McCain-Lieberman? Let Me Count The Ways
Alright, I think you all know my own choice would be Rudy G. and Lieberman, but Michael Barone lists five good things a McCain-Lieberman partnership has going for it:
…I can see some solid arguments for a McCain-Lieberman ticket.
First, it’s only possible if Lieberman beats Ned Lamont in November–as I think he probably will. In which case, he will be bereft of obligations to the Senate Democratic leadership and can vote against them on party-line issues as often as he wants. Which will probably be a lot more often than in 2001-04, when he was preparing to run in the Democratic caucuses and primaries, and in 2005-06, when he hoped to avoid defeat in the Democratic primary. So Lieberman’s likely to be less objectionable to conservatives. And, of course, when the president and vice president disagree, the vice president loses by a vote of 1 to 0.
Second, a McCain-Lieberman ticket would seem, and would be, a sharp departure from the harsh partisanship of which American voters, however partisan they may be individually, are surely tired. George W. Bush was, I think, sincere when he promised to try to bring a new mood to Washington. But after the Florida controversy, and the bitterness of Democrats over the result, he could not do so. McCain and Lieberman could argue plausibly that they could.
Third, a McCain-Lieberman ticket, however nonconservative on some issues, would be solidly committed to a vigorous prosecution of the war against terrorism. This issue unites the two of them as no other and so would help make that the central issue of the campaign. And an issue on which McCain-Lieberman would probably have a huge advantage over any possible Democratic ticket.
Fourth, McCain-Lieberman would probably win easily. Pollster Scott Rasmussen has paired McCain and Rudy Giuliani against both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore in 26 states (subscription required).www.rasmussenreports.com I’m prohibited by membership agreement from disclosing the results, but I think I can say that both McCain and Giuliani run far ahead of both Clinton and Gore–and at a time when Republicans are not doing well in polling for 2006 races. McCain-Lieberman might run behind Bush-Cheney in the South, but that would still leave them ahead in most if not all of the region; they would probably run well ahead of Bush-Cheney on both coasts and would be competitive in many states where Bush-Cheney wasn’t.
Fifth, a McCain-Lieberman ticket could claim that it would govern without a view to political advantage. If it won, McCain would take office at 72; it would not be obvious that he would run for re-election (Ronald Reagan won re-election at 73). Lieberman, as a lifelong Democrat, would not be considered a candidate for a Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016 (at which points he would be 70 and 74). That would allow Lieberman, as it has allowed Dick Cheney, the ability to be a useful and active vice president with no concern about his personal political prospects.
The man makes some good points…
No polls, just a gut reaction to the idea of a McCain-Lieberman ticket: Bleeech.
Seriously, I think Barone and Rasmussen are barking up the wrong tree. McCain has to convince conservatives to vote for him if he wants to be president. Naming Joe Lieberman as his running mate won’t do that. Rather, it’ll convince the GOP base that they’re right and that McCain is a closet Democrat. And the Democrat’s base will scream “See! We were right! Lieberman’s a neo-con!” It’d be the worst of both worlds.
Only slightly worse though, than Giuliani – Lieberman (IMHO).
I know it will never happen, but imagine if Rudy convinced McCain to come aboard as Veep, after he defeats him in the primaries. A killer combo, no question.
Personally, I think you are more likely to see Pitt-Anniston as the ticket.
Mark, may I hijack your thread? There is something completely off-topic which I think is a fascinating question, and I am eager to hear what your readership would think.
I have always thought that ethnic profiling makes all the sense in the world. A 20 year old named Mohammed is more likely to hijack your plane than an 80 year old named Mabel. It makes eminent sense to apply resources and scrutiny to where the risks are.
However, a poster on the Bainbridge site makes a very interesting point. The UK plot was foiled because of a tip from within the Muslim community. If Muslims are hassled at the airports and made to feel like outsiders instead of Americans, then it seems that they would be much less likely to pick up the phone the next time.
Your thoughts?
I think fatman’s reaction pretty much sums up why this would NEVER happen, at least on a Republican ticket.
If — IF — McCain secures the nomination, it will be absolutely essential for him to sooth the Republicans who are so distrustful of McCain that they were willing to cast their vote for a the ABM candidate, no matter how unelectable he might be (ie: George Allen). He will not have the kind of flexibility to pivot to the center that Bush had in 2000. Therefore, he will need to pick a VP candidate who mollifies conservatives. Lieberman may be respected for his bipartisanship and hawkishness, and he would be accepted in a Republican administration as, say, Secretary of State, but he would probably be the catalyst for a conservative revolt if McCain picked him to be VP.
Now, if McCain DOESN’T get the nomination and decides to run as an independant (as Kaus thinks he might), then a McCain Lieberman ticket seems plausible. But I don’t think that was what Barone was getting at.
Comrades,
Well, I can’t get behind a McCain candidacy for anything other than retirement. He did his best to stifle the 1st Ammendment regarding campaign financing and that’s just not forgiveable.
I just don’t know who I’ll be able to support in ’08. My own priorities include ramping up the war against Islamic facism, repealing the 1968 gun control act, sealing the borders, rounding up and deporting all illegals, eliminating the Department of Education and eliminating all Federal funding of Public Broadcasting.
Yeah, I know… good luck with that agenda, but at least I have one:)
Anyway, that’s my 2-cent’s worth.
Respects,
Gwedd
McCain/Lieberman vs. Clinton/whomever
I can’t think of a better reason to stay home on election day ’08. FUBAR!!
“However, a poster on the Bainbridge site makes a very interesting point…”
I was actually reading his comments this morning about just that subject, Peter, and found him compelling. But I also think he was remiss to expect our national security services to completely ignore over two decades of effective profiling programs. I was in a discussion over at Paterrico’s site a few days ago on this subject, and thought that to deny all profiling was to deny all logic and reason. My wife has worked at American as a flight attendant for over a decade now, and I’ve been flying about 50 – 100K miles a year on business during the same time frame, and we both think that the TSA’s habit of screening a la’ political correctness has gone completely insane at this point.
No question it’s a fine line, but I do think that flying is still to be considered a privilege, and not a right in this country, so I can’t believe that some folks would take such extreme umbrage at this tactic. Years ago I was stopped and questioned by some Bobbies in London because I happened to look like someone on their IRA watch list. What can I say, I look like an Irish guy, and wasn’t wearing the requisite US tourista tell – tale uniform of baseball cap and tennis shoes. I wasn’t pleased by the questioning, but understood why they had to do it. Some of my friends who don’t look anything like me have many contrary things to say regarding profiling, because they’ve all been stopped DWB in the past (driving while black).
In short, we’re going to pair two losers from 2000 and run them in 2008. Sounds like a plan to me!
/sarc off
As I said with Rudy/Joe, I think that if a conservative candidate appears out of the woodwork and runs as an independent to the right of them, they’re doomed. If even such a candidate gets 3 or 4 percent, it would probably be enough, based on the last two elections, and if said candidate could get near 20% like Perot, it’d be a Democrat landslide. If Lieberman is on the ticket with either Rudy or McCain it virtually assures a Democrat taking the oath of office in Jan. of ’09. Unless the party leadership gets completely behind such a ticket (which I doubt) and squelches anyone who wants to run on their right.
No, if you’ve got McCain or Giuliani on the top, then the bottom better be someone so far right he can’t even see the left. Can Cheney run again?
Is there a term limit on being Vice President? 
It’s all moot, though. Joe Lieberman will never run as VP on a Republican ticket. He was born a Democrat, and he’ll die a Democrat. He might pretend to be an independent for a while, but I can guarantee you that should he win in November (something that I consider far less likely than many do–I put the odds at 50/50 and only that high if he can get some momentum soon), he will continue to caucus with the Democrats if they will let him. The only thing he’s to the right of mainstream Democrats on is his support of Israel and the war in Iraq.
I think this would be the worst choice becasue McCain is the only one with a ligitment shot and it ruins it by being with liberman who is a natural born loser, the man can’t even win his senatoral race in his home state how can he help win a presidentcy