Miss Wasilla Goes to Washington

The Monkey and I were driving from Worcester, MA to Peterborough, NH on Friday, August 29, when we heard the news that John McCain had selected his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (On a personal note, this day also marked the 2nd birthday of my daughter and I suppose I can always remind her as she grows up that a woman was selected to be Vice President on her birthday, hopefully encouraging her to remember that a woman in America can truly accomplish whatever she sets her mind to).

NPR covered the entierty of her first speech as the GOP’s 2008 Vice Presidential candidate at a rally in Ohio, and I have to admit, while listening to the speech I got a little concerned about Barack Obama’s chances in November.

I have often commented that John McCain lacks charisma and a connection to his audience when he speaks. Considering he will be facing off against one of the most energetic and inspiring politicians to emerge on the national scene in decades, I felt that McCain’s inadequacies in this department would be a huge detriment to his chances of winning the presidency, in accordance with my universal maxim of Presidential Politics, which states: at the end of the day, people vote for people they like, and to a lesser degree, people they know.

While John McCain may be more familiar to more American voters than Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s “exotic” new candidate, I believe Obama is more likeable than John McCain, and that likeability, combined with the huge negatives of John McCain’s Bush-like policies, would carry the day over John McCain’s familiarity to the American electorate.

But with the GOP’s new “rock star,” Sarah Palin on the ticket, that equation suddenly changes, due to her enormous likeability and charisma.

Palin’s Masterful Speech

Since I was listening to her speech on the radio without the distractions of the visuals, the Monkey and I were able to concentrate on the specific diction her speechwriters chose, as well as her personal power and energy enlivening each word she spoke.

She was clearly attempting to appeal to Hillary voters in several strategic ways:

President John F. McCain?

1) When she first alluded John McCain’s in her speech, she referred to him as, “John F. McCain.” This was clearly an attempt to compare McCain to Democratic hero John F. Kennedy, thereby creating warm feelings for McCain among Catholic voters, independents, and Hillary voters. She also paid a compliment to American hero and Democratic Ohio Senator John Glenn in the same breath. In addition, she kept the unusual Kennedy comparison alive when she alluded to the title of Kennedy’s book, “Profiles in Courage,” in her description of John McCain’s hero’s journey through a Hanoi prison
camp:

Profiles in courage, they can be hard to come by these days. You know, so often we just find them in books. But next week, when we nominate John McCain for president, we’re putting one on the ballot! –Governor Sarah Palin, August 29, 2008.

Will 2008 Be The Year?

2) She paid homage to Geraldine Ferraro, who was the Democratic Party’s choice for VP and the first woman to receive that nod on a major ticket, back in 1984. When I first heard her utter Ferraro’s name I was amazed and impressed. Amazed, because it is rare indeed when Republicans give props to members of the opposite party, especially people like Ferraro, who is an icon of the women’s liberation movement, which represents the greatest threat to many pro-life conservatives, conservatives just like Sarah Palin herself, who espouses rather radical views on the subject of abortion (more on this in a moment). Impressed, because this reference indicated the brilliant strategem beneath the speech: appeal to women voters and male Hillary supporters.

3) Finally, she delivered a luminescent nod to Barack Obama’s primary rival during the historic Democratic primary campaign: none other than Hillary Clinton herself. I am struck by how many Republicans have been so “impressed” by the resiliancy and toughness of Hillary Clinton. They love to give her props because of the two-fold effect such reverance and faux adoration achieves:

a) it splinters Democratic unity and welcomes Hillary’s supporters to the fray, and

b) it creates the illusion of the GOP being centrist and inclusionary, which is ironic when you consider the politics of each of the two candidates on the top of the Republican ticket.

Since I’ve already analyzed John McCain’s platform in my “Who Should I Vote For?” series published during the primaries, it is now time to take a closer look at his running mate, the relatively unknown Governor Sarah Palin.

Beyond the Bio: What Does Sarah Palin Stand For?

By now, we’re all pretty familiar with Palin’s bio. She was a high school athlete, beauty queen, “hockey mom,” PTA member, Wasilla, AK City Council member, twice-elected Mayor of Wasilla, AK (population 6,700), and first-term Governor of Alaska (population 683,000). We know that her nomination is an unlikely story, rather inspiring, and tells an “only in America” story similar to Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s unlikey path to the Presidency.

10 Things to Know About Sarah Palin’s Politics

1) She’s a friend of domestic oil development. She supports drilling in ANWR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and has even sued the federal government over its inclusion of Polar Bears on the federal endangered species list, as protecting polar bears might jeopardize oil development in Alaska. Her husband works in the industry.

2) She is a creationist and supports teaching creationism in school.

3) She is fervently anti-abortion, even opposing abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Now that she has announced that her teenaged daughter is pregnant, the GOP spin-meisters are doing an excellent job of using this situation as a living example of her commitment against abortion. To me, however, this situation indicates a lack of her presence in the home and her daughter’s cry for attention from her mother who is busy with a disabled new born, three other children, running a state, and now campaigning all over the country for VP of the United States.

4) She supports abstinence only education in Alaskan schools, but apparently not within her own home, proving that this form of sex education clearly is a flawed technique to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Points 1-4 indicate that she is a social conservative, very much in the vein of George W. Bush.

5) She positions herself as a government reformer, fighting Alaskan corruption and over-spending, although she has supported and received an endorsement from embattled Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who faces seven felonly counts on charges he failed to disclose gifts received from oil companies. She herself is also under investigation for the improperly pressuring an Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner to fire a State Trooper who was going through a bitter with her sister.

Point #5 shows that she claims to be a reformer but engages in abuse of power and cronyism herself (the man she picked to replace the fired Safety Commissioner had to leave his post after just weeks in the midst of sexual harrassment charges. He received a $10,000 severance from Palin).

6) She favors capital punishment.

7) She is a member of the NRA and as a hunter and fisherman herself,
supports gun rights.

Points 6 & 7 appeal to social conservatives and mirror Bush’s policies.

She believes Climate Change is not manmade.

The same as Bush’s brainless view of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions.

9) As far as foreign policy is concerned, there are no definitive positions on her record that clearly state her view on the War in Iraq, other than this quote alluding to the fact the Iraq War is essentially a war for oil:

We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.

This point could certainly be a challenge to the Bush-McCain doctrine, but her comment that “we have the supplies ready to go” indicates her lack of understanding about our ability to replace foreign oil with domestic drilling. It also of course raises questions about McCain’s horrible job of vetting his running mate, who may have a contradictory view on the War in Iraq.

10) Finally, she doesn’t seem to even have a clear idea about what is being asked of her in terms of potentially becoming the Vice President of the United States of America. Watch below:

This video clip indicates a lack of sophistication, historical context, and constitutional understanding that is frankly quite frightening and very reminiscent of George W. Bush. Sadly, what these above points indicate is that the only thing new and fresh about Sarah Palin is her gender and her good looks.

McCain will win his base and the 30% of whackos who still support President Bush, but Sarah Palin’s selection as VP candidiate will do nothing to capture the great divide of independents and moderates who will ultimately decide this election.

Country First?

It is ironic that the motto emblazoned on the podium at the McCain-Palin rally in Ohio read “Country First,” when McCain’s pick had little to do with what is best for his country and more to do with what is best for his campaign.

While the fact that a woman appearing on the Republican Presidential ticket for the first time in history is groundbreaking, long-overdue, and should be celebrated by all Americans, this history-making move should certainly be put into perspective. Republicans are disastrous policy-makers but they are brilliant strategists and can splinter electorates and win elections with Machiavellian efficiency. On the surface, McCain’s gamble on first-term Governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice is shocking, inspiring, and will radically shift the context of the campaign. But beneath the tidal wave of shock and awe, his decision is all about politics.

Specifically, it’s about a couple of key points:

1) Driving a Wedge Between Disaffected Blue Collar Hillary Supporters and the Obama Campaign. Who would have thought that Hillary Clinton would suddenly have street cred among Republicans? It’s certainly a lot easier to give Hillary enormous props when you don’t have to face her in an election and their celebration of Hillary’s campaign sure helps the GOP appear less right wing and fundamentalist. But you can be assured of one thing: if Hillary had gotten the nomination instead of Obama, she would be the subject of relentless attack instead of the faux adoration the Republican party is currently raining down on her. And here’s something else you can take to the bank: if the GOP thinks that putting an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, social conservative on the ticket is going to wrangle up more than a spattering of women Hillary supporters, they are about as short-sighted as they are radical in their thinking. If anything, Sarah Palin will garner male Hillary supporters in blue collar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Let’s just call a spade a spade, Palin is extremely easy on the eyes and I wouldn’t be surprised if a small percentage of male voters who could go either way lean Republican on this one, just to keep her in the spotlight a while longer. Call me and the Monkey chauvinists for even suggesting this, but I didn’t make up the term, “sex sells,” I just observe the phenomenon.

2) Wrestling the “Historial Advantage” from the Democrats. For any voters out there who are solely swayed to vote for Obama in order to participate in the historic nature of electing the first African American President, they suddenly might have a conundrum on their hands. Now people can cast their ballots for a similarly historical ticket without having to follow through and actually vote for a black person. We have heard about the inherent racism that still permeates the consciousness of this nation and many have commented that while people may support the concept of Obama as their President, when these same people are safe within the privacy of the voting booth that racism might kick in and preclude them for casting their ballot for an African American. Now those same people have the opportunity to cast a historical vote in a “safer” context, taking the step of electing a woman to the office of the Vice Presidency instead of a black man to the highest office in the land.

3) Perpetuating the Myth of the Maverick. For the McCain loyalists, perhaps one of the greatest benefits of having Palin on the ticket besides her good looks and her gender, is the fact that she has earned a reputation of a maverick herself while Governor of Alaska, fighting corruption and pork spending within her state. McCain still enjoys a maverick reputation that he carved out for himself many years ago, although as of recently his positions have been nearly identical to an unpopular, fundamentalist, neo-conservative President who is intimately intertwined within the established hierarchy of the the Grand Old Party. Ironically, Palin’s reputation might be more myth than reality, as she herself is under investigation for corruption (Palin allegedly ordered the firing of a state official who refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin’s sister). And get this – the replacement she picked for that post also lost his position after just two weeks on the job, after charges of sexual harrassment emerged. Oh by the way, Palin, Alaksa’s “maverick” Governor paid this gentleman a $10,000 severance after just two weeks of work. It seems like Mike Brownie cronyism is a malady penetrating the DNA of the GOP even in faraway Alaska. The findings of this investigation and due to emerge just days before the November 4th election.

4) Consolidating the Republican Base. One thing’s for sure, Sarah Palin appeals to the base of the Republican party like no other candidate in the 2008 race, perhaps outside of Mike Huckabee. Anti-gay marriage? Check. Anti-abortion? Check. Pro NRA? Check. These so-called wedge issues move the Republican base like none other, and if there were any doubts among social conservatives as to McCain’s credibility as a George Bush-like fundamentalist, they can be dispelled with Palin on the ticket. Problem is, McCain’s major challenge is not winning over the 30% of Americans who still support President Bush. His challenge is convincing the “great middle” to come over to his side. A lot has changed since 2004. In 2004, social conservatives and fundamentalist Christians flocked to the Republican banner because the economy was stronger than it is today and the war in Iraq wasn’t nearly as unpopular. Today, many blue collar workers who might lean to the right are reconsidering their 2004 votes that sent Bush back to the White House now that they have seen the distrastrous results of four more years of Republican rul

A Heart Beat Away?

McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate says less about Palin and what Palin brings to the ticket, and instead says more about John McCain’s judgment as far as the best interests of this nation are concerned. While on the Democratic side Barack Obama chose Joe Biden because of the vast foreign and domestic policy experience that he brings to the table, John McCain chose Sarah Palin to simply win the election.

What’s truly shocking is not that a woman stands on the Republican ticket, but instead that John McCain made his choice after having met Palin only once. The thought that a complete unknown, who is even essentially unknown to her running mate, could possibly enter the Oval Office if something were to happen to a President McCain is troubling to say the least and indicates that McCain’s primary concern is to win the office, in addition to bringing his judgment and health to the forefront of the major questions surrounding a McCain Presidency. As much as I personally don’t like Mitt Romney, no one can doubt his qualifications to run one of the world’s largest economies. And even Mike Huckabee has a substantial executive record and corresponding proven leadership experience.

A Return to the Quayle-esque VP?

Could one make an argument that Joe Biden is the “second best” person to run this country? Sure. Of course it’s arguable that Hillary Clinton is clearly the second best choice, but certainly Joe Biden could be included in that conversation. However, is Sarah Palin clearly the GOP’s “second best?” Is she the best the party has to offer outside of McCain himself?

If that is the case, then the Republicans are in more trouble than previously imagined. It is ridiculous to think that Sarah Palin, the former mayor of a tiny town in Alaska, and the first term Governor of that state, is qualified to lead this country should McCain not be able to complete his term in office. Truth be told, John McCain is old, one of the oldest leaders in the world and he’s not exactly the picture of health and vigor either, having been diagnosed with cancer four times. While it is exciting to think about a woman finally finding her way onto the GOP ticket, it is troubling to actually picture her meeting with world leaders and solving the world’s toughest problems as President.

Joe Biden would be a Dick Cheney-esque VP in that sense that he would bring gravitas, experience, and enormous authority to the position. It is unlikely that if elected as VP, he would attempt to run for President at the age of 74 (his age at the conclusion of a potential second Obama term). In this way, he would be truly serving in the office to amplify the power and authority of a President Obama.

Palin, on the other hand, with her lack of experience, would serve only to help McCain achieve a victory in November, but would most likely not contribute to the governing of this nation in a similar fashion to the precedent set by Cheney or even Al Gore.

Bottom line, Palin’s selection as VP is an exciting, radical move, that clearly will enliven the electorate and turn the direction of both campaigns into unchartered waters, but McCain’s choice should be viewed for what it is: political necessity for a campaign on a life support, and nothing more.

The Mainstream Media (MSM) airwaves have been making much ado about the recent news concerning Obama’s decision to opt-out of public financing for the 2008 Presidential General Election. Talking heads have been hosting panels of experts, all weighing in on whether or not this is Obama’s first major misstep, how McCain can capitalize on this reversal, and what this move means for Obama’s overall credibility.

The fabled “flip-flop” moniker has been tossed about and McCain and his people have gleefully pounced upon this development to label Obama a promise-breaker.

Considering most Americans don’t understand what a delegate is or how the Electoral College works, the notion that whether or not Obama will take public money will somehow undermine Obama’s candidacy or his standing among supporters is delusional at best.

Any detailed discussion about campaign finance – while important and fundamental to the health of our democracy – comes with it the curious side effects of drowsiness, restlessness, and unbearable ennui. The conversation about campaign finance is wonkish and arcane, and unforunately not exactly an issue that drives voters to the polls. If the McCain campaign thinks for one minute that Americans will suddenly forget that it now costs $75 to fill up their car, or that they can’t afford a medical procedure, or that a loved one (for the third time) is on their way back for another 15 months in Iraq, because Obama made a decision to eschew limited public financing for the “unlimited” funds available to him through his 1.5 million small donors, then it is really McCain’s judgment that should be called into question here. Obama is simply doing all he can to win the election. It defies reason to handicap one’s self simply to make the point that the system of financing campaigns is broken.

Of course McCain prefers to receive 85 million in tax-payer dollars to finance his campaign! Obama has raised approximately three dollars to McCain’s every one, with no end in sight. And now that Obama and Clinton have begun joint fundraising, that proportion could possibly even lean more out of whack in favor of Obama in the coming months

Regarding Obama’s decision, McCain said in classic GOP fashion:

“[this] should be disturbing to all Americans…[and] we’ll have to reevaluate [our own commitment to public funds] in light of his decision.”

So instead of sticking to his convictions, McCain would consider turning down public funds himself. I guess that makes this a lose-lose propostion for McCain. By staying in the public financing system he faces a severe financial disadvantage. Considering the recent polling data from swingstates Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it looks like McCain will have to spend a lot of money to have a chance at simply maintaining control of states won by Bush in 2004 (FL, OH), let alone states like Virginia, Colorado, and even Georgia, which until a few months ago were considered near “locks” for the GOP.

But by opting out, as his quote above certainly suggests is an option on the table, McCain would sacrifice all the moral highground he has attempted to gather on the heels of Obama’s decision. And in this election, when Obama will walk away with a landslide victory, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in this country in two decades, moral highground might be McCain’s consolation prize.

RELATED POSTS: A Landslide Victory in 2008?

Who Should I Vote For?: John McCain

With the nomination all wrapped up nice and tidy, it’s time for the fun and easy part: choosing a VP!

Nothing about this election season so far has been predictable or ordinary, and certainly the Vice Presidential choices of both Barack Obama and John McCain will be riveting, strategic, and consequencial.

I am not of the camp believing that John McCain can count on states that went GOP back in 2004 and 2000 to continue to vote Republican without extreme effort and resources. I talk about this in two other posts of here and here. There is an element of Obama’s candidacy that is recognized but not talked about in a serious way. He is a charismatic persona like no other in recent memory and will move people to vote in ways that opinion polls and punditry cannot accurately gauge. John McCain is many things, but charismatic leader he is not. Say what you like about GWB, but people who support him, LOVE him, and that love and adoration made the difference against Kerry in 2004. Back in 2004, the American public was still somewhat undecided about Iraq. Four years later, what were the GOP’s strengths are now their liabilities and the religious right, the x-factor in ‘04 will likely sit at home with Mr. McCain as the party’s chosen one.

For this reason, John McCain’s VP choice will be extremely important as it will be his opportunity to counter the vigor, charisma, and quite frankly, the ethnic background of his opponent. As both candidates endlessly talk about change, it will be hard for the GOP to represent change if the face of their ticket looks like it’s always looked for the past two hundred years: a couple of old white guys.

On the Democratic side, I believe Obama must counter his own ethnicity, geographical background, and experience level with a strong VP choice. Several prominent figures come to mind.

In any other year, Obama would have felt the freedom to take his time, establish a search committee, interview candidates, look at polling data, observe the moves of his opponent, and ultimately make a reasoned, rational, deliberate decision weeks before the Convention in Denver with the sole purpose of strengthening the ticket and ensuring victory. However, this year, as it’s proven to be over and over again, will be different, due to one unavoidable phenomenon: the Hillary Rodham Clinton factor.

As of this writing, Clinton is planning to not terminate her campaign, but instead to “suspend” it, which would allow her to keep her pledged delegates moving into the Convention. John Edwards did the same thing, but the difference here is that Clinton holds nearly two thousand delegates to Edwards’ couple dozen, meaning she is holding onto significant and unprecedented power and sway.

Already her patrons and backers are initiating campaigns to convince Obama to choose her as his VP. The problem is that this is taking away from Obama the one of the most important, if not the most important decision he will make as a nominee. What kind of precedent will be established if it is recognized by the American public that in his first decision his hand was forced, his strings were pulled, and once again the Clintons get their way to maintain control of the Party?

The Cheney Effect

Dick Cheney is a lot of things, but he’s certainly this: a man who changed the office of the Vice President forever. He proved that a VP can be powerful, assertive, resourceful, and can even dictate policy. Clinton could easily do the same as VP, which could be good or bad for Obama. In a good way, she could be the bulldog, a la Cheney, do the dirty work for the administration, be the enforcer, and generally support the policies of the Obama administration in every way possible, just as Mr. Cheney has done. The difference here is that there is no doubt that Cheney and Bush shared the same agenda, while in the case of Obama and Clinton, it is unknown whether Hillary would march in step with Obama’s overall vision, or to the beat of her own drum. Or even worse, to the beat of crazy Bill’s drum.

Obama is treading on dangerous ground and must exercise extreme caution, patience, and introspection as he makes this choice. If he is to choose Clinton, he must gain assurances from her that she will put her agenda and ego aside, working for Obama’s agenda and not her own. And she must definitely assure Obama that Mr. Clinton will not shoot from the hip or step out of line, because the worst thing that could happen with a “Unity Ticket,” would be for it to become a liability, an effort to appease Hillary’s ego, instead of rational and strategic move to assure victory in November.

Truly a Dream Ticket?

Looking at the ticket in the best possible light, there would be many advantages to having Hillary on the ticket with Obama. One obvious advantage would be to mitigate the fears that Hillary supporters would stay home in November, or even worse, vote for McCain out of protest. Another advantage would be to utilize Hillary as an attack dog in the “swing states” she performed well in the primaries: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, and Michigan. This strategy would erase doubt and concern in those crucial states and allow Obama to focus on building momentum on “purplish” states like North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. I believe that Obama can be competive through the south and even Texas and a unity ticket would not only allow these two political juggernauts to personally connect to voters in all of these states, but also combine their engorged coffers and fundraising abilities to exponentially outspend John McCain all over the country.

Obama’s Other Choices

Hillary is not the only candidate for Obama. Here is a short list of other candidates that could help deliver crucial states, rank ordered by importance and viability by me and monkey:

1. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. Although not a national household name, Strickland obviously would hold considerable sway in 2004’s supreme battleground state. Republicans simply have to win here to win the whole thing and an Ohio Governor on the ticket would make that prospect nearly impossible for John McCain.

2. Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Virginia has been Red for a while but is turning blue, especially thanks to Webb’s election back in ‘06. What I like about Webb is that he is a military man: tough, straight-talking, and with the ability to connect with white male voters and NRA types. Choosing Webb would help to mitigate the obvious military credentials of Mr. McCain. The fact that Webb is a former Republican probably wouldn’t hurt with attracting Independents and moderate Rebublicans, either. Webb is handsome and charismatic, and while not a national figure quite yet, could be extremely valuable and potent.

3. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Same concept, different state. Only difference is that Pennsylvania, as in 2004, would likely go Democratic with or without extra help here. Undoubtedly McCain will put up a Herculean effort here, but if John Kerry can win here, there’s no doubt in my mind that Obama can win here. Also – Rendell is a big Clinton guy and it would be doubtful that he would accept the offer, out of respect for Hillary.

4. General Wesley Clark. Although a Clinton guy, he’s also a “Wesley guy” and would most likely do anything to further his political standing and therefor accept the job. His military credentials are a no-brainer, and his Arkansas roots would certainly help in that state, without Hillary on the ticket. He lacks warmth and appeal and has a certain stiffness about him that may not inspire many voters. His intellectual strengths sometimes betray him as well, and I could envision him appearing patronizing and arrogant in a VP debate. Nonetheless, he is relentless and talented and could certainly be a boon to Obama.

5. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The best things about Richardson is that he would certainly help Obama secure New Mexico, and that he would also help Obama connect with Hispanic voters, a demographic he has continued to struggle with. Unfortunately, his ethnicity may be as much as a drawback as it is an advantage, as perhaps a “black-brown” ticket might be too much change for a white voter to handle. My feeling is that Richardson didn’t fare well at connecting to voters in the primaries and would continue that trend as VP candidate.

6. John Edwards. Like Richardson, Edwards has only proven one thing so far: that he is not a viable Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. His track record on the national level is poor and his ability to help Obama win North Carolina is doubtful, as he wasn’t able to deliver when he was on the ticket in 2004.

So Who’s It Going to Be?

My prediction is this: that we won’t know for a while. Obama would be foolish to compress his decision making timeline simply to appease Clinton’s people and her ego. Might this harm his standing among Hillary supporters? Perhaps. But not irreparably. Exit polls suggesting that Clinton backers might not vote for Obama in the general are based on gut-level emotions that change with time and perspective. Any Democrat who is truly a supporter of what Clinton stands for would be a walking contradiction to turn to McCain out of principle. Although there may be a few, but their numbers won’t be significant, because at the end of the day the only alternative would be a third Bush term (don’t let McCain’s PR machine confuse you – voting 95% of the time lockstep with the Bush Administration does not a maverick make you!), and no true Democrat wants that.

The most important thing for Obama to do is to take his time, set the pace, and make this his decision. I believe ultimately he will choose Clinton as his running mate, assuming expectations are set early on. I also believe that this choice would spur another groundbreaking historical event: a black woman running for Vice President as a Republican. You guessed it. With Clinton on the ticket as VP, McCain will likely have to choose the National Security Advisor who didn’t get the Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US” memo: Condoleeza Rice. How about them apples?

RELATED POSTS: Obama VP to Clinton’s Prez?: Brilliant, Beguiling, Buffoonish,
Writing a New Electoral Map,
A Landslide Victory in 2008? Using Primary Results to Predict a Winner,
Who Should I Vote For?: John McCain

Today I continue with Part II of my series, Who Should I Vote For?, in which I provide an analysis of the field of presidential hopefuls from a progressive, constitutionalist, Independent standpoint.

Thursday’s news of Governor Mitt Romney’s departure from the race throws a bit of a monkey wrench into my planned breakdown of the following candidates:

*Romney
*McCain
*Clinton
*Obama
*Paul
*Bloomberg (I know, I know, he’s not really a candidate [yet], but I have him here to talk about third parties and their viability).

…but considering my Monkey likes wrenches named after him, I will still talk about Mr. Romney a bit because he’s likely not to ride into the sunset of American Presidential politics just yet (although he’s the anti-Washington, self-avowed political outsider. If he has so much disdain for Washington, why’s he trying to run the joint?).

Before I get to Mitt, I thought I’d begin with the candidate who’s position is most clear right now, and that is Senator John McCain, who for all intents and purposes has wrapped up the Republican nomination, despite the derision the “wingnut” faction of the GOP holds for him.

When I was making my film about Ohio I was amazed at the power the Evangelicals held in the GOP and had the sense that a schism was imminent among Republicans, and would play itself out in the event that a “moderate” Republican emerge as a front-runner in the 2008 election. Back in 2004 and 2005 the only name that came to my mind as a successor to George Bush was Rudy Giuliani, a guy that had boatloads of streetcred among registered-Republicans for his anti-terror rhetoric and his 9-11 “heroics.” However, I sensed that the “powers that be” within the party would find his views on abortion, gay-rights, gun control, and illegal immigration untenable, making him an nonviable candidate when push came to shove. This I thought, would set off a third party movement among the right wing of the GOP, forcing them to create a “Social Conservative” party or “Family Values” party that would only put up candidates who could check the right wing block on all of those hot topics mentioned above and many more, like school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, maintaining a “first-strike” policy towards the infidels in the Middle East, and so on. The Republicans would be in a quandary, I thought, with Giuliani as the best candidate, but also incapable of receiving his party’s nomination.

Little did I know that Rudy would fall off the face of the map and John McCain would step into that role of virtually un-nominate-able frontrunner. The way I see it, rank and file right-wing Party Members hate him for the following reasons:

1) His immigration policy. McCain has a realist’s view on the situation, and unlike Mitt “Round ‘em Up and Ship ‘em Off” Romney,” realizes that it’s impossible to deport an estimated 12 million people. Think of the legal and law-enforcement costs of such a policy!
2) They hate him for his support of restrictions on Gun Shows, which they believe infringes upon the Second Amendment.
3) They hate him for his opposition to some of the recent tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration.
4) They hate him for his sponsorship of McCain-Feingold, which proposed new restrictions on campaign finance reform. Interestingly, both the conservative NRA and the left-wing ACLU both oppose McCain-Feingold for different reasons. But did you know that this year industry experts project that a combined $3 billion will spent on this years Presidential campaign? $3 billion for what essentailly amounts to a Super-sized job interview? Imagine if that $3 billion instead was a charitable donation that went to fixing New Orleans or making college affordable for all?
5) They hate him for his acceptance of Global Warming and his support for regulations that try alter or reverse its course. I heard former Congressman Tom Delay on Hardball the other night asserts that the notion that man is causing the atmospheric pollution that threatens the delicate balance of Earth’s ecosystem is arrogant and not backed up by science. Then who’s causing it, if not man, the Whooping Crane?

But their hatred for him runs deeper than his vote either way on legislation over the last 20+ years. I believe the undercurrent for their hatred for him comes from the Party itself, not from everyday registered Republican voters. Many Americans, even Republicans, like to think of themselves as Independent, and many of us admire that quality in politicians, a trait that is hard to come by in that profession. This explains his string of victories despite the disdain the rank and file of the Party hold for him. Americans think of McCain as a maverick. We hear maverick and we think John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. What is more American than being a maverick?

But the hardliners in the party hear maverick and think, “uncontrollable.” Maybe this guy might serve his convictions and judgement before the interests of a political party, and we can’t have that, can we? So they will stop at nothing to tear him apart during this nominating process until he acquiesces to their demands and pledges loyalty to the right-wing establishment within the Party. They are basically threatening to sit this one out and allow a Democrat to take the office rather than support the will of the Republican voters. In my opinion, this strategy is self-destructive and futile. A possible option might be to throw their support towards a more right-wing candidate like Mike Huckabee, or possibly to a third party candidate. I don’t think there’s time to at this point to schism and go third party, and if John McCain might lose a close one to Hillary or Obama, Mike Huckabee would get steamrolled.

As an Independent Progressive, the biggest problem I see for a McCain candidacy is not the squabbling over whether or not he’s Conservative enough for the wackjobs in the GOP, but instead his delusial Iraq policy. By now we’ve all heard him say that he foresees our job in Iraq lasting another 100 years, which is completely unacceptable to at least two-thirds of the American electorate. He says that his support of The Surge in Iraq indicates he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to managing the war. Proponents of the Surge argue that the situation in Iraq is getting better and we should stick it out to see it through.

My view, as a West Point-trained former infantry officer, is if we send more troops over there of course the situation will appear to be more stable! If we had sent the right amount of troops from the very beginning, we wouldn’t have quite the disaster that we currently face. Bottom line, if we increased the troop numbers in Iraq from 130,000 to half a million, I think there would undoubtedly be more “peace” in the country. The problem for me (and it should be a problem for any right-winger who considers themself to be a fiscal conservative) is: at what cost? How much is stability in Iraq actually worth to us in terms of dollars and common sense?

Right now we’re running an Iraq military budget of an estimated $8 billion per month. If we believe John McCain, then our foray into Iraq might cost as much as 9.6 QUADRILLION DOLLARS!!!! (That’s $9,600,000,000,000,000! Or, a pile of $100 bills stacked 6,515 miles high). And if it seems unrealistic to just keep business as usual for the next 100 years, but we still want to “win” the war, then we should increase the funding of our operations over the short term. Right now we’re at about half a TRILLION DOLLARS in total spending on Iraq. If we double our efforts over the next five years to really stick it the evil-doers, then that strategy might cost us another TRILLION DOLLARS. So any realistic dollar value of “victory” might fall somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $9.6 quadrillion.

But wait, have we even talked about American lives lost? Add another 2000-4000 soldiers killed to the 4000 that have already died and another 30,000-60,000 to the 60,000 who are already wounded, if we stay another five years at current mortality rates. I don’t even have an estimate on hand for what it would cost the VA to administer health care to all of those wounded and suffering from PTSD but my guess is that dollar figure would also be astronomical.

The point I’m trying to make here with all of this mind-numbing math is that a TRUE CONSERVATIVE should hate John McCain for his Iraq war policy alone. We’re just not getting a good return on our investment in Iraq, and the question every American should ask themselves is how much are we willing to spend to keep that country “stable” and our country safe? For $1.5 trillion, we could probably build a retractable roof over the entire country! And what about the economic and social cost of all of these children who no longer have fathers or mothers?

Besides his views on Iraq, John McCain is reasonably palatable for any moderate, Independent, and even some liberals or progressives. He has demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle in order to get things done. He has demonstrated his love for country by enduring over five years of captivity and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese. He is not a “Bushie,” so it’s reasonable to expect that he won’t populate his staff and cabinet with a slew of Neo-Cons.

But I still think he’s unelectable, even with the reluctant support of the GOP hardliners. And here’s where I’ll introduce my Immutable Axiom of Presidential Voting Patterns: at the end of the day, people vote for candidates they know and like. Jimmy Carter was likeable. Reagan more so. Mondale was not. Dukakis was not. Bush Sr., not likeable, but we knew from Reagan. Clinton was likeable. Plus, he put money into the pockets of the middle class, and they won’t ever forget that. Bush, people knew from his daddy. Plus he had that regular-guy charm. Gore was unlikeable. Kerry was unlikeable. McCain is not…

He’s winning primaries right now because people know him and trust his experience over the other guys. As for the General, I think if it’s McCain-Obama, Obama wins hands down due to the likeability factor, which I think trumps familiarity. If that is the matchup, it will be very familiar in tone to the Clinton-Bush or Clinton-Dole matchups, in which Bill’s charisma won over voters feeling uninspired by Bush Sr or bored to tears by Beltway-insider Dole’s dry rhetoric. If it’s McCain-Clinton, it will be closer, due to the hatred people have for Hillary, but ultimately McCain’s unlikeability will outweigh his familiarity factor. And in the privacy of the voting booth, moderates and Independents will wistfully remember the fiscal abundance and worldwide respect that America enjoyed during the Clinton years and throw the election her way, despite the much balley-hooed “unification” of the Republican party that will occur if her name is on the ballot.

…They might even remember her hubby’s election theme song, perhaps retitled to fit the retrospective they hope will occur when voters consider her candidacy: “Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday.”