Calpundit Guest blogger, commedian Jay Jaroch, offers a lighthearted look at some of the top news stories, including what’s perceived in some quarters as the Democrat’s inability to find a Kerry runningmate among themselves who’s half as appealing as John McCain.
All this McCain talk sets too high a standard for a running mate. If I were the Kerry people I’d be out floating names like The Rock or Gary Condit. Then when you pick Evan Bayh Americans will be saying, “Oh, thank Christ it’s Evan Bayh!” and not “Who’s Evan Bayh?”
And I watched McCain on MTP yesterday make it really, really, post-Jetdry® crystal clear that he would not accept the offer, so…that’s it I suppose.
But, then again, if we can take the Democratic leadership at their word (and no that’s not a trick question, down doggies), and the goal is to unify the Red and Blue states at a time when divisiveness is not serving any of us well, why not move on to the next best Republican choice?
I’m serious. We know the Bush campaign is not going to make any sacrifices toward unity—the idea that Cheney would step aside and W would invite Edwards (or whomever) to be his runningmate is simply snortworthy—so such an effort will need to come from Camp Kerry.
I do believe the nation will survive this currently toxic climate, but not without costs, both domestic and international. The argument against a Unity Ticket of course would be there’s no guarantee it will work smoothly. That is, without the sort of loyalty and tight teamwork the Bush Administration has, will things get done? OK, now that’s a trick question.
The problem, of course, is that the outspoken McCain would upstage the semi-embalmed John Kerry.
You can’t have more charisma at the bottom of the ticket than you have at the top.
Should the Dems, once again holding the Presidentcy and the Senate, make a genuine effort to be more bi-partisan. You bet!
Should the Dems put a Repub on the national ticket as VP? No way.
We need strong parties. They should be accountable and responsible. Only in the case of a true national disaster should we contemplate a mixed ticket for the executive.
The succession role of the VP should be considered carefully. There should be NO impression that national policy would be dramatically changed by unexpected but possible need for the VP to become President. One can think of awful scenarios where a mixed executive might lead to dreadful plots being hatched.
The VP has taken on greater import in the last few administrations. But the VP has only the Constitutional role of Pres. of the Senate, where a clear Dem. voice should be there if needed. Ambiguity about leadership isn’t good for the country.
There may be a place for a Repub. in the cabinet, but even then I think the message sent to the public is not desirable in many cases.
Have the Democrats no one who can lead the Defense Dept or State Dept? Of course this isn’t true. Bill Cohen really didn’t make the Clinton cabinet any more effective. The Repubs dissed him as a collaborator, and the Dems didn’t really trust him.
I realize that people who post here and run the site are ardently centrist, and that, from a centrist point of view, a mixed-party ticket is not inherently a bad idea. The problem is that in this political environment, the parties are so unbelievably polarized that a mixed ticket is quite out of the question. Face it: McCain is NOT going to be Kerry’s VP. (I don’t understand, frankly, why Kerry won’t just shoot that sick dog once and for all, but that’s another story.) The fact is that McCain has no business being in the Oval Office as a Democrat — his positions on just about everything except foreign policy are simply not…, well, Democratic!
This whole discussion reminds me of Brad Delong’s recurring lament to the effect of “when are the grown-up Republicans going to reassert themselves and save their party from destruction.” The problem is, the grown up Republicans have been banished from power — or even influence. Even if Kerry wanted to reach out, who is he going to make a deal with? Tom Delay? Scooter Libby? Bill Frist? These are fanatics and hacks, but they are fanatics and hacks who own the levers of the Republican party lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.
We need structural reform to reduce the partisanship, not bandaids like this one.
The problem boils down to redestricting, television, sophisticated polling and messaging, and so forth.
If those are the problems, asdf, what are the solutions?
We need structural reform to reduce the partisanship
Why, parties with different goals and objectives is what a two party system is all about. I agree with the redistricting though, competitive districts should generate competition and limit the partisanship.
It has always been difficult to get laws passed since the very beginning of the Republic; it was designed that way.
The problem, in my mind, is participation. The number of eligible voters casting a ballot has gone down in almost every Presidential Electon for the last half-century from over 60% to about 50% in 2000.
(Forgive me if the link doesn’t work right – my first time getting HTML-fancy here.)
My point is that while the activists talk about parties and partisanship, (and there is a need for articulate and spirited public dialogue) there is a plurality turning into a majority that is tuning out of the discussion. We need to shake things up in order to change that, and pull more individuals into the mix.
And reaching out to put figures Americans trust in a position where they can be voted for will help too. John McCain will never be backed for national office by his party. Neither will Bill Weld. Kerry can help elevate the discussion and encourage participation through such a daring move.
We need discourse, and we need advocacy, and to the extent that parties help with that, I am all for it. But even more than that we need participation, and ideological entrenchment is hurting us. If increased participation yields a winner I don’t agree with, I’m OK with that, because democracy is all the stronger. If a participation-enhancing cross-aisle ticket diminishes traditional partisanship, I’m ok with that too. A popular blogger said that partisanship is more important than ideology, but I argue that participation trumps them both.
Who is the next best Republican choice, strategically, for a Democratic VP? Giuliani? Schwarzenneger?
(I don’t understand, frankly, why Kerry won’t just shoot that sick dog once and for all, but that’s another story.)
My guess is that he’s fully aware that it’s not going to happen, but he figures it’s good for his image — not a partisan, willing to reach across the aisle for the good of the country, also plays up the whole Vietnam vet thing.
If those are the problems, asdf, what are the solutions?
Iowa-style redistricting rather than Colorado, Pennsylvania, or Texas style. Gerrymandering leads to safe seats and extreme elements on both sides of the aisle. If the only competitive elections are the primaries, it’s going to be the nuts that win.
And here’s one that might seem counterintuitive at first. We need to slow down sprawl and re-invigorate local communities. Get people talking once again.
Finally, the Republican party must be utterly destroyed.
The unity ticket wins, McCain is still a Republican. The Dems and GOP are tied in the Senate. Kerry-McCain both resign and are replaced by a nominee of the other party. Now which party controls the Senate, watch unity flow into disunity rather quickly.
Why on earth would they both resign?