Results tagged “VP” from ElectionObsession

And while on Frum's pages, his prior post is titled 'Can this marriage be saved?' The 'marriage' to which he refers is the post-Reagan GOP coalition of religious Christianist idealogues and small-government economic conservatives, which has at the very least won the last two elections for the Republicans.

It's a good question, and it's a complicated marriage. The question I would ask in reply is, "Has this been a marriage of convenience or convergence?" That is to say, did this coalition form because there's significant overlap between Team Values and Team Taxcut? Or did the coalition form because each of these two sides, with little in common, used the other to achieve its goals?

I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that if Frum's "Reader A" and, say, Andrew Sullivan are any indication, Team Taxcut has started to treat this as an open marriage.

And that doesn't bode well for McCain. You can see evidence of this in the fact that the GOP "base" that was "electrified" by the choice of Sarah Palin for VP consisted largely of Team Values. Team Taxcut? Not so much.

The National Review's David Frum is one of the few righties taking a sober approach to the GOP's nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President. He frets — and with good reason — over the notion of such a foreign policy ingenue having to step in as President.

Last night, Frum highlighted an e-mail from an independent that bodes poorly for the McCain-Palin ticket:

I started the cycle with the idea that if I could at all find a palatable Democrat, I’d vote for him. (Not her, because not a fan of Hillary). I also hoped that the Republicans would nominate McCain because he had an image that was distinct from the Republican party that I felt duty-bound to reject. … What I want to report to you, though, is the deep disappointment I’ve had in McCain. I had thought that this was going to be the happy year where either outcome was pretty good. I no longer feel that way. ... Not only was this choice [of Sarah Palin] irresponsible, I suspect it is also politically tone deaf. Obama’s campaign has been premised on an appeal to voters exactly like me – voters who want a politics that does not so obviously delight in wallowing in the mud. If there are a lot of Independents like me, Palin is a disaster. She’s just performed what it is that is driving us from the Republicans. She’s running against hope and the notion that we need civility in our political life. She’s running against the notion that we ought to hold our fellow Americans in respect whether they come from small towns or big towns.

We will see how this plays out. Pro-life though I am; appalled by the social liberalism of the Democrats as I am; I really, really, really don’t want to live in an America that is capable of preferring that kind of ugly divisiveness to a genuine engagement with the serious issues that confront us all. This is not the time for spitball. It is the time for serious leadership. ... I want to come home to the Republicans. Right now I expect that it’ll be a good long while before that’s possible.

Somebody clearly trained Sarah Palin to stop saying nook-ya-ler since Friday.

The tone of the coverage about her has changed overnight since her speech - even on the BBC this morning, I'd say there's about 90% less skepticism about her candidacy. And as for any illusions about Palin dropping out, I'd say you can kiss them goodbye. She's not going anywhere. Most of the lefty coverage focuses on the GOP giving up on issues altogether and turning this into 2004 again. It may work, and it may not, but barring some kind of smoking gun evidence that she committed a crime or had an abortion, McCain is going to stick with her. And why shouldn't he? She might be his most formidable weapon. McCain's threshold for VP has changed from "ready to be President on day one" to "ready to be attack dog on day one." Maybe he's a more astute evaluator of political talent than anybody gave him credit for.

They've basically dared the media to bring it on and try to find something disqualifying about her. And they've clearly made the calculation that nothing that's emerged thus far is disqualifying, at least to the extent that they'd be willing to take the hit of her withdrawal. I doubt anything disqualifying will emerge.

We're going to be seeing a lot of what we saw last night over the next 2 months. "Community organizer" is the new black. They'll run against Obama as if he's a lightweight, and they'll run against Bush as if he were a Democrat for the last 8 years. And make no mistake about it: Palin is precisely the right candidate to help him run that race.

I'll reiterate the Tracey Flick thing - I couldn't stop thinking about it throughout her entire speech. She's fueled by ambition, she's Machiavellian - she even has the same accent and verbal/facial tic.

Even if the Republicans don't win this election, Democrats have much to fear from Mrs. Palin in the future.

I've not commented on the Biden choice because, frankly, I'm not sure yet what I think. I'm waiting for his speech tonight.

My current feeling is that I'm not so sure a 65-year-old white guy with 36 years in the Senate is the guy you want to reinforce your message of "Change you can believe in." And if that's no longer the Obama-Biden campaign's message, what is?

Attack dogs are fine and good, but a running mate can't attack alone. I believe they have to fit in to the greater context of the campaign, and I, at this point, don't see how he does.

Somewhere around March 4th of this year, I started to feel a visceral hatred for all things Clinton. Hillary overstayed her welcome during the primary campaign, there is no question. But here we are, in the waning hours before Obama's veep choice, and deep inside, I'm rooting for him to pick Hillary.

Why? Nate Silver says it best.

Just wanted to go on the record before he sends out his text to the masses.