Redstate

If McCain needs help with moderates and independents, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

You didn't answer any of our arguments against her being a 2k8 pick, and didn't substantiate you own very well either.

I think that she is the besy candidate.

The key voters in this election will be in states such as PA, MI, OH, MN, WI, etc.

I know a lot of people here (moderators included), have an infatuation with guys like Sanford and Portman. They have impeccable conservative credentials. They also will be no help in winning the voters we need to win. It seems to me that many on this site (including moderators) think that we can fight the battles of 2000 and 2004. If we do that, and we get the turnout we did in those elections (which was near record for total number of Republican votes), we will loose in a landslide.

As Adam C has mentioned, the Republican brand has been damaged, and more and more people who descibed themselves as Republicans in the past now consider themselves to be independent.

Also, we can not count on the Dem's conceding the three "G's" (Guns, God, and Gays) like they have in the past - in fact they are goping out of their way tomake sure that they do not show up on the wrong side of those issues (Rev. Wright notwithstanding).

The only Democrat since 1980 to break out of the Democrat "McGovern Coalition" was Clinton, who chose Al Gore as his running mate - a centrist Southern Democrat. It reinforced for voters in swing states a break from the McGovern coalition.

McCain needs to pick someone different, who has executive experience. To me, the one's who could help are Huntsman (the Mountain West is no longer an automatic set of red states), Jindal (exciting background story, and shows that the GOP is not just the party of country club whites), and Palin, who would really help us out with the blue collar voters, and those who believe government is broken and that it needs to be fixed.

Sanford has limited appeal for those who are already going to vote for us. Pawlenty might not be able to win his home state, and has little appeal outside of that area. If Portman was really that popular in Ohio, he would already be Governor or US Senator.

The fact is that we are in the minority in terms of party registration, and if we are to win, we have to sell some of the independents and Democrats on why they should vote for us. It is our obligation to meet them if we want their votes, and the first step of that process is to recognise that they want someone different this year. McCains first decision will be closely watched to see if he has heard them.

By the way, I did not see any problem with IR-MN's tone, but it did seem that the Moderators jumped him pretty quick, and wanted to snuff out his viewpoints.

I am a fan of Sarah Palin. Even met her last year. She has tremendous long term potential.

But she is 44 years old and has been governor of America's fourth smallest (in population) and most remote state for 17 months. Before that she was mayor of a town of 5,000.

Though she should be considered a serious next-generation GOP star, she is absolutely unqualified to be on a national ticket in 2008.

In your above post, it appeared to me that you called out IR-MN's original post:

"You didn't answer any of our arguments against her being a 2k8 pick, and didn't substantiate you own very well either."

to which IR-MN replied:

"Being petulant won't bring people to your side Jeff"
"I was answering issues relating to her status as a new mother by bring an article to people's attention. If you can't read it, then that's your problem. And Sarah is doing pretty well in the VP madness poll, so take that as you may."

Jeff, I would say that your response came off as a little dismissive. You have right to do that. However, if you do choose to go that route, IR-MN can characterize (in good taste) your response as he see's fit, which he did.

The part that I thought was over the line was Moe's response to IR-MN that he "should mind his tone", and following threat to disable his account, which I take from Moe's comment, "Click. That was me flicking the switch on your account to off.", actually occurred.

I do not know quite how to take Moe's response. I think the comments between you and IR-MN were between yourselves, and it seemed you tried to refocus on the exchange of ideas with this comment:

"Your account's back on, etc., etc. I understand your post; the problem is, you're not making an argument that is persuasive in the least. The question isn't one of how fast she went back to work after each of her last two children; we know that. Further, it's not a question of appealing to moderates and independents -- McCain's last eight years have been geared toward making that appeal."

"If you'll look over the rationale we've explained for not thinking its her time, I believe you'll find it to be better substantiated, better argued, and more persuasive than your piece above, which largely consisted of deflecting other opinions without actually answering the very real questions."

At this point I had no problem's with the exchange between Jeff and IR-MN (other than Jeff's original comments came off as a little dismissive).

Yet Moe couldn't leave it alone:

"Jeff, I don't think that the lesson took."
"You want I should reapply it?"

Given Jeff's standing here, it hardly seems that he would need someone to defend him. Yet Moe was ... positively gallant on Jeff's behalf, like Prince Charming galloping in on his steed to save the damsel in distress. I am not sure why Moe would think that is necessary. Perhaps he feels a Chris Matthews type urge to be gallant on Jeff's behalf? Perhaps he wants to ask Jeff to the prom? Perhaps Moe is already try to decide between a pin-on or a wrist corsage (go for the wrist, it avoids the embarrassing situation in front of the mother and father)?

Now, Moe, I do not know if your comments were in jest, or possibly just facetious. If so, then I am sure you will find the humor in my spin on the situation.

Now, to the question at hand.

Truman had no executive experience before becoming VP for a crippled and sickly FDR. In fact many believed he had no really legislative experience either, and that he was merely the "Senator from Pendergast". He ended up as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

Teddy Roosevelt had served for 2 years as the governor of New York. He had briefly been Secretary of the Navy, and legislator for the State of New York (in either case, "briefly" may not to justice to the true brevity of those positions - if you blinked, you missed him). Yet TR is on Mount Rushmore.

If you want another face from Rushmore, Lincoln had several terms in the frontier era Illinois legislature, and one ill fated term in the US House, and was out of office for 11 years when elected to the Presidency.

GHW Bush had served two terms in the US House, and was most famous in elective politics for his losses. He had several appointments (CIA, Ambassador to China) largely as a reward for loyalty and hard work for the party, but neither was even Cabinet level. He had no elected executive experience when named Reagan's VP candidate.

Dan Quayle - nuff said.

Dick Cheney had been a very young chief of staff for Ford, served several terms in the house, and was in 41's cabinet, but had no elected executive experience, in a year when the Republican depth was at it's deepest (Engler, Thompson, Wilson, Whitman, Raccicot, Ridge, as well as many highly regarded Senators).

Nixon had two terms in the House, and was in the first two years of his first Senate term. If experience had been the most important attribute in that election, Earl Warren would have been the nominee (there has been speculation that he got Chief Justice as compensation for being passed over).

There is no historical basis for making the claim that the GOP chooses it's vice presidential candidates based on experience. It is always about finding the best fit for the circumstances.

In 1952, Eisenhower went with a young and inexperienced Nixon because Nixon was from California (the fastest growing state in the Union), and he was born in the 20th century - an important issue for the "Greatest Generation" (no, it was not about HUAC - there were other well known members of the committee - and a self confident counsel named Robert Kennedy).

Reagan chose Bush because he needed credibility in the northeast (yes, Virginia, prior to 1980 the south was considered good territory for the Democrats, and the Northeast was crucial for a Republican victory), whose populace - it was feared - remembered Reagan from "Beadtime for Bonzo" and "Boraxo 20 Mule Train".

41 chose Quayle because he was young.

43 chose Cheney because he had beltway experience (remember, though, he had been in the private sector for eight years), and would not want to run for the presidency himself - according to many accounts, this was the most important consideration.

Based on history, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to say that experience has always been an important consideration for VP in general, and for the GOP selections specifically.

nt