FDR's first VP, Cactus Jack Nance, once famously described his job as not being worth a bucket of warm piss. That, of course, was before the days when vice presidents could do fun things like invent the Internet and take off for lengthy vacations in secure, undisclosed locations.
But given that McCain's locked up the GOP nomination, much speculation turns to the question of who he will pick as his running mate. The Journal has been running a series of pieces that act as interesting conversation starters, so I figured why not toss my two cents in. I'll start by toying with the assertion put forward in one piece, that "the old rules that chose vice presidents for sectional balance or the ability to win big states are out of date." Perhaps that's true, at least with regard to the states, but isn't picking a candidate to assuage the conservative base a form of "sectional balance?" If not, what is it? Anyways, the fact that most big states don't have a Republican governor at present makes that point somewhat irrelevant. I'll also say that the pick shouldn't be a Senator. For one thing, most of the more intriguing names have already begged off - Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, for example. More importantly, McCain needs someone with real governing experience on the ticket; he's too Washington by himself, and another Beltway insider will just reinforce that perception. Thus no Senators.
The first piece, in late February and written by a Minnesota conservative, assails the conservative credentials of Tim Pawlenty, that state's governor. Certainly, some of the author's grievances resonate with me; for example:
In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. "It looks like we should have listened to President Carter," he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. "He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don't think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices
Listen to President Carter? Really? Yikes.
But some of his points go over less-well with this particular pundit:
Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a "health impact" fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs. Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days -- although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.
To me, smoking bans are a good thing - at least in places where one's action can negatively affect others both in terms of health and pure comfort. A tax on cigarettes, whatever the purpose of the revenue, is also something I'm not going to get riled up over.
On healthcare, he appears to be a Romney-esque "new Republican," favoring healthcare for all children as well as a mandate for all residents. I'll never advocate universal, single-payer healthcare; my own internal jury is out on a mandate. But healthcare for all children? To begin with, it's the right thing to do. It's also a no-win situation if you try and block it. Some handful of real conservatives (in a place like Minnesota) may love you for it, but the media's going to crucify you.
Finally, Pawlenty's favored bigger mandates on renewable energy use in the state. Go to Minnesota; look around. There's nothing there. Wind and solar are great uses, and strongly encouraging the state to use them is a good thing. 30% by 2020 is steep, but why not just like the state's western border, with the absolutely uninhabited Dakotas, with wind turb"ines?
Verdict: Some interesting policy ideas, but if this is an honest representation of Pawlenty's policies, he's probably a no-go for conservatives at large. However, if McCain can assuage the conservative base come the convention, he may be useful. The Midwest, in part because of economic concerns, has been turning purple (or even blue) in recent years; a local, however obnoxious the accent, may bring them back into the fold. But he shouldn't be the top of the short list.
The
second piece isn't about any potential VP candidate, but is by one of the most talked-about names: South Carolina Governor
Mark Sanford, discussing why in light of the looming entitlement crisis, McCain's the only acceptable candidate. While I agree with him, his excessive use of bad analogies and metaphors:
"To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game. I sat out the first half...But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same...Hope alone won't carry us through the valley of the shadow of debt....A number of us tried to apply the brakes to the Washington spending train...The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?"
Besides the fact that he's desperately in need of a new speech-writer, one free of such badly cliched language, he makes some good points. McCain's got the record here; his opponents have not only failed to acknowledge the need to rein in spending, they're actually talking about increasing spending.
But this begs another question, one with regard to Governor Sanford himself. The most prominent reason to include him on the ticket are his fiscal credentials. If McCain's got those, why do we need to double up on them? Of course, he's also got great social con bonafides, but he's such a fiscal hawk that members of his own party despise him down in South Carolina.
Verdict: Another interesting choice, and one who might rise in prominence if McCain hasn't gotten the party's conservative base in line by late summer. Sanford will largely lock up the South, and will significantly assuage conservative concerns about McCain's health; if, God forbid, he expires in office, they won't be anxious about his replacement.
The
third and final of the WSJ's articles concerns in the author's words, "the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal." His argument, based largely on the fact that Jindal's resume is enormously impressive, has merit: The guy graduated high school at 16, a graduate of Brown, Rhodes Scholar, stint at McKinsey, made secretary of the Louisiana department of health and hospitals in 1996, executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in 1998, named president of the University of Louisiana System in 1999, assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from 2001-2003, served in the House from 2004-2007, governor 2007-present. He's also a yet-tender 36.
Verdict: That Jindal can clearly out-wonk just about anyone the Democrats could field against him, no one will dispute. But despite his experience, I think his youth is a bit much to be considered for national office. Certainly, he'd rally the base to McCain, but I wonder if putting him on the ticket without a really compelling reason is rushing things. Should McCain lose, Jindal may be tainted by it. Why not let him keep his powder dry down in the bayou; in 2016 (or if necessary 2012), he'll have a nice set of gubernatorial accomplishments to campaign on. But the author's last point may be the most valid: "If Mr. McCain is to win, he needs not just numbers but enthusiasm. The Democratic primaries consistently have brought out twice as many voters as the Republican primaries. Mr. Jindal has already demonstrated that he can get voters enthused." Jindal should be treated as the GOP's ace in the hole. One last point for consideration, and I don't know the answer to this, but what does Jindal bring to the table (besides intellect) that Sanford doesn't?
Of course the Journal's not the only one running pieces on potential veep picks. The Chicago Trib had a
brief article late last week floating the notion of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. There's a lot to like about Palin. She's conservative enough to placate the base, she's youthful, and she may make inroads among women, a traditionally Democratic constituency. She's also hugely popular, with approval ratings somewhere in the 80s and even 90s.
But she's been a bit lefty on global warming and climate change, a stance that may alienate some Republican voters. And while she herself has been ardently anti-corruption (endemic in Alaska), the fact that the rest of the state Republican Party is in hot water for it may cause her to be tarred with the same brush. Because since when does the media make distinctions?
Palin and Jindal have something in common: They both have an irrefutable air of trying to match the Dems. You have a woman on the ticket? We can put a woman in the #2 spot! You have a non-white guy on the ticket? We can put a non-white guy in the #2 spot! Like Jindal, Palin is recently elected without much of a portfolio to run on. Further, while I think the era of picking a candidate because of geography is over, I also think going to the other extreme is pretty crazy. Alaska's got a whopping three electoral votes - tied for least in the nation. I'm also worried about the notion of corruption by association; that concern becomes more valid if (when?) Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young are indicted.
Verdict: A dark horse, no doubt. Alaska's out of the media spotlight, so I'm not really if there are any concerns to be had. Her anti-corruption priorities match those of McCain; he's also shown himself to be a liberal thinker on climate change. But as with all of these candidates, I think she's selected as the party determines is necessary. However, she certainly deserves a hard look - even if she does bring a measly three votes to the table.
Florida's Charlie Crist is another name often tossed about. Like Palin, he's enormously popular. His endorsement probably won the primary for McCain, a big, fat IOU. Similarly, his being on the ticket could lock up the state in the general. Thus the frequency with which he is mentioned as a candidate (especially since the state of the economy probably puts Ohio solidly in the Democratic column).
But there may be an enormous skeleton in the closet: him...so to speak. There are
widespread, but largely unsubstantiated, rumors that until his star began to rise, Crist was way out of the closet. Is there truth in the matter? Well he is divorced; he certainly wouldn't be the first gay Florida Republican...Mark Foley, anyone? I'm not sure what he brings to the table - could he deliver Florida just campaigning for McCain instead of running with him? - and even if he's not gay, if Clinton's the nominee her smear machine won't hesitate to spread word that he is.
And if he ends up on the ticket? Either the RNC did an awful vetting job, or he's actually not gay. That's all.
PS:
Chris Cillizza tossed out a few names for both Democrats and Republicans a few weeks back; I covered three of the five Republicans, and will dismiss his other two out of hand. Chris, c'mon - Republican voters won't back a qualified presidential candidate in Mitt Romney, in large part because he's Mormon, but they'll accept a Mormon veep? Utah's Jon Huntsman brings a lot to the table, including scads of cash and strong credentials, but I think the Mormon factor would be a big negative - and if it isn't, why not look at Mitt again? His business credentials are stellar and given the jittery state of the economy (those might be needed in months to come), he too is filthy rich (okay, hundreds of millions instead of billions, but at that point who's really counting?), and instead of Utah, which McCain can't lose, Romney puts Michigan and potentially Massachusetts in play. The fifth name on his list, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, is DQ'd by my original rules at the top of the post. Anyways, three electoral votes again.
The most interesting name on the list, far and away, is on the Democratic side, that of former Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni. Maybe a topic for another day.
CC also did
video interviews with Pawlenty, Sanford and Palin, as well as Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas back during the National Governors Association meeting. I haven't watched them just yet, but I suspect they're worthwhile.
That's all, folks.
