This is the second of a weekly series of public forums on TMB. Watch for a new round every Monday (used to be every Wednesday). The schedule and important comment rules regarding these forums are available here.
The big question right now regarding the presidential election concerns the vice-presidency. Obviously, the dominant issue is the Obama-Clinton situation. For Latter-day Saints, there is also the issue of a possible McCain-Romney (or McCain-Huckabee) ticket. In our previous forum, some had expressed that a certain VP choice from their preferred candidate would cause them to withdraw their support. Clearly, there is a lot to talk about.
There’s a nice interactive summary on CNN that highlights the pros and cons for each candidate’s prominent VP choices.
Here are some of the names that stand out to me:
McCain
- Mitt Romney (helpful economically, and for votes in Nevada and Michigan — but the Bible Belt?)
- Charlie Crist (he’s just a friendly looking guy isn’t he? it doesn’t hurt that he’s the Florida guv either)
- Bobby Jindal (Anderson Cooper: he embodies the 3 things McCain needs: conservative, youthful, diverse)
- Mike Huckabee (the darling of the evangelicals–not to mention Chuck Norris — I love that guy!)
- Condoleeza Rice (oh yeah, well we have an African American and a woman! never mind what she has actually done…)
- Joe Lieberman (excellent icon for post-partisanship — but what happens to the social conservatives?)
- Mark Sanford (a “rock solid conservative,” according to CNN)
Obama
- Hillary Clinton (dream or disaster?)
- Bill Richardson (helpful for Hispanic and New Mexico vote)
- Jim Webb (Huffington Post’s frontrunner — a clear match for Obama’s message)
- Joe Biden (a credible voice for foreign policy — perhaps too tough a talker, though)
- Chuck Hagel (an anti-Iraq Kansas senator — oh, by the way, he’s a Republican)
- Kathleen Sebelius (female replacement for Clinton? would this be a boon or backfire?)
- Mike Bloomberg (pro: he’s a billionaire; con: he’s a billionaire)
- Ed Rendell (Obama needs all the help he can get in PA)
What are your thoughts on the VP hunts? What should the candidates consider? Who would be a great choice? A huge mistake? Who would you like to see, and why? Your predictions? (I predict Bill Richardson and Bobby Jindal, but I’m not all that confident in my choices.)
Also, by way of keeping this somewhat LDS focused: Do we really want Romney back in the spotlight? Would this be good or bad for the Church? Does it matter?
Just a reminder: Stay on topic and be respectful (comment policy). Also, it’s fine to continue to comment on previous forums. They are meant to be ongoing.
Please don’t be afraid to chime in with your thoughts!
Filed under: Obama vs. McCain | Tagged: Bill Richardson, Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Chuck Hagel, Condoleeza Rice, Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Kathleen Sebelius, LDS, Mark Sanford, McCain, Mike Bloomberg, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormons, Obama, Obama-Clinton, Politics, VP |
Thinking in a Marrow Bone 
Without picking favorites, I will say that the veep selection will reveal a lot about how the respective candidates will attempt to govern. If either picks a center leaning running mate, it will let the wings of the parties know how much control they may have.
Now to pick favorites: Go Romney! I really like everything I hear about Jindal, but he doesn’t have enough experience yet. Just because he has won one election and says all the right things, doesn’t mean I want him one heartbeat from the presidency…yet.
The reason I like Romney is his strength on economics. The US has the second highest corporate taxes in the developed world. That drives business overseas and weakens the dollar, causing commodity prices to increase (oil, food, etc.) and inflation. Romney also has executive experience and can handle being second in line.
Another reason I like Jindal in Lousiana is I want him to clean up that state and show the successes conservatism can have when actually practiced. The last conservative leadership was 1994 with the Contract With America. Before that, it was Reagan. Bush I and Bush II have been conservative on some issues, but the growth of government has been anything but conservative.
As a side note, Huckabee is a snake oil salesman. If he is on the ticket, I will only vote on local stuff. I will leave the presidency blank.
As far as the Church goes, I think any attention the Church gets is good. I would rather be in the news than have people unaware and uninterested. If Romney gets the veep slot, it makes the Church come up more consistently in natural conversation. After reminding my friends of the Church’s political neutrality, I talked to tons of friends about the Chruch down here at A&M. All I have to do is show up and the Church come up as a topic of conversation.
Its a no brainer. Jindal is the best choice for Mccain and with him on the ticket, you will get more then just some excitement rolling out from the conservative base. How often do you see a true conservative who’s got appeals for the youth and the minority votes? Jindal also has articulated some awsome energy and reform stands that will impress independent minded folks who are frustrated with the gridlocks. Jindal is the only VP choice I know that will be the darling of the church goers, impressed by the independents and embraced by the youth and minorities. You can’t loose with this guy…..his face shows diversity and his visions shows of revolutionized reformist ideals………….Mccain was right. Jindal is not only the future from the republican party but he’s the future of America!
My worry about Romney (as far as Church PR goes) is that the VP is typically the “attack dog,” and I see no reason why that would be any different this election. From the moment Romney dropped out of the race, his rhetoric has been exclusively focused on Obama and Clinton — now only Obama. Romney ticked off a lot of people with his rhetoric and motives in this regard — people see it as setting in motion what is essentially an attack campaign, and this is certainly what McCain’s campaign is turning into (see my most recent comment in the Round 1 forum). When Romney’s on the attack, he is arrogant , out of touch, and smug. I don’t think this is the face we want on the highest profile member of our Church. One thing to keep in mind, also, is that the future growth of the Church in the United States is more likely to come from liberals and moderates than conservatives (in my opinion).
I think Jim Webb would be a terrific running mate for Obama, although I do have concerns whether he would be a “team player.”
For McCain, Jindal would be a great selection. He’s put some good things in motion in his short career. He would also represent a youthful counter to Obama. There is no way McCain selects Romney – those guys hate each other, and Romney wouldn’t bring any meaningful voting block that he can’t already win I don’t think. I mentioned this in Round 1, but I would love Sarah Palin from Alaska (Governor) as McCain’s VP. If people aren’t familiar with her, check her out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin. I’m not wild about her NRA affiliation (I’m afraid of being shot), but she’s young and down to earth, and seems to actually practice conservative economic principles (this is important to me – if you want to do the conservative thing and cut taxes, that’s great, but there must must MUST be an accompanying reduction in spending, which Palin gets) as well as conservative social principles. And, let’s face it – she’s waaaaaaaaay better looking than our past few VPs. She also has by far the highest approval rating of any elected official, and she’s maintained that standing since she took office and has experience working with oil conservation. I’ve discussed before how Huckabee gives me nightmares. Chuck Norris can roundhouse me until Friday and Colbert and Stewart and Conan can argue about who “made” Huckabee like crazy and I’m still not going to feel good about the guy.
As for Obama, he can’t go with Hillary. His whole campaign has been about change in government and seperating himself from the Bush and Clinton legacies – in a way, the presence of Hillary Clinton as his opponent made his campaign message stronger because it could unite people dissatisfied with either of our past two Presidents. By selecting Hillary, he abandons the strength of his campaign. Bill Richardson is intriguing I guess, but he seems like almost an easy pick. Bloomberg would really surprise me. The one I like most from that group is Biden. I think he’s a good compliment to Obama, and has tons of experience. He’s quotable, and is an energy guy, although I disagree with some of his views.
So, my picks are –
McCain and Palin
Obama and Biden
I think we would have good, balanced leadership with either pairing, which is a best case scenario that never happens in politics. The nightmare involves Huck and Hill.
Two other things – I don’t want Romney involved any further. When he bowed out he played the fear mongering card, which along with Dennis I feel is abhorrent. It’s despicable and the only place it has in politics is when the true point isn’t strong enough to pursuade people’s opinions. He should be embarassed.
Tony, I’m really confused about what you see as the reasons for the weakening of the dollar. Check out http://www.chicagofed.org/consumer_information/strong_dollar_weak_dollar.cfm for what I mean. This article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago outlines really well what strengthens and weakens a currency. See below:
Factors Contributing to a Strong Currency
Higher interest rates in home country than abroad
Lower rates of inflation
A domestic trade surplus relative to other countries
A large, consistent government deficit crowding out domestic borrowing
Political or military unrest in other countries
A strong domestic financial market
Strong domestic economy/weaker foreign economies
No record of default on government debt
Sound monetary policy aimed at price stability.
Factors Contributing to a Weak Currency
Lower interest rates in home country than abroad
Higher rates of inflation
A domestic trade deficit relative to other countries
A consistent government surplus
Relative political/military stability in other countries
A collapsing domestic financial market
Weak domestic economy/stronger foreign economies
Frequent or recent default on government debt
Monetary policy that frequently changes objectives
Rutkowski:
Thanks for the link for Sarah Palin. I hadn’t heard of her. But she looks like she could be a very good potential VP for McCain. Her experience in energy conservation could be particularly appealing. She was even born in Sandpoint, Idaho, and graduated from the University of Idaho! (my home state). I do wonder, though, about her relative lack of experience, and I also wonder about whether McCain would receive flack for picking a female or minority candidate (like Jindal). I wonder if he would be seen as doing what is politically inconvenient, rather than picking the best person for the job. But this problem (as well as the experience problem) might be minor compared to the gains that might come with a candidate like Palin or Jindal.
I would be quite pleased, I think, with Biden as Obama’s VP. He has about as much foreign policy experience as anyone in the Senate (I think), and he would temper views of an Obama administration being inexperienced and hard to predict. He does kind of represent the Democratic establishment, though (sort of), which might hurt him. All in all, I wouldn’t be terribly be surprised if Biden is the one.
From what I’ve seen so far (I honestly don’t know a ton about the prospective VPs) Webb and Richardson look promising for Obama. I can’t see Hillary Clinton as the choice. It just seems like, in Hillary and Bill’s eyes anyway, that VP Hillary+ former president Bill Clinton together=President. Obama doesn’t need them trying to do his job.
For McCain, Jindal is definitely smart and promising but he’s a month younger than me! Definitely too young. I don’t want Romney (this is a little more personal than anything). I can’t take however many more months of Romney talk in Utah, and the idea that our country will implode if Romney isn’t at least VP. Romney bugs me, I admit. He’s that self-righteous guy at church you just want to smack. And the way he constantly comes down on Obama’s foreign policy is funny since he has no more experience at this than Obama has.
On a side note, I just want to say thanks Dennis for setting up this forum. I’m mostly just a reader but it is so great to have a place where Mormons who aren’t politically conservative can have a voice.
Oh and I totally agree with Dennis and Rutkowski on the Romney fear mongering thing. His speech at CPAC was totally shameless pandering.
For McCain, I actually think his best bet is Tim Pawlenty. Good provide some pull in Minnesota & Wisconsin. He is also young and articulate which McCain seriously needs. Though I’m not sure if Minnesota and Wisconsin may be too liberal in a year that almost promises to be a fullscale republican slaughter.
For Obama, I think Sebelius is the best choice, though any governor would do. She’s probably the least controversial pick and would actually set the tone of the election to change and economics. She also has a realistic shot at Kansas where McCain is polling very very poorly. If not flipping Kansas, making it competitive which would drain some of the GOP’s funds that it needs for other states. She could also flip Missouri as well.
Regarding the political inexperience of people like Obama, Jindal, Palin…
I view this as a strength. Life long politicians scare me, political families scare me even more. I just have the belief that to be succesful in politics your hands get soiled inevitably. The longer you’re in, the worse it becomes. If you’re born into it, you’re raised in a soiled environment.
Obama, Jindal and Palin just haven’t had as much time to get dirty. Each have evidence in their political careers that they’re capable, and hopefully they haven’t been in long enough to get dragged down by political machines.
Here’s a brief post from The Atlantic about how Romney as the VP might make a difference for McCain in terms of getting Mormon votes.
Here’s a relevant Deseret News (“Mormon Times”) article (from February) about how Romney’s presidential run has affected the Church (for good and ill).
Rutkowskilives,
All the items you cite back up my assertion that high corporate taxes weaken the dollar. Capital today is highly mobile. It will seek its best opportunity for growth. Economic growth requires an economy to have high infusions of capital. More money brings investments in hard assets and more jobs and a higher demand for labor. Either a strong or weak economy is a self-perpetuating cycle until the fundamentals change.
“A strong domestic financial market” deals with the with the availability of credit, but also expectations of growth in the stock market. “Strong domestic economy/weaker foreign economies” is the comparative relationship between countries. The US needs to have better growth prospects, lower inflation, and higher interest rates compared to other countries. Until recently, these were all true even with higher corporate taxes.
This ideal circumstance creates foreign exchange demand for the US Dollar. People in London, Tokyo, etc. bought dollars to invest here. The higher demand for the dollar increases its value. Because the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to die soon, the value of US investments is lower. In anticipation of that tax change investors sell dollars now to avoid the taxes that will soon increase.
I suppose these arguments should wait for the economics week, but this is part of the reason I like Romney. He gets it, economically speaking. (I loved Romney’s CPAC speech. I also don’t usually post on blogs that much, but I figure there should be at least one dissenting voice here to give both sides a chance.) In the end, I don’t think Romney will be McCain’s choice.
I will say that I like Palin – a lot. I want to drill in Alaska, and she would give McCain a very good reason to change his stance on ANWR. Drilling would essentially be like putting an airport in South Carolina. The environmental impact would be zilch. We have access to tons of oil and drilling in the US would buy us some time to develop more efficient technology.
Tony,
I am certainly in favor of getting oil from Alaska as opposed to the Middle East. I think you are definitely right here.
The more I think about it, the more I think Palin would be an excellent choice for McCain.
The same goes for Biden with Obama. I think I’ll change my vote :)
McCain needs youth, diversity, and economic support; Obama needs experience, stability, and foreign policy support.
Tony,
The “increase spending while decreasing taxes” policies of the Republicans weaken the dollar as well. Romney’s endless tax cuts ideas don’t help that. It’s time for America to start being responsible. No more tax cuts until we get on a systematic debt reduction program.
Tax cuts and Tony
Tax cuts comment got to the heart of my greater point. I agree with everything Tony said and I “get it” in terms of international and domestic finances, or at the very least am familiar with the concepts and mechanisms that go into making it work.
However, and this gets to the crux of my big issue with so called Conservative economics (or rather, how it’s currently actually played out), if you want the tax cuts, there must be an accompanying reduction in spending. That hasn’t happened in the latest administration, and that’s problematic; the money for the overspending must come from somewhere, and it has come from foreign capital. On the surface Tony, given the fluidity of currency, that wouldn’t seem to matter, but it places the valuation of the dollar in a scary place. I recommend reading Biography of the Dollar by Craig Karmin to see what I mean. Part of the book discusses currency trading, and how foreign governments were eager to seize US debt and currency for its stability. It has reached a point where such a great percentage of the printed US cash in the world is held by foreign government’s that if they ever decide to sell back the currency in great quantities it could completely devalue the dollar. There are incentives for them to not do this, but those incentives erode as our dollar becomes less valuable, and that rocking stability ties back into the massive debt the nation is carrying.
I feel the harsh economic reality the US is facing now dictates that whichever leader emerges as President will immediately be faced with the necessity to raise taxes in the short term. Large growth cannot be sustained through irresponsible means. The piper must be paid.
look, on the republican side, if mccain isnt stupid he will pick romney, he can deliver michigan, the bible belt, and help in many western states where mormon population is high. as well, obama has trouble in massachusstes for some reason, he could possibly help compete there as well, though Massachusetts hasnt gone red is how long? years, still if obama has to pay money to defend massachusetts thats less he has for battleground states like ohio and florida.
for the democrats, i dont see how we go on without hillary, its about 1/2 the party we are [ticking] off here. you cant just throw another women up there, it would just be patrinizing. she is crediable she provides experience. how does she go against change? she is a women! but if not her, deffinitly web, he could deliver virgina possibly and i like is GI bill.
i forgot other things to mention, silly me.
Biden’s been a Washington fixture for 36 years, and supported the war resolution., how does that go with obama’s theme of change? secondly if he picks hillary, and he cant just seperate himself from mccain on the war issue right away ” im agaionst it hes for it” obama is in some deep political trouble
secondly on the theroy of change, most, infact almost all democrats look back on clinton years with fondness. we dont attribute political corruption to democrats, its the eight years of being lied to, of poluting and destroying ameircas prestige.
lastly, none of these other people have been supported by 17 million people. and just after obama’s victory and hillaries concession, there were rumblings ni congress(hence the super delegates) to support the unity team, espicaly among those in hilaries camp, but hillary slowed the roar by urging her supporters not to pressure obama.
Shane,
I have a hard time seeing how Romney will make a positive difference in the Bible Belt. If anything, he will hurt McCain there — the Bible Belt, with its suspicion for Mormons, is the region where Romney did the worst (I think). Also, I don’t think Obama will have to pay any attention to Massachusetts, with or without Romney on the opposing ticket. If it wasn’t a winner-take-all electoral process, then maybe it could make a difference.
Regarding Clinton, I don’t think it’s enough to say that she represents change simply because she’s a woman.
i see your point on romney, in the bible belt.
but in massachusetts, obama will probably still win, but its to mccain’s advantage if obama has to spend money there to protect it. right now their govenor patrick deval, who ran a campaign similar to obama’s on hope, has his popularity dipping and so is obama’s. im just saying it will be a state, with romney on mccains ticket , mccain can push for and keep obama out of states like ohio, florida, michigan.
on clinton, i said she fits with the message because she is a women, i do understand her name may lead to the legacy feel, but she brings much needed political experience
Shane,
You may be right on how a McCain-Romney ticket would put a little more pressure on Obama in Massachusetts. He also may help in Michigan and Nevada (especially Nevada — McCain will take Nevada with Romney hands down).
But I think Charlie Crist, who will bring big gains in Florida, would be a better choice — at least in terms of direct effects to toss-up states.
yeah, that is a good point dennis
Update about Sarah Palin. She says that she thinks it is a long shot for her to be asked to be VP. Maybe sometime in the future, but not now. Click here for video.
Looks like Jim Webb is out of the running for Obama’s VP. He said he would decline the offer if asked. Click here for more info (from CNN).
Also, Romney will be on CNN’s The Situation Room tomorrow (Tuesday, July 8). You can submit him a video question here.
Mccain Jindal all the way. I think Mccain needs to throw some fire into this campaign and Jindal is exactly the kind of fire he needs. Mccain’s got the experience, respect and wisdom factors down…he just needs a good statesmen to deliver and emphasis the core messages that he has not been able to do…Jindal fits this bill to the T. Jindal is young, brilliant, articulate, defends his positions better then anyone I know, stern, high moral values, has tenacity and a genius mind to back up all of the above. Mccain was right….Jindal is not only the future of the GOP party…he’s american’s future. There should be more Jindals out in washington. How radical is this….effective leadership over over inflated rehorics.
There is a very interesting op-ed piece in the Boston Globe today by Todd Domke about how Romney (though he would raise tons of money as VP) would do more harm than good as McCain’s VP.
Domke’s reasons:
1. Romney flipped from moderate to die-hard conservative, and now he’ll have to flip back to moderate. This will certainly look disingenuous and make Romney (and McCain) lose credibility.
2. Romney would help on the economy, but he also would serve to make McCain look bad on the economy (as well as old and ugly).
Also, Romney’s economic expertise will not be very flattering to moderates and Democrats, who see Romney as successful because of his “slashing jobs, closing plants, and moving production overseas.”
3. McCain doesn’t need Romney’s religious baggage.
I disagree here; I think that Romney’s Mormonism is a much smaller thing for Democrats than it is for Republicans. However, you almost certainly will have idiot Democrats who will make an issue of it, probably through subtle innuendo (like we saw with Al Sharpton and Romney during the primaries).
4. Romney won’t help in winning independents.
5. Romney is not the reformer that McCain needs.
However, it appears that Jindal has taken himself out of the running. Right now, I’m putting my money on Pawlenty.
And the winner is … Joe Biden!
You were right Rutkowski. (And so was I, after I changed my pick once.)
I’d be curious to hear what people think about this choice. I know people have said that Biden contradicts Obama’s message of change, but I disagree. A person who really wants change hopefully will be tempered somewhat by someone like Biden anyway. I think Obama’s choice reflects good judgment, and he has truly picked the best person, even if it is not the most popular pick or will best help him win the election.
On the GOP side, rumor has it that Romney may be the one … Though I think it still may be Tim Pawlenty. I sure hope it’s not Romney, if for no other reason than it will give a whole lot of Mormons an excuse to not be critical about who to vote for this November. I know, I’m sure there are Mormons who really did want Romney irrespective of his being LDS — but his overwhelming support (financial and primary vote) in Utah suggests that he was a knee-jerk pick for a lot of uncritical Latter-day Saints. I’m afraid the same will happen if Romney is VP. I also worry what a Romney VP (whether McCain wins or not) will communicate about the Church. He’s been quite an uncharitable bully towards Obama, and I wonder if this demeanor is what we want our most visible public representative communicating to the world (especially considering that most of our converts are likely to come from more liberal or moderate quarters in the U.S.–think big cities). But I’m focusing on the negative — surely there would be some positive.
[…] Posted on August 23, 2008 by Dennis I just left the following comment on the McCain vs. Obama VP forum. I’d like to hear what you think about it, but I’ve closed comments on this post and am […]
I must say, it is quite amusing how close Obama Biden is to Osama bin Laden. I’m sure you’ll hear this tossed around all the time. No doubt, there will be some radical conservatives who will say that it is not a coincidence. He who has eyes to see will see this for what it really is! (This is so amusing, as if the devil who loves to hide himself is not content with his Antichrist having an unsuspicious or ordinary name.)
I am thrilled with the choice of Biden. I have long found him to be reasonable and intelligent. Biden truly does have the foreign policy experience and perspective. I would also have liked Bill Richardson.
Biden deflates the change message along with the age message. He was elected to the Senate when Obama was 11. He is only six years younger than McCain. It also hurts him on his Iraq meme (Biden voted for the War), but I think he has been turning away from that anyway now that the country is improving.
I’m just happy that Obama didn’t pick Clinton. Now I’m not sure the Democratic party will ever totally heal before the election. It’s a tough year for Republicans, we need all the help we can get.
Dennis, if you think Romney is uncharitable, what do you think about Senator Harry Reid?
Aluwid,
I have no interest in defending Harry Reid. I am not a Democrat. I will say that I was impressed with a forum address he gave at BYU a while back, but this was largely non-political.
I do think that Reid’s statement about not standing John McCain was out of line. At any rate, Reid’s Mormonism is not nearly as visible as Romney’s. This says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of either’s actions, it is simply to say that Romney will be more in the limelight as a Mormon — for good or for ill. I personally am upset at many things that Romney has said, as well as his endorsing McCain for purely negative reasons (he turned a lot of people off with his campaign resignation speech).
Hillary could have perhaps made a dream ticket, but she ruined it for herself by creating party disunity. Honestly, it would have been hard to imagine she and Obama working together without being at each other’s throats. I think that’s the main reason why he didn’t pick her. If it hadn’t been for those personality conflicts, she could have been great. She’s been an avid fighter for health care, she appeals to many middle class, especially women, and her experience as first-lady would have undoubtedly been an asset in an international setting — although just how much of an asset it is can be argued. Also, all those Hillary voters who are currently sitting on the fence probably wouldn’t be.
So, I think that Obama made a good choice with Biden, but it could have been better with Hillary if things hadn’t gotten so ugly between them in the primaries. Romney may have a bit of the same problem if McCain picks him (I’m sure the Dems will dig up old dirty things they had to say about each other in the primaries), but Romney got out early enough to not cause the amount of damage to party unity that Hillary did in her own party.
I think McCain and Romney will be able to work together and get along ok — as long as McCain’s mom doesn’t show up. :)
VP choice for McCain is …
Sarah Palin!
Looks like you’ve had your way on both fronts, Rutkowski. Nice picking!!
I thought for sure it was going to be Romney …
I’m glad it’s not.
For some info on Palin, see Rutkowkilive’s first comment for this post.