McCain rejects Kerry's veep overture

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:32 am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

...Kerry stopped short of offering McCain the job, sparing himself an outright rejection that would make his eventual running mate look like a second choice.

My minimal respect for my party's apparent presidential nominee just went down a few notches. He can't even commit to picking a running mate.

What's wrong with creating a list of possible VP's, ranking them based on a set of criteria then offering the job to the guy on top of the list. If he says no move to the next guy.

Why does politics have to be so picture erfect. That's not real life.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:21 pm

McCain's already a Democrat in everything but name. This just would have been the last straw

.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:37 pm

Why, just because he doesn't fall in lock step with the rest of them?

The main 'democratic' thing he has done is disagree with Bush's tax cut. But this is only because he thinks we need to pay for this war instead of passing the bill onto my generation.

god forbid.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:10 pm

No, he's repeated the (Democratic) party line of "no tax cuts for the wealthy."

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:26 pm

And, he's about as left-wing (God forbid

) as you can get.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:32 pm

The speculation that there might be a Kerry/McCain ticket has only hurt Kerry. I think I saw a poll that put Kerry/McCain at like 65%. That's pretty big. But the ticket was never likely, so Kerry and his folks should have nipped the media speculation in the bud months ago. It can only be a let down when Kerry picks his runningmate, and it doesn't poll as high.

He just needs to announce Wes Clark as his runningmate and be done with it.

*edit - McCain is left wing?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:45 pm

Actually the answer is that McCain has already publically stated he would NOT be Kerry's v.p..

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:56 pm

I agree with Jeff in that this is only harming the Democrats. Regardless of whether McCain would be good for the ticket, the continuing courtship of a Republican when there are more than enough Democrat hopefuls just reinforces both the *me-too* aspect of Kerry's campaign and underscores the seemingly shallow field of applicants from within their own party. What would once have guaranteed a boost in the polls is now likely to appear to be a let-down.

I think Kerry's vanity is getting in the way of his decision. Traditionally, candidates try not to be upstaged by a better-liked VP candidate or one that is better defined within the American psyche. In my opinion, Kerry himself is still very undefined and I believe his campaign realizes that. The delay is likely due to them waiting until they are reasonably certain Kerry has been fully *explained* to the American public before he introduces a running mate that may be better liked. Face it, John isn't giving anyone--left or right--a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Unfortunately with so much going on in Iraq/Reagan/Etc., John is finding himself sidelined away from the front pages and lead stories, and is struggling to increase his exposure with little success. I would expect to see some *cramming* beginning mid-July, assuming global events don't continue to overshadow him.

He may have to abandon his desire not to be upstaged by his VP choice and perhaps resort to drastic measures to get more bang for his buck. IMO, with time running down his best chance at making a big splash with a *name* Democrat is if he drops an *H* bomb. So what if she's promised not to abandon NY. The left will forgive her and the right never voted for her anyway.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:31 pm

I can tel you one thing: a Kerry-Clinton ticket would have a much harder time carrying New York than a Kerry-anyone-else ticket.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:53 am

A Kerry/Clinton ticket is only possible in the deep, dark recesses of the conservative psyche. It is a case of if there were no Hillary Clinton, the Right would have to invent her. There is no candidate Hillary, so the right invents her.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:44 am

Is it any different from the left inventing a Kerry-McCain ticket?

Besides, with Kerry now looking like he's been left at the altar by McCain (about four times and counting), his eventual selection demands someone larger than McCain to avoid disappointment.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:17 am

"Is it any different from the left inventing a Kerry-McCain ticket?"

When we're talking about the likelihood of Kerry choosing Clinton, yes, there's a difference. Kerry needs someone that appeals to the middle and to conservatives that are displeased with Bush. Hillary is not that person.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:07 am

That depends on which demographic turns out to hold the greatest number of swing voters. Personally I feel the women's vote will decide this election and Hillary's appeal to women crosses over party lines.

We shall see.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:10 am

And sooo? Just why would Hillary want to tarnish her illustrious self by playing 2nd fiddle to the new JFK when in 4 years she can go for the whole enchilada?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:47 pm

It was just a speculative comment. I'm already on record as predicting Edwards will get the nod. That said, Edwards is definitely a step down from McCain and does little to woo undecided conservatives. But it may boost Kerry in the South (although I doubt it).

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:52 pm

Yeah, Edwards is a possibility. When this whole thing started, my two horses were Kerry and Clark. And if there's anything I've learned from listening to smirk this passed year, it's stay the course! Besides, I think Clark would be more helpful in drawing support from the center and center-right. That, and I'd rather see a Clark/Cheney debate than an Edwards/Cheney debate.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:07 pm

A Clark Cheney debate! Clark would get owned bigtime!!

Clark couldn't even handle softballs from the press on his own positions during the campain. Cheney used to run the defense department when Clark was active duty, no doubt Cheney can access info that will leave Clark stumbling for answers...

Edwards has almost no record in the Senate so he's clean there and he was a sharp trial lawyer, very adept at steering the listeners perception.
He would be the tougher nut to crack in a debate because he's been consistant on his positions and a relatively unknown quantity to Cheney.

Of course, then again, I'm just an air conditioning contractor, what the hell do I know about politics!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:46 pm

And then too with a Cheney/Clark debate we might find out the straight skinny on why Clark was removed from his command in Kosovo.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:52 pm

I think Edwards is needed. He's likeable, clear, and intelligent. He doesn't upstage Kerry (since he lost). He's from the South and I think he would add focus to the campaign. Clarke seems a little more scattered and less composed than Edwards.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:20 pm

I would gladly take the job but no one has offered it to me.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:20 pm

Agreed, both Kerry and Clark are dead fish. Edwards could add a touch of humanity.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:43 am

I would trust Clark's military opinion over Cheney any day. Clark served, Cheney dodged.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:53 am

Serving in the military does not automatically give one the ability to lead it affectively.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:10 am

No it does not. But when you've been promoted to a two star general, is usually means your opinion is somewhat respectable.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:12 pm

And what does it mean when he was removed from his command because he made bad decisions?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:29 pm

Zuruck wrote:No it does not. But when you've been promoted to a two star general, is usually means your opinion is somewhat respectable.

It means you are a good politician. It MAY mean your opinion is respectable.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:42 am

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

There is what NATO has to say about Clark. Looks pretty good, I'm trying to find some stuff about the uh, bad decisions he made that got him removed. If you have anything that's explicit, instead of your own opinion let's see it. Obviously, looking at that sheet, the United States Military, the Pentagon, the DoD all trusted him enough. Jeez, I hope that is enough for you right people )

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:43 am

"Jeez, I hope that is enough for you right people"

Z, he has a fatal flaw for this crowd. He has a (D) after his name.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:51 pm

what a cop-out, Vander... blame the crowd, rather than looking for the information. You're usually better than that...

Anyway... I've seen a number of statements regarding Clark's Kosovo service and removal from command, and suffice it to say, I'd love for him to be Kerry's running mate. :)

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:27 pm

Dedman wrote:Serving in the military does not automatically give one the ability to lead it affectively.

This is a VERY accurate statement......and it does not matter what rank you attained either.......I would love for there to be some great military leader in office everytime. But that is not even remotely necessary for being a good Commander-in-Chief.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:23 am

Lothar, it's hardly a cop-out, unless by cop-out you mean a short, biting statement used to ruffle feathers, named after TheCops.

If Clark had (R) after his name, there are quite a few people here that would give him a lot more benefits of doubt. Why do I think this? George W. Bush.

And this isn't to say the converse isn't also true, that some people (myself included) give more benefits of doubt to people with (D) after their names.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:44 am

Careful handling Clark's (D). The paint might not have dried yet.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:51 am

V, IMO Clark's fatal flaw is not the (D) after his name (Edwards, after all, has a (D) after his name but would be a better choice) -- it's the fact that if he gets the Veep nod, he's going to be going head-to-head with Cheney. Which means, his military record -- including his removal from command in Kosovo -- is going to come up, and quite likely not in a favorable way.

He had a lot of trouble getting a following in the primaries, and he had trouble dealing with pretty soft questions from the press and his opponents during that time. I have a feeling Cheney is going to play hardball, and I don't think Clark will end up looking very good. He brings military experience, but that will be quickly nullified by the whole removed-from-command thing.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:00 pm

bash wrote:Careful handling Clark's (D). The paint might not have dried yet.

LOL...the best comedy has some truth in it...and that one is profoundly funny!

PS: Lieberman was the best candidate the D's have had for the last two cycles.
Of course I'm of the pro pre-emptive terror war mindset so that's why I say that.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:15 pm

so I said in my post in anyone has an actually relevent website with info on Clark being removed, instead of biased opinions, post it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:15 pm

Zuruck why don't you search for it? It was reported in a few different places, interviews with the general who said he didn't want to go into specifics but it had to do with "integrity issues"...

I don't feel like doing your search for you but if you're interested it had to do with 2 things, He went over the head of his commander to the White House to get Clinton to pursue some course of action he thought was correct that his commander had turned down. Clinton went for it and that pissed off his commander...

The other is, he went temporarily insane according to a British Commander who Clark was in charge of via his NATO commander status. Clark asked him to confront the Russian troops with force at an airport in Bosnia. Strictly a pride thing not really strategic since NATO had the air space cut off anyway.
The British commander refused the order on the following grounds, quote: "I won't start world war three for you!"

The Brit wasn't punished and Clark was relieved of duty....you do the math.

BfDiDDy · Post by **BfDiDDy** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:12 am