My Case for McCain/Palin

I've always said John McCain was my guy in 2000. I think most could look at the country and the Republican party now and say both would have been better off if he had beaten George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I was against Gore.

George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. It turns out that meant was he was socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and diplomatically tone-deaf. No wonder the deficit grew so much.

I voted Libertarian in 2004.

I believe McCain would have implemented some if not all of Bush's tax cuts. I also believe he would have fought back against spending. I believe after 9/11, McCain would have gone to Afghanistan, would not have tried to come up with an excuse to go to Iraq, and McCain would not have announced to the world, "You're with us or against us. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis of evil." We'll never know for sure unless the afterlife has a "What If" Holodeck machine we can play with for eternity. I believe under McCain, Osama bin Laden would be dead by now.

In 2008, there are many reasons for me to vote for Obama. First, I'm in Utah. McCain will win this state by over 20% no matter what. So, more votes for Obama narrows that gap. As long as Republicans control so much, they will continue to take this state for granted, and the Democrats will continue to ignore it.

Second, I do think Obama would send a positive message throughout the world, a world that didn't hate us as much in 2001 as it does now, and most of those in the world who hate America don't really hate the American people; they hate the American government. They hate Bush.

Third, it'd be cool. Two of my kids are from Zambia. How cool would it be to have them grow up knowing a black president?

Every once in a while, a party needs something to remind them who they are and what they stand for. For the GOP, Reagan came along and rescued them. Then they lost it. Then they got it back in 1994. Then they lost it. They lost it by following George W. Bush on everything. There needed to be more questions on Iraq, on the program of pre-emptive strike. Why was the post-strike occupation of Iraq so poorly managed? Why increase the entitlements in Medicare when the deficit is already huge? They did push back occasionally, like the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, but there should have been more.

I think fear of losing power led to their loss of power. They trusted Bush in 2004, and Bush didn't lead. They deserved to lose control of the House and Senate in 2006. In the past year and a half, Bush has wised up on diplomacy and troop levels. He underplays so he doesn't have to admit to many mistakes. Google-search Fareed Zakaria's recent Newsweek article on what Bush is getting right; he did a great concise job of laying it out.

Fifty years from now, I don't think Bush will be considered the worst president in history, which is what many lefties right now believe. I think James Buchanan will always hold that dubious honor, with Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding down around there too. Many felt that way about Truman when he left office but decades later, he's viewed as pretty good. History's been kinder to LBJ as well. I'm not saying he'll ever be in the top half. Time will tell.

But with Democratic control sure to remain over the House and Senate, this country would be better off with McCain in charge than Obama.

Watching the GOP convention, this party is ready to reform against itself, ready to throw the bums out (except their own). Gone are Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, George Allen. Soon to be gone are Larry Craig and Ted Stevens. With the religious right, Jerry Falwell's dead, Pat Robertson's irrelevant and religious guys like Rick Warren seem more tolerant. (Firm in their beliefs, but tolerant.) I participated in aiding a primary election of throwing out an Republican incumbant to bring in a new guy (Jason Chaffetz) running on fiscal discipline.

Despite how petty the campaigns have become the past few weeks, McCain's demonstrated time and again his ability to compromise and work with the other side of the aisle. This is important. Joe Lieberman got Republicans to cheer Bill Clinton at their convention by point out that hey, Bill worked with you on welfare reform and balancing the budget.

Right now the Dems are running against Sarah Palin, trying to terrify the public that John McCain will die in office and this woman will then have the nuclear codes. But running against a Vice-Preisdential candidate never works. The Dems annihilated Dan Quayle in 1988, but to what end? Besides, Palin was the perfect pick for McCain if he wants to get elected. I can't think of another person who would have energized the base more, with all due respect to Kay Bailey Hutchison. As for McCain dying in office, I keep looking at his 96-year-old mother. And if he did die in office, say at the three-year mark, that's three years of valuable experience Palin would have by then. But the whole experience question is kinda of a joke. Americans like governors as president (Bush 43, Clinton 42, Reagan 40, Carter 39, etc.) and she did more to tackle problems in her two years as governor than Obama did voting the party line in four years in the Senate.

Barack Obama picks Joe Biden

I think it's a shrewd move for Barack Obama to pick Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Obama is unknown; Biden is known. Obama is young; Biden is old. Obama has limited foreign-policy experience; Biden has a ton. Biden will be easier to dig dirt on, parse words on, etc. This is the guy who said Obama is clean and articulate, who said you can't go into a 7-11 without hearing an Indian accent, who dropped out of the 1988 presidential running after plagiarism charges, who made Samuel Alito's wife cry because he wouldn't let up, but he's the kind of attack-dog 2nd that's good for a presidential candidate to have. Gore was the jerk when Clinton was the smoothie. Cheney was the old-schooler who told the base could relax while Bush ran his "uniter not a divider" campaign. Good move.

Latest Vice-Presidential rankings

Here's where the latest VP Rankings are on InTrade.com.

DEMOCRAT VP NOMINEE

1. (4) Evan Bayh - 30%
2. (3) Tim Kaine - 18%
3. (1) Kathleen Sebilius - 15%
4. (5) Joseph Biden - 12%
5. (--) Wesley Clark - 10.9%
6. (6) Chuck Hagel - 7%
7. (2) Hillary Clinton - 5.3%
8. (8) Bill Richardson - 4%
9. (10) Dick Gephardt - 4%
10. (9) Jack Reed - 3.9%

Fallen off: Claire McCaskill

Wow, where did James Webb go? That star burned out prematurely. But if Obama loses and he wants to run in 2012, he'd probably do well. Joe Biden is the conventional-wisdom choice to shore up foreign policy on the ticket, but to be about change and not to look too young next to his VP, I can see why Bayh and Kaine are the top two. Plus if they have a chance of swinging their normally red states Obama's way, well, they did their job.

John Edwards is still at 2%. Heh heh.

----

REPUBLICAN VP NOMINEE

1. (1) Mitt Romney - 33.1%
2. (2) Tim Pawlenty - 22.7%
3. (-) Tom Ridge - 10.4%
4. (8) Sarah Palin - 10.1%
5. (-) Joe Lieberman - 9.4%
6. (6) Eric Cantor - 7.3%
7. (4) Charlie Crist - 6.3%
8. (10) Bobby Jindal - 5.3%
9. (7) Rob Portman - 4.6%
10. (3) Mike Huckabee - 4.1%

Fallen off: Carly Fiorina, John Thune

McCain's solid on foreign policy, but he's not that good with domestic issues or a TelePrompter, hence Romney being there. I just don't see it. I see McCain picking a buddy. "They" say Pawlenty and Ridge aren't conservative enough, but McCain knows that wing of the party isn't going anywhere. I'd say Joe Lieberman has a legit shot at being on the ticket. Bobby Jindal has categorically said he will not be VP, so he should really drop back down. Still haven't seen Palin speak. Maybe I should YouTube her...