« 7/28: Talkin' 'Bout Timetables | Main | 7/30: Out Of Context? »

July 29, 2008

7/29: Yes We Kaine?

Like the national press, the political blogosphere is buzzing about potential running mates for Barack Obama. Now that various news organizations are reporting that VA Gov. Tim Kaine is high on Obama's VP shortlist, the netroots are turning their attention to the ex-Richmond mayor. While Markos Moulitsas considers Kaine (along with KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and MO Sen. Claire McCaskill) an "excellent choice," other bloggers are less keen on him. That said, Kaine doesn't appear to draw the same netroots opposition that other VP candidates (such as ex-GA Sen. Sam Nunn, NE Sen. Chuck Hagel, and VA Sen. Jim Webb) have drawn.

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: The Kos Criteria

Daily Kos' Moulitsas offers his thoughts on Obama's running mate possibilities: "Obama is running as an outsider agent of change. His best veep pick would be someone who reinforces that message. Hillary [Clinton] clearly doesn't qualify, nor does anyone in the Senate that was elected earlier than 2004. Any governor fits the bill because they're all, by definition, outside of DC and thus 'outsiders' for purposes of messaging. Of the most recently elected senators, McCaskill completely fits the bill -- a great surrogate for Obama and a fresh face in politics. [...] Of the governors, the two names heard most often are Kansas' Kathleen Sebelius and Virginia's Tim Kaine. Both would be excellent choices -- fresh-faced reformers with the ability to deliver results while operating in Red states with GOP-controlled legislatures. They both complement Obama's message perfectly, and clearly have a good rapport with Barack. Chemistry is important."

Moulitsas continues: "Bill Clinton had it right, actually -- he bucked conventional wisdom ('must choose a northerner to "balance out" the ticket') and chose another southern Dem (Al Gore) who reinforced his core message -- that he was a 'new' kind of Democrat different from those northern urban elites. And they looked great together. It's chemistry, or lack of it, that seems to have doomed Bill Richardson's chances, for better or for worse. And we really, really don't want to pick someone who plugs a supposed gap in Obama's armor. You pick Wes Clark, and people won't see 'phew, national security is covered!'. Nope, they'll see, 'Obama is trying to compensate for his lack of national security creds!' And whether it's Sam Nunn, or Joe Biden, or anyone else who supposedly patches up a weakness, the end result would be what Gore had to endure in 2000 -- 'He picked Joe Lieberman to compensate for Gore's "Bill Clinton" problem.'"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat critiques Moulitsas' post: "What Kos seems to forget is Al Gore was an experienced Washington legislator, 8 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate, with his own Presidential run in 1988 under his belt, when Bill Clinton tapped him for VP. To compare Al Gore in 1992 to Claire McCaskill, a first term Senator, or Tim Kaine, a first term Governor, is simply ridiculous. Sure, the chemistry was important. Sure, the 'new' Democrat message was reinforced. But most importantly, no one thought Al Gore was not qualified to be President."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: Raising Kaine

Now that Kaine is rumored to be on Obama's VP shortlist, liberal bloggers are turning their attention to the VA governor:

  • FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver examines Kaine's pluses and minuses: "Works well with Obama? Check. Speaks fluent Spanish? Check. But inexperienced on the national stage? Also a check. Not a particularly distinguished track record as governor? Check. I think, however, that both Kaine's greatest asset and his greatest liability may have been missed. The liability, as I have argued before, is that he may not be of much help to Obama in Virginia. [...] The home state VP bounce is small enough to begin with that for a candidate who has trouble hitting 50 percent favorability in his home state, it may be non-existent. [...] On the other hand, the Obama campaign is smart enough to know that a VP's ability to carry his home state is a relatively minor factor in the grand scheme of things. The more important question is what sort of brand space he would come to occupy once introduced to the nation at large (to whom Kaine is a literal unknown). On that front, the news is a little better for Kaine and Obama. [...Kaine]'s not a rock star. He's an average-looking guy, which is to say, for a politician, he has below-average looks. [...] Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing. As Jay Cost ably argues, this has the potential to detract significantly from Obama's core narrative. Kaine would bring humility and good humor to the ticket, and would go some way toward hedging that risk. He would not be a VP designed to win over converts, so much as to shore up some of Obama's weak and wavering support."
  • MyDD's Jerome Armstrong prefers Kaine over Sebelius and IN Sen. Evan Bayh: "Sebelius, Kaine, or Bayh. Those are the three names that are being settled upon as CW chatter. Bayh is clearly the most 'political' choice, a Washington Senator, but from a state that Obama could win. Sebelius and Kaine are the ones whom backed Obama, and are more of a companion/outsider choice. [...] I'd hope he goes with Kaine, who could help in VA, out of these three."
  • Open Left's Matt Stoller is not a fan of Kaine: "Tim Kaine is on Obama's VP short list. He signed an estate tax repeal [that ex-VA Gov.] Mark Warner vetoed and tried to push through a sales tax hike. He's also horrible on global warming and coal, oh, and he's pro-life. Awesome."
  • Ezra Klein doesn't think Obama will choose Kaine: "Given that Obama's great weakness is inexperience, I have trouble imagining him choosing a first-term governor who's only served three years. Kaine might be this year's [Dick] Gephardt: The guy who gets the rumors, but not the nomination."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: Good N' Pawlenty

NRO's Jim Geraghty generated some chatter in the conservative blogosphere when he passed along a rumor that MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty is John McCain's choice for VP:

"A source tells me that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is John McCain's choice, and that the announcement is coming very soon. But I checked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, who Pawlenty is scheduled to address Wednesday at 11:30. As far as they know, his speech is still on. So I urge skepticism. Maybe Pawlenty is the choice, and it's coming later. Or perhaps this was just an overreaction to the news that Pawlenty is going to Iowa Saturday for the state Republican party."
  • AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer is not a Pawlenty fan: "Please say it ain't so. [Pawlenty's] awful on-air joke about his wife not having sex with him earlier this year shows he is not ready for prime time. His global warming advocacy was so extreme earlier this year that it turned off fellow GOP governors, quite seriously. His TV appearances have shown him to come across as without substance and without memorability. And his statement two years ago that the era of small government is over, and that government needs to be more aggressive and proactive, is a total deal-killer for the limited-government people who STILL remain the heart and soul of the heartland GOP and of the conservative movement. Again, please say it ain't so."
  • Hot Air's Allahpundit is unenthusiastic about Pawlenty: "His working-class pedigree is all to the good, but between the lack of name recognition and the 'boring old Republican white guy' effect, I'm underwhelmed. He doesn't even have serious religious cred to reassure antsy evangelicals. Let's hope the report's wrong, although given the general savviness of McCain's campaign these days, it probably isn't."
  • Hot Air's Ed Morrissey has a more positive view of Pawlenty: "Well, I live in Pawlenty's state and have met him on a couple of occasions, and this pick would not make me too glum at all. Pawlenty has a good center-right track record, especially on holding the line on taxes with a hostile Legislature. He demonstrated real leadership during the bridge collapse and its aftermath, keeping the gas-tax-increase advocates at bay and convincing the rest of the state to ignore them. He's also pro-life, and a humble but telegenic man who will inject a little vigor into the campaign. [...] Pawlenty has a strong base of personal and political support in Minnesota and the upper Midwest, and he could change the calculus in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He also helps defend the Midwest if Obama picks Sebelius, Gephardt, or Hagel. Plus, Pawlenty never wavered in his support for McCain even when times got tough. McCain values that kind of loyalty. It's not a bad quality to have on the ticket."

In other veepstakes news, Townhall's Matt Lewis recently posted "The Conservative Guide to VP Picks" in order to "let the McCain folks know how conservatives will likely receive certain picks":

  • Gov. Bobby Jindal -- He would excite conservatives.
  • Gov. Sarah Palin -- She would excite conservatives.
  • Gov. Mark Sanford -- Conservatives would appreciate this pick.
  • Former Gov. Mitt Romney -- Most conservatives would appreciate this pick.
  • Sen. John Thune -- Many conservatives would be excited by this pick. He would certainly not be offensive to conservatives.
  • Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- Acceptable, but not exciting.
  • Gov. Charlie Crist -- Barely acceptable. Certainly not exciting to conservatives.
  • Former Gov. Tom Ridge -- Unacceptable. Deal-breaker.

MCCAIN: Do Your Job, Media!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the major news organizations for describing McCain's latest attack ad without mentioning that the ad's most inflammatory charge -- that Obama cancelled a scheduled visit with U.S. troops in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras" -- is false. TPM's Greg Sargent writes:

"I've just done a lap through the coverage by the big news orgs of the ad John McCain put out this weekend attacking Barack Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany. CNN has a piece here, The New York Times has one here, The Washington Post has write-ups here and here, and the Associated Press has one here. The stories did dutifully note the Obama camp's push-back against the ad. But not a single one of these reports told you that the ad is false."
  • MyDD's Josh Orton: "As compiled by Talking Points Memo, we see that most major news outlets failed to call out the false premise of McCain's ad attacking Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany. Presenting a lie and the truth as two sides of an argument is not journalism. It's stenography."
  • The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's fine that the reporters sought out comment from the Obama campaign, but that's the bare minimum. It creates a typical he-said/he-said story that pretends there are no objective truths at issue here. McCain launches an attack; Obama says the attack is false. Maybe reporters could help cut through the rhetoric and let voters know the truth? [...] The McCain campaign is airing an intentionally deceptive ad, hoping that a) voters won't know the truth and can be easily misled; and b) the media won't raise a fuss about the campaign lying to the public. By refusing to do even the most basic level of fact checking, news outlets are encouraging the McCain campaign to engage in its most cynical and dishonorable tactics."
  • MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Does anyone remember [McCain's] blatant lie in the primary that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal? McCain hammered Romney incessantly and Romney wasn't ready for it, but it was nothing short of a lie. And now McCain is lying again in his new attack ad against Barack Obama claiming that the reason Barack didn't visit wounded soldiers in Germany was that he wasn't allowed to take 'cameras.' [...] Why is no one calling McCain out for being the liar that he is? Instead people are expressing great disappointment that he's not fulfilling his promise to run an 'honorable' campaign instead of admitting that his claim to run an issues-based campaign in the first place was just another one of McCain's blatant lies."
  • Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Just a quick update on the 'respectful campaign' being run by St. John McCain. This all happened in the last week: (1.) Released a ridiculous ad claiming Obama was responsible for high gas prices; (2.) Stated on several occasions that Obama would commit treason in order to win an election; (3.) Released another commercial blatantly lying about Obama, accusing him of ignoring the troops. [...] You might begin to wonder why the media still pretends that McCain is different, and not just another peddler of Rovian filth. Well, there is a reason McCain still gets treated as if he is actually running a 'respectful' campaign. The media is in the bag for him."

MCCAIN II: Thank You, Andrea

Liberal bloggers are praising NBC's Andrea Mitchell for declaring that McCain's attack ad is "literally not true":

  • AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[Mitchell] was there in Afghanistan with Obama. She personally knows that McCain's ad is a lie. So what did she do? She went public and told us what she knew. She didn't play the he-said-she-said garbage that far too many Washington journalists enjoy, nor did she regurgitate a lie she knew to be untrue. She called McCain on his lie because she had personal facts that were relevant. This is what we keep asking the media to do. Be fair. Tell us what you know. Don't just repeat the other guy's lies when you know them to be false. Mitchell did a great job here, she did HER job here, and we thank her for it."
  • Sargent: "MSNBC does the impossible, pointing out that the McCain attack ad's claim that Obama canceled the visit to the troops because he couldn't bring 'the cameras' is false. [...] This is rather relevant info, to put it mildly, and it's unclear why it's missing from most of the other reporting about this ad."
  • The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "It doesn't take affection, or leg-tingles, to do what Andrea Mitchell did today (via Jed Report), which is to take John McCain's despicable 'Troops' ad and demonstrate what a high-toned piece of gutter fraudulence it is. Displaying nothing more than a studied neutrality in tone, and well-armed with the facts that she herself obtained while overseas with both the CODEL and the Obama campaign, Mitchell was a leader in the field of not letting lying dogs sleep, terming the ad 'literally not true,' and confidently summing up the ad as 'inexplicable.' [...] This whole episode should be sufficient to demonstrate that a single reporter committed to doing a good job is worth a thousand sycophants."
  • Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "I don't often praise Andrea Mitchell, but credit where credit is due."

MCCAIN III: Apparently, Some Flip-Flops Do Pay Off

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent Washington Post article revealing that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to McCain "rose dramatically" after the AZ senator reversed his position on offshore drilling:

"Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May."

MCCAIN IV: Shame-onomics

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after he had the following exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos after the latter challenged his gas tax holiday proposal:

Stephanopoulos: "Not a single economist in the country said [a gas tax holiday would] work."
McCain: "Yes. And there's no economist in the country that knows very well the low-income American who drives the furthest, in the oldest automobile, that sometimes can't even afford to go to work."
Stephanopoulos: "But they all say that...the oil companies, the gas companies are going to absorb...any reduction."
McCain: "...they say that. But one, it didn't happen before, and two, we wouldn't let it happen. We wouldn't let it -- Americans wouldn't let them absorb that."
Stephanopoulos: "How would you prevent that?"
McCain: "We would make them shamed into it. We, of course, know how to -- American public opinion. And we would penalize them, if necessary. But they wouldn't. They would pass it on."
  • The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Yes, that's right, McCain will combine a tax cut with a program to shame oil companies into cutting prices. [...] McCain's total non-response to this critique of one of the main elements of his energy policy is really staggering."
  • Ezra Klein: "So McCain's argument here is that the poor in this country need serious help, and so we're going to subsidize oil companies and try to leverage public opinion to shame them to pass some of those subsidies back to consumers in the form of price cuts at the pump. To call this a bank shot insults bank shots everywhere."
  • The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "John McCain is going to prevent oil companies from pocketing the proceeds of his gas tax holiday by publicly shaming them into passing the savings along to consumers? You betcha. I guess he came up with that idea because it's worked so well with other huge industrial corporations in the past."

MCCAIN V: Please Make This An Issue, John!

Conservative bloggers are pleased that McCain has endorsed a ballot initiative that would ban affirmative action programs in AZ, even though McCain criticized similar initiatives in the past. Righty bloggers are urging McCain to make this into a campaign issue:

  • NRO's Roger Clegg: "Kudos to John McCain! This is a solid, important commitment by him to the principle of E pluribus unum, and Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives, should applaud him. As for Barack Obama: This is a critical moment in his campaign. Is he a candidate of change who will transcend race and bring us all together, rejecting divisive policies he knows in his heart are outdated and irrelevant -- or just another Democratic pol who lacks the courage to stand up to powerful but aging interests in his own party, which remain hopelessly infatuated with identity politics and insist on perpetuating a set of policies that have always been unfair and divisive and are now outmoded to boot?"
  • Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I suspect this is a fight Obama wants no part -- for it is a losing one and resurrects the issue of just how post-racial a candidate he is. As for McCain, if this is where he's come down as a matter of policy he should make sure voters understand the stark difference between him and his opponent. And if not, he should clarify his position before opponents of the current system get their hopes up."
  • The Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland: "McCain's decision to support the Arizona civil rights initiative, on the ballot on Election Day this fall, means that a critical campaign issue is now in play. [...] Having come out for the Arizona initiative, McCain can't allow himself to be so intimidated by Democratic attacks (note Obama has already accused McCain of taking a position that's 'divisive') that he fails to argue in its behalf -- that he quits on it. Which is, of course, exactly what Obama and his aides would like to see McCain do. McCain's advisers usefully could carve out some time -- right now -- to brief McCain on the ins and outs of this issue. And to schedule a major speech in which he could, without interruption, make the case for colorblind government in Arizona -- and in other states and at the federal level, too."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff thinks McCain should keep this issue alive but not overemphasize it: "McCain is on the popular side here, and it's not even close. The very 'blue' states of California, Washington, and Michigan have all passed this resolution by sizeable majorities. [...] McCain, though, should not over-emphasize this issue. For one thing, it's not central to his thinking and to pretend otherwise might undermine his authenticity, perhaps his most valuable asset. For another, stridency on this issue might make McCain seem divisive, to use Obama's term. Independent and swing voters overwhelmingly side with McCain over Obama on this issue, but probably won't appreciate being bludgeoned with it especially given Obama's race. Though President [George W.] Bush's squishiness on racial preferences bothered me greatly, I think it helped him politically because it softened his edges. Unlike Bush, McCain's moderate credentials are well-established, so he doesn't need to be squishy, just not overly aggressive. But McCain shouldn't let the matter die either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Preserving The Sanctity Of Marriage

Yglesias proposes a ban on fourth marriages:

"I was thinking recently that if you really wanted to do something to shore up the sanctity of marriage then rather than ban gay marriages you ought to ban, say, fourth marriages. It's one thing to say that people who make a mistake ought to get a second chance, but serial nuptuals really do make a mockery of the institution's basic premises in a way that same-sex couples don't. Maybe some people just need to admit to themselves that they have no business making promises of life-long commitment. Initially, I wanted to ban third marriages, but it seems worth watering the proposal down in order to enhance political feasibility and secure access to the much-vaunted 'three strikes and you're out' catchphrase."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat goes even further:

"In the interests of pushing the envelope, I'll take the the anti-third marriage position -- ticking off Rush Limbaugh yet again, no doubt -- thereby making Matt's 'three strikes and you're out' approach the moderate, bipartisan position on the question. Now all we need is for David Broder to write a column endorsing it..."

LEST WE FORGET: Really-Loud-Whistle Guy Takes Every Opportunity To Whistle Loudly

From The Onion:

"AUSTIN, TX -- Whether he's making his approval known during sporting events and rock concerts, or simply in a situation that requires him to get the attention of one or more persons, 33-year-old loud whistler Jim Burston never misses an occasion to insert his pinkies into his mouth and whistle loudly, sources reported Monday. 'I'm not sure it was necessary to whistle like that to gather everyone in the breakroom for cupcakes,' said coworker Robert Lindel, referring to a recent incident in which Burston whistled piercingly for more than 10 seconds until everyone in his office had assembled for a workplace birthday celebration. 'He could have just sent an e-mail.' According to witnesses, Burston last whistled loudly at the conclusion of a bris, but was quickly drowned out by loud-air-horn guy Lucas Nesbaum, 32, a man known for frequently discharging an ear-shattering 345-decibel air horn."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 29, 2008 12:57 PM



Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.