingo. Keep on the reform train. This man has dedicated the last twenty years to honest reform. Not CHANGE. Reform.
9:18: Hop on Barack Obama’s time machine! Nancy: Remember 9/11? Might have caused some budget issues…..
9:13: McCain proving once again why he is best when he’s up against the wall. Calling Obama out as he sees it. Freddie and Fannie heart the Dems.
9:12: Here we go. Accountability for all. McCain has been there. Where has Obama been?
9:10: I’m here with Nancy Barnett from the County Committee. Her point: why does it always have to be about dividing the top and the bottom?
9:09: Again, speaking right to the people. Obama: Warren? Is he your drinking buddy? And what did McCain just say about people working their way up? America succeeds when we go back to those core values in times of crisis.
9:08: I figured Tom would throw the rules out on follow-ups. Word was earlier today that both campaigns were readying for this.
9:07: We needed this. McCain is showing why this is his format. He’s talking straight to the people, and talking about why we need to take a positive step towards stabilizing the house.
9:06: Economy the first question shocker. Senator Obama: Fire the executives? Umm, never heard of the Board of Directors?
Filed under: Election 2008, MSM, Strategy and Tactics, Technology and Politics
I missed the debate myself on Friday night, but here’s some good press from that night for Gilmore, plus complete articles from around the state. I’ll post the audio when I find it:
Tim Craig at the Washington Post:
Although it’s difficult to know how many people were watching, Gilmore delivered a strong performance by framing it as a contrast between two candidates with differing views of the bailout.
Gilmore came out strongly against the $700 billion plan, arguing in a concise way that it amounted to government run amok. Warner supported the bailout, saying it was needed to prevent economic turmoil. Warner tried to pin the need for Congressional intervention on lax oversight by the Bush administration and “greed” on Wall Street.
……
For once, Warner’s efforts to turn the contest into a referendum on Gilmore’s record as governor was overshadowed by an issue of more immediate concern. The only thing anyone who watched the debate will probably remember tomorrow is the word “bailout.”
It remains unclear how Virginia’s electorate views the action taken by Congress today. Members of the Virginia delegation say they have been deluged with phone calls and letters from people opposing it, but there are also plenty of investors in Virginia who have been nervously watching their 401 K plans.
The reason the bailout may works for Gilmore as an issue is that it fits neatly into his message since June that he will be a friend of the “working men and women of Virginia” while Warner is aligned with the elite.
The blue collar workers who Gilmore envisions can carry him to victory are probably the same voters are most likely to be opposed to the bailout, creating a potential hurdle for Warner in rural Virginia.
Fredericksburg Freelance Star:
The just-passed $700 billion financial bailout in Congress dominated last night’s debate between U.S. Senate candidates Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore.
Gilmore, a Republican, cast himself as a candidate who would protect the taxpayer. He hammered the point that he would not have voted for the bailout bill and believes it to be fiscally irresponsible, bringing it up as part of his answer to nearly every question.
“I’m telling you, it was wrong. It is wrong and I would have voted no,” Gilmore said. “Sure, there’s a crisis and there are problems that have to be dealt with, but not this way.”
……
Gilmore said he will oppose earmarks, the money for local projects lawmakers slide into bills. The revised bailout bill contained a number of earmarks.
The race has largely centered on the opponents’ records as governor, but the financial rescue package provided Gilmore with a new way to emphasize the differences between them and highlight what he called his fight for the taxpayer.
Gilmore attacked Warner for his support of the emergency economic plan signed by President Bush, and he told a statewide television audience that he would have saved taxpayers’ money by not handing it to “Wall Street high rollers.”
“The next bailout is on the way,” Gilmore said. “Who is going to stand up for the taxpayers?”
The differences between the two former governors, who have never held federal elective office, were clear in both their leadership styles and on the issues. They repeatedly interrupted each other in a series of feisty exchanges, but Gilmore was by far the more aggressive, returning to the nation’s growing financial crisis at almost every answer.
“Don’t talk down to me,” Gilmore snapped at Warner at one point. “Don’t tell me I don’t understand. You don’t understand.”
…..
Gilmore said he opposed the plan because it rewards individuals and businesses that took risks with their money.
“This bailout is wrong. It is wrong,” he said. “I can say, I would have voted no. I would have protected the taxpayer. Mark Warner would have not.”
…..
Gilmore accused Warner of being a “flip-flopper” because he changed his stand from last year, when he said troops should start to leave in January 2009. Gilmore said the troops should stay as long as needed.
On energy, Gilmore insisted that the only way to reduce the price of gas is to drill along the nation’s coastlines and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and to encourage coal and nuclear power sources. “I say we go get that oil,” Gilmore said.
….
Gilmore said he wants illegal immigrants to be deported. “People who are here illegally have to obey the law,” he said
…..
Gilmore touted his record trimming the car tax and balancing the budget as well as other successes, including increasing the number of teachers in public schools.
“There was never a budget shortfall in Virginia,” Gilmore said. “The law does not permit that.”
…..
The two also clashed on potential Supreme Court nominees. Gilmore said he would vote to confirm justices who support overturning Roe v. Wade; Warner said he wants to protect the landmark abortion case.
Gilmore repeatedly steered the debate back to the bailout, replying to a question about Congressional earmark funding by listing interest groups that get tax breaks in the financial rescue package.
“Listen to some of them — Puerto Rican rum producers, wooden-arrow producers, Hollywood — everything was put in this bill to buy votes to get it passed,” Gilmore said.
Gilmore condemned the $700 billion rescue plan signed earlier in the day by President Bush. “It’s not right to take $700 billion of money from taxpayers, men and women who work hard everyday, and put it in the arms of the high rollers of Wall Street,” he said.
….
Gilmore denounced legislation before Congress that would strip requirements that workers vote on secret ballots in union certification elections. Warner appeared open to the bill but declined to say whether he would vote for it.
Gilmore’s constant criticism of the Wall Street rescue seemed to auger a new campaign focus. Previously, Gilmore stressed a “drill here, drill now” energy policy, urging oil production off U.S. shores and in Alaska. He did not mention energy until he responded to a question.
Filed under: Congress, Election 2008, Local Government and Politics, MSM, Party Politics
With just four weeks left until back to back National Conventions and the promise of news cycles dominated by the Olympics from the 8th through the 24th (along with a short Obama vacation stuck in there), the world of punditry (yours truly included, although if I fall in anywhere in the ranks of pundits its somewhere in the farm leagues) has become infatuated with the relative non-story of the veepstakes.
I know all the arguments about veeps. Geographical balance, ideological support, diminishing the candidate’s weaknesses. All these will be factors in the decision of who to choose to balance out the ticket on both sides. Still, history is filled with examples where the veep failed to deliver on expectations. In 2004, Senator John Kerry failed to pick up any southern states with the addition of John Edwards to the ticket, as Republicans were able to successfully mitigate that advantage by sharply contrasting Edwards’ geographic origin with his actual voting record. Al Gore’s selection of “conservative” Democrat Joe Lieberman (seen at the time as such mostly for his stands against the entertainment industry and his hawkish stand on Israel) seemed to have had less to do with the closeness of the election than the late breaking revelation of a Bush DUI in the last few hours leading up to the election. Geraldine Ferraro did very little to affect the blow-out of 1984, and if anything actually hurt Mondale through her husband’s fiscal woes. On the other side of the aisle, Dan Quayle seemed to do little to ignite the youth vote in Bush’s favor (and perhaps ended up being a net drag on the ticket), and in 1964 Barry Goldwater’s choice of Bill Miller did little to shore up his problems, well, everywhere, as though Miller was from New York he wasn’t seen as moderate enough to balance out the ticket. Spiro Agnew in 1968 presented similar problems, as he failed to carry Maryland, proved a continuing embarassment in the media, and ultimately provided an initial disgrace to the Nixon administration when he was convicted on crimes related to goings-on in his gubernatorial administration (Side note: It seems rather inconceivable in this day of bare-knuckle campaigning, with a multitude of ways to both discover and broadcast such a scandal and everyone looking, from campaign chiefs to school teachers with blogs, that a Vice-President could survive an entire term with such a scandal hanging over their heads).
Those are only the political considerations of choosing the vice-president, however. The Vice-Presidency is far more important than it was at the beginning of the nation, but just how important a particular vice-president is has been rather variable. While Dick Cheney’s influence has been undeniable, the general pattern has been to give the Vice-President some intriguing but not overly important project to work on so that they have some level of experience and knowledge of the full power of the executive branch. This trend was mostly a response to Harry Truman suddenly being thrust into the role of commander in chief following Franklin Roosevelt’s sudden passing in the closing days of World War Two. For the most part, however, the role of the Vice-President remains to attend the funerals of less important world figures and to…..well, not to be morbid…….but to wait.
The Vice-Presidency, though, isn’t even all that great of a prize for promising politicos. In the modern era of the Presidency (roughly 1932 to present), there have been plenty of veeps cum presidents. However, only George H.W. Bush was elected to succeed the president they served under, and he managed to only serve one term, indicating that perhaps the veep position is not the best training ground for executive success. Truman and Johnson, who were elected to their own terms, failed to secure their own second terms (which they were entitled to pursue given that they were elevated past the half-way point). Ford failed to secure his own term (although he did run an incredibly close race given the amazing odds he faced). Nixon had to undergo a bit of a political refurbishing before he won the nomination, and many pundits believe that had more to do with his relentless work on behalf of the party rather than his Vice-Presidential experience. Al Gore maintains an air of hope, but he seems dead-set on Obama win, and given that he’ll be 68 in 2016 (the next shot if Obama wins and wins again) and the Democrats have never been ones to give someone the nod because its “their turn,” he seems consigned to the dust-bin of failed veeps.
Still, despite the fact that the Vice-Presidency will likely be of limited import in a race with such sharp contrasts between the two major candidates, these conversations are always fun and important for a number of reasons. They allow the victor to reach out to supporters of his vanquished foes. This has been particularly important for John McCain. Huckabee and Guliani seem to be out because they both have gigs (Fox News for the Huckster and a repeat of the Nixon strategy of becoming Mr. Republican for Rudy!) and because they would create major havoc for McCain with flanks of the party he already has some weakness with (SoCos for Rudy! and fiscal cons for the Huckster). The one candidate benefiting from this strategy right now is Romney, who paid down his personal debt to bolster his chances. Romney is also just young enough that he could be a logical successor to McCain in ‘12 or ‘16. On the Democratic side, Hillary is clearly benefiting from this.
It’s also a good way to find out which factions of the party are throwing around the most weight these days. In 1996 and 2000, Alan Keyes and abortion foes threatened to walk from the party if someone like, say, Tom Ridge (who is pro-choice) was given the nod. McCain’s record on life is good enough, but I feel he would still suffer if he attempted to pull out Ridge (and he’s indicated as such to his closest advisors). One potential candidate benfiting from this right now is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who is good on both fiscal and social issues (although he is being discussed less given that he holds the dubious distinction of being one of Time’s Worst Governors). It’s probably also the reason we hear names like Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh, who hail from the more moderate Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party (which is causing a bit of heartburn amongst Obama’s faithful progressive acolytes).
Finally, it’s also a great time for both future candidates and their supporters to get their name back in the press. This phenomena has very little to do with keeping the name in the heads of the voters–with literally thousands of elected officials across the country, most people are lucky to know the name of their own Governor, much less that of Rhode Island (Don Carcieri). This is more for the benefit of the chattering class and activists, trying to place these people into consideration for statewide office (in the case of Congressman) or possibly cabinet slots or the presidency itself. This is probably part of the reason for the groundswell of support for such potential candidates as Eric Cantor (a possible candidate for Minority Leader, and hoping we take back the House soon enough, Speaker), Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal (already being talked about for ‘12), and former Ohio Representative Rob Portman (Governor of Ohio). For the Democrats this isn’t quite as apparent, as Obama seems to be the second coming in of itself. But as a stretch, I would say Claire McCaskill could be a potential national leader at some point.
And then there’s a final category that’s a bit more dubious. It’s the group of people that are mentioned because, well, it’s tradition. They’re politicos who could have had a shot at the Presidency but for some reason or another were denied that shot. This phenomena is not unique to the veepstakes; it happens in the Presidential race too…..sometimes, much to the candidate’s chagrin. Former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating didn’t jump on his mention this past time (although, frankly, I was just about to jump on his bandwagon, given his courageous leadership after the OKC bombing in 1995). Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore failed to make a splash and, if I had to guess, were probably victims of the “next step” being pulled away by no fault of their own. But back to the veepstakes: Tom Ridge is a perennial Republican mention (another good leader taken out of consideration due to the fact that he’s unacceptable to a major faction), and on the Democratic side there’s Bob Kerrey (who could probably beat back the scandal relating to his service in Vietnam) and Sam Nunn (who was first mentioned in the late 80’s but is considered unpalatable to the liberal wing of the Democrats for his role in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell).
At any rate, it’s always a fun game. And this year, it’s extended to Virginia: Cantor on the Republican side, Kaine for the Democrats. Of the two, there’s probably alot more to Kaine, as he provides much needed Executive gravitas to Obama’s campaign. Cantor is just not well-known enough, although he would definitely provide a great deal of cover for McCain on the right and would probably help the margin of victory in the 7th District (not statewide). Kaine, however, has serious problems in state: he failed miserably during the special session, with every House Democrat voting against his plan, and he’s angered the progressive bloggers for siding with Gerry Conolly in the 11th District Democratic House primary.
Still, the news continues to role in. Kaine’s introductory video that was shown at the Democratic state convention can be seen across the Progressive blogosphere, and the nod of Terry McAullife can never hurt. However, Kaine suffered a major blow today in the form of an editorial from Richmond Times Dispatch columist Jeff Schapiro, a prominent face around the statehouse. He slams Kaine’s credentials and notes that departures have rarely been a good thing for either of Virginia’s parties. It should also be pointed out that Doug Wilder suffered alot of push-back when he attempted to leave the Governor’s mansion early to cash in on his prominence as Virginia’s first black governor. Additionally, Senator George Allen faced alot of criticism for preparing for a potential ‘08 bid, which only compounded his problems in 2006, as Democrats were able to plant doubts about his commitment to serving Virginia. Anectdotal (and I always warn politicos to avoid relying too heavily on anectdotes versus polling data), but intriguing nevertheless.
Cantor’s luck seems to be moving in the opposite direction: his boosting by fellow Congressman Virgil Goode continues to get raves, including in the Washington Post, and in a National Journal poll of Congressional Insiders, Cantor came in second only to Mitt Romney. Could this very well just be boosting of Cantor’s profile in the event of a Republican thumping in the House, leading to Cantor replacing Bohener as Minority Leader? Very likely. Still, neat to see a Virginian in the spotlight.
I apologize for going on a bit longer than I had anticipated, but this is a key example of the sort of prolonged bloviating you should come to expect in the next few weeks. Hopefully, we can get back to issues, particularly with so much at stake (next post: energy). Still, always fun to think about the machinations of politics. I consider myself afflicted with ADIDAP (All Day I Dream About Politics).
Filed under: Election 2008, General Assembly, Local Government and Politics, MSM
I’ll try to post a wrap-up of the Senate debate coverage tomorrow, but here’s a quick round-up of four stories you should know about:
-In an interesting public-private partnership, Shentel has helped maintain the county school system’s summer enrichment program for this summer
-In a bizarre turn of events, the county is accepting sealed bids for the trunks of the trees that were removed from the Courthouse square last month. Apparently, because one gentleman asked for them some time ago, the county has to treat this situation the same way they would the deaccession of any other piece of public property. Bids must be in by 2 p.m. on July 30th. Your tax dollars at work.
-The Department of Planning and Zoning has released the dates for the first steering committee hearing for the revision of the county’s subdivision ordinance. This is a process all stake holders need to be involved in.
-U.S. News and World Report is spilling ink raising the profile of Governor Tim Kaine as a possible veep pick for Obama. Yes, the very same Governor Kaine who is now the proud owner of a 48% approval rating.
