ConfirmThem

But Biden didn't pull the shenanigans that Leahy is pulling now.

To be honest, I think he is a decent man. He's a bigger foreign policy hawk, I don't think he really embraces leftwing tax and social policy (or really anything about the Moveon crowd), and he has decent relations with the GOP members of Congress.

He's got a witty sarcastic tone that has and will completely do him in, though he's not stupid.

I am quite happy Obama picked Biden. Biden will not help Obama in the election much, but in the event Obama is elected, Biden with his skill and experience will be a soothing factor and help Obama govern. Biden is at least qualified to be president. I disagree with his stances, but at least he is qualified and capable to do the job of VP and president. Sadly his boss is neither. Isn't it sad that in this election we are not even choosing between two qualified individuals with different governing approaches? Instead, not only do they have different approaches, Obama is down right unqualified. In 4 or 8 more years Obama would have at least learned what is necessary to be president, but 4 years ago he was a state legislator from IL. Incredible! Biden himself has said Obama is not qualified. Biden must have mixed emotions playing number 2 under such an unqualified man.

For once I agree with Obama: Biden is ready to be president. I only wish Obama was.

I generally don't agree with Dick Morris, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his article today. My first thought after Obama announced Biden was the same as Morris's: Kay Bailey Hutchison. Sarah Palin would also be acceptable, though she's far less experienced at this point:

"The Obama-Not Hillary Ticket
By Dick Morris

It doesn't take a political genius to realize that Barack Obama needed to nominate a woman for vice president. Obama's key problem is that there is no gender gap. In the most recent Zogby poll, he runs only 2 points better among women than among men. A Democrat should be running 10 to 15 points better among women.

If Obama is to have a hope of winning, he needs to improve his performance among female voters. The Fox News poll indicates that only about half of those who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries are voting for Obama and that fully one in five is now planning to back McCain. Attractive to women voters because of his maverick positions on issues and his willingness to defy the Republican orthodoxy, McCain is garnering votes from women who should be part of Obama's core constituency.

So why didn't Obama name a woman? He couldn't nominate Hillary because she came with such baggage that he'd be spending his entire campaign swatting away charges directed at the Clintons. It would be priceless to see Obama trying to justify Bill's refusal to publish the names of the donors to his library or to explain what Bill is doing in Dubai and Kazakhstan.

But what about Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius? While not a national figure, she is attractive and articulate, and would have made a fine candidate. But Obama was terrified that the Clintons would wreck vengeance if he named a woman other than Hillary. But it was all a bluff.

Hillary's delegates would have celebrated the selection of a woman and would not have held it against Obama that it was someone other than Hillary. Hillary, for her part, would have had to grit her teeth and support Sebelius or risk alienating her core constituency. But Obama didn't dare do what he needed to do. He wimped out.

The fact that Barack Obama named Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate will have relatively little impact on the strategic framework of the race. Biden was the best of the names on Obama's short list. His experience in foreign affairs, his tough advocacy of the Democratic agenda and his skill at handling himself will all help Obama's campaign, but not decisively. The other options were worse. Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, had as little experience as Obama. Evan Bayh, senator from Indiana, is way too soft spoken and mild for a rough and tumble campaign.

But the most important thing is that Obama did not choose a woman. He needed one. With Hillary's evident availability for the nomination, his failure to name her or some other woman stands out starkly to women voters. It doesn't matter to them that he chose Biden over Bayh or Kaine. What matters is that he did not choose Hillary or another woman.

Now, John McCain can take advantage of Obama's blunder by coming back with a woman nominee for president. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison would be an excellent choice. She's been around for decades and is not going to start making mistakes now. Her nomination would be a signal to American women that McCain takes their aspirations seriously, even if Obama does not. Hutchison is not charismatic. But her circumstances would be if she were nominated. The prospect of a woman vice president would electrify women throughout the nation.

I have previously written about the advantages of Joe Lieberman for vice president. His nomination would send a signal of bipartisanship that would be notable and would hasten Democratic defections. But conservatives would be horrified by the choice of Lieberman. And Obama's failure to nominate a woman is such a glaring misstep that McCain should pounce and take advantage of it.

The ticket will nominally be Obama-Biden. But, to millions of American women it will be Obama and not Hillary."

It looks like Governor Palin is in a bit of difficulty regarding her firing of the state's top cop. See here. I don't think she did anything wrong, however.

Hutchison favors legal abortion, per this article.

From the Human Events article on KBH:

“She is opposed to **outlawing** abortion and favors embryonic stem cell research.”

As are 70+% of the US population.

I've heard she has adamantly refused to be considered for VP. Wonder if she could turn it down if formally offered, tho. Agreed that Palin is now very problematic.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Nominating any women at this point would obviously appear to be the token Geraldine Ferraro choice.

Frankly, Palin is not qualified.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in January 2003 found that 68% of American believe that abortion should be illegal during the second trimester.

Likewise, a June 2000 Los Angeles Times survey found that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.

The United States Supreme Court in 1973 purported to legalize abortion on demand throughout the second trimester. Might I add that those arrogant morons are responsible for a holocaust, not to mention the destruction of a once-great democracy, and the shredding of a once-great Constitution?

Andrew, I agree with what you say. But Hutchison is solidly conservative and has a strongly pro-life voting record in the Senate, notwithstanding her personal preference (if that's what it is) not to outlaw abortion. I'll take that any day of the week to Ridge, Lieberman, and especially to that arch baby killer, B. Hussein Obama al Biden.

Andrew, just to be pedantic, you know that "outlawing abortion" is a bit different than "should be illegal during the second trimester", right? :)

Damico, do you sincerely believe VP Ridge would do everything he could to undermine McCain's judicial nominees if he suspected they were remotely like Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito/Pryor/JRB?

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

I'd be interested to learn what she thinks of overturning Roe v. Wade. Someone who supports the legality of abortion can still agree that the question should not be decided by judicial fiat, but rather should be decided by the American people and their legislators (as was true for centuries prior to 1973).

Michael Medved has a nice little post on KBH over at Townhall today:

Monday, August 25, 2008
GOP VEEP CHOICE: RECONSIDERING KAY
Posted by: Michael Medved at 2:28 AM

The selection of Joe Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate changes the whole dynamic of the Veep choice now facing John McCain.

Sure, Biden brings credibility and experience and reassuring familiarity to the Democratic ticket, but he hardly adds sizzle or novelty. The Democrats feel that they’ve got enough pizzaz with their standard bearer, so it doesn’t hurt that they take a Vice Presidential contender with all the excitement of boiled Brussels sprouts.

I hope that this choice now gives John McCain reason to reconsider the safe, reassuring possibilities of Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty—apparently, the two leading contenders for the running mate slot for the GOP. Both Romney and Pawlenty are fine men, with special appeal in swing states (Michigan and Minnesota, respectively), but neither candidate would contribute an explosive infusion of energy or electricity.

In the same way that the Dems assumed they got enough novelty and excitement from the top of the ticket so they could go with experience and gravitas for the second spot, so the Republicans should recognize that they’ve got plenty of experience and gravitas with McCain so with his running mate they can go with a “breath of fresh air” candidate—someone new, unexpected, thrilling in some way, in order to shake up the electoral dynamic and undermine the big bounce Obama expects from Denver.

I would suggest – strongly – that the campaign reconsider the Senior Senator from Texas, the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Okay, she’s not a dynamo of fiery charisma; in fact, as I’ve noted before, she’s a bland and sometimes boring speaker, and a pleasant if unprepossessing television presence. Nevertheless, she is a she--- and that fact in itself would allow McCain’s choice to upstage Obama’s.

Current polls show that only half of Hillary’s voters currently back The One; a full 20% already support McCain. The remaining 30% of one-time Clinton true believers are undecided or thinking of staying home, and the idea of a first female in national office would, no doubt, appeal to some of them—perhaps even many of them.

Most importantly, in contrast to Obama’s choice – which looks safe, cautious, timid and boring –the selection of a female candidate as Vice President would seem bold, daring, audacious….at the very time that “Hope” looks less audacious than tired. If Johnny Mac took a woman as his running mate, the lesson would be that the Old Guy still possessed his maverick instincts and the ability to shock the world and defy expectations. The press and the commentariat would love the story, and coming out of the dueling conventions of the next two weeks that’s no small matter.

Meanwhile, Senator Hutchison herself – despite her limitations as an orator – is a formidable public servant with the elements of a great tale to tell.

Most importantly, her conservative credentials are solid – and far more consistent than either Romney’s or Pawlenty’s. The American Conservative Union gives her a lifetime rating of 90.27, and a 2007 rating of 88—placing her among the more conservative Republicans in the Senate.

On abortion, she’s always called herself “Pro Life” and NARAL Pro-Choice America—the leading pro-abortion lobbying group – has given her ratings of mostly 0% (like McCain) and never higher than 20%.

She’s a former cheerleader for the University of Texas Longhorns (no mean distinction in a state famous for its beautiful cheerleaders) and went on to get her law degree from U of T. She worked for a while as a legal correspondent for a top Houston TV station before winning election to the legislature in 1972. During a break from politics, she became a bank executive and won conspicuous success as a business woman – the kind of private sector experience that Obama, Biden and McCain all lack. Her executive and administrative expertise includes an acclaimed term as Texas State Treasurer before her election to the Senate.

Her margins of victory in all her Senate races testify to her enormous vote-getting ability in her home state --- she won with 67% in the special election of 1993, then drew 61%, 65%, and even 62% in the notorious Democratic year of 2006. She’s an effective campaigner with a proven gift for connecting with every voting bloc in Texas. Unlike Geraldine Ferraro, there’s no problem here of a thin resume’: in addition to her private sector experience, Ms. Hutchison served three terms in the state legislature, a term as state Treasurer, worked two years as Vice Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, and won landslide victories in four different U.S. Senate elections. She’s moved up steadily in the Senate leadership – currently ranked number three among GOP members of the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.”

Her drawbacks and weaknesses? It’s true that she suffered a 1993 indictment for allegedly illegal use of state resources in one of her campaigns, but the charges came from the infamous partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle and were subsequently dropped with no conviction or admission of guilt or wrong-doing.

More recently, her adoption of two small children in 2001 makes a great (and unusual) human interest story – and would help call attention to John and Cindy McCain’s own adoption of a physically challenged baby girl at the direct behest of Mother Theresa. (now the McCains’ beloved teenaged daughter Bridget). In any event, following a youthful divorce, Senator Hutchison has been happily married for thirty years to a former Republican legislator and gubernatorial candidate.

Senator Hutchison has also written a couple of books – about women in the Senate, and largely unknown but deeply influential heroines of history. These aren’t literary masterpieces by any means (I tried to read one of ‘em to interview the Senator about it on my radio show) but they’re capably put together, and highlight her ability to inspire young women and girls to great achievements.

When it comes to debating Joe Biden, she should do very well – and draw big ratings for only the second candidate’s debate in national history (after Geraldine Ferraro vs. George H.W. Bush in 1984) featuring a female contender. Senator Hutchison’s friendly understated style will provide a winning alternative to Biden’s logorrhea.

In any event, the ho-hum Democratic choice gives McCain the chance to steal some excitement away from the Obama ticket, and the easiest way to accomplish that purpose would be the unexpected selection of a ground-breaking candidate --- either a woman (Senator Hutchison is the one viable female choice) or a person of color (Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is by far the best choice there).

The Obama-Biden combination gives McCain and opportunity to do what he loves to do most in politics – confound expectations, shake things up, and stun the world. He can do so at the same time that he reassures and rallies his all-important conservative base.

Kay Bailey Hutchison may not count as the most exciting individual in American politics, but her selection in the current campaign context could be electrifying. A McCain-Hutchison team might sore into the lead right after the euphoric surrounding the Republican convention, and could fight effectively to hold that lead (and to maintain the euphoria) all the way to November.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/01/shut_your_mouth.html

This is great from the comments:

Alito should have responded, "could you repeat the question?"

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Hugh Hewitt disagrees with Medved about Hutchison.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/20d97b08-5e5e-4972-bfac-d03faf477e...

Here's Senator Hutchison voting to support Roe v. Wade....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

What the heck was that crap about, and why were they bothering with it then? Wasn't that right when the Iraq war started? Criminey. LOL Specter.

Of course, I don't see how anyone can be elected POTUS or confirmed to SCOTUS who explicitly calls for Roe's overthrow (and really means it) these days. Moment's passed IMO. I think the pro-life side focused too much on the moralilty in the beginning (which is completely understandable) and not enough on the judicial activism part.

Then the public got turned off by the bombings, shooting, girls being screamed at outside the clinic, etc. (of course, the MSM hyped it all too). I think the hollowing out strategy's the way now.

If one of the five libs were replaced by a solid Justice, I still wonder if Alito or esp. Roberts would want to risk the short-term consequences of an explicit 5-4 overrule of Roe & Casey at this point.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

There will always be an election around the corner. The most you can do to mitigate so called 'short term consequences' is put out the decision in an odd year, thus putting those consequences off by 12-18 months.

Hewitt basically nailed it. You pick either Romney or Pawlenty, hope they can turn MI or MN, respectively, and win this election.

If McCain can win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia (which frankly, I don't think will be that difficult at this point), he starts at 260 EV, and either of those 2 states wins the election.

Romney is probably the better choice, overall, if McCain can stomach him.

I don't necessarily disagree that Romney, Pawlenty, and Portman are the best choices - I think they are. I'm just suggesting there are other feasible/interesting/potentially successful possibilities out there, and Hutchison is one of them. I also like Kasich, Steele, and Burr, just to mention a few.

"I don't see how anyone can be elected POTUS or confirmed to SCOTUS who explicitly calls for Roe's overthrow (and really means it) these days."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028...

It’s true that she suffered a 1993 indictment for allegedly illegal use of state resources in one of her campaigns, but the charges came from the infamous partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle and were subsequently dropped with no conviction or admission of guilt or wrong-doing.

I'm going from memory here, but I believe what happened is something like this:
- The trial opened.
- Earle wanted the judge to preapprove a bunch of exhibits or something.
- The judge refused, saying he'd consider each one at the appropriate time.
- Earle pitched a hissy fit and refused to proceed.
- The judge directed the jury to deliver a verdict of not guilty.

So charges were not dropped - Earle just ended up with egg on his face, unable to pursue it further because of the not guilty verdict, and we Travis County taxpayers were out a boatload of dough for his political witch hunt.

BTW It looks like Earle's charges against Tom DeLay are dead. As he had done with other charges that were squashed, Earle tried to prosecute laws that didn't exist. He's pitching a hissy fit that it's a technicality, but isn't that what laws are all about?

Back to KBH - I suspect she'd rather become governor of Texas than VP.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_38/guest/10893-1.html

Sure, there are. But the Democrats chose the worst possible candidate they could find. There's no need to do anything sensational.

McCain will be facing very strong pressure to pick a woman. I would vastly prefer Elizabeth Dole or Sarah Palin, as compared to just about anyone else of the female persuasion. But Palin is kind of green and is contending with an investigation, whereas Dole is barely hanging on in her North Carolina race this year and would not exactly help with the age issue.

Romney seems like the best choice. And it would still be kind of trailblazing to have the first Mormon vice-president. Of course, if Romney were not Mormon and not white and not male then he probably would already have been picked. On pure qualifications, he seems to come out on top. Plus he's easily a match for Biden. Portman and Pawlenty are probably qualified too, but I really think Mitt ought to get it. FULL DISCLOSURE: I was born and raised in Massachusetts. :-)

All the talk here has been the political side of Hutchinson and also Dole. But the real question is what kind of relationship does McCain have with them. How has McCain worked with Hutchison and/or Dole in the Senate? McCain would know them both well. Anybody have any insights?

But in general she's a bit more moderate, so I suspect she and McCain would get along fine. Unlike with Cornyn, I doubt McCain ever used the F-word with Hutchison. ;-)

Like I said earlier, most people down here expect her to run for governor in 2010, so I'd be surprised if she agreed to be VP. She's 65 and has two adopted kids still in school, so it seems her age would work against her re McCain and you'd think she'd rather stay close to home for family reasons.

I think those are the three he SHOULD be thinking about.

I think KBH could be trusted to still pick conseervative jurists, her support for Roe V Wade not withstanding.

Age might be an issue, but I think that Obama has the youth vote pretty much locked up.

I think that 30% of Clinton voters who are undecided are older women who would be likely possible pick ups for a female VP especially an older one who has paid her dues like Hutchinson.

At the end of the day, McCain must pick whoever he feels most comfortable with personally, and forget everything else. All you have to do is look back on the dreadful Dukakis-Bentsen & Kerry-Edwards pairings to see that. VP's "pull" is overrated IMO, LBJ notwithstanding, but this certainly is an election like no other.

And whoever he picks, Hugh, Rush, Anniebelle, Sean, etc, need to shut their pieholes and hop on board.

I just can't see Palin w/this stupid "scandal" thing, nor can I see her or Portman easily sold as qualified to be POTUS (not that Barry is either, of course). Romney prolly is the best overall, best to be POTUS actually IMO, his horrendous campaign aside.

I wonder if Hutch could turn down a direct offer from McCain. Whatever, if he picks her, he should announce it tonight... :)

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

I'll stop the pedantry & nittiness after this, but has McCain said during THIS campaign that he wants Roe overturned AND he will have a "test" for his judicial appointments? Websites & platforms mean zip to me, and I believe most events since 1980 back me up.

I know he's talked about "in the mold of Roberts & Alito", neither who've ever said boo publicly about Roe (aside from Mama Alito :) ), and both of whom notably did not join Thomas' concurrence in the federal PBA case. IIRC, Rex Lee even said Sam was an early proponent of the hollowing out strategy in the Reagan Admin and "we should've listened to him." And I don't think saying "wrongly decided" = "should be overturned".

Saddleback was fine, but has McCain mentioned the HLA this cycle? I know he has mentioned "decided by the states" viz gay marriage, and I believe abortion. But I must've missed his campaign staff putting "pay grade" & the Illinois Born Alive Act front & center after Saddleback.

I do believe if McCain could make Roe/Casey/Stenberg disappear w/a snap of fingers he'd do so in a nanosecond.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Were you correcting me or one of the articles?? I never discussed the details of Earle's allegations against Hutchison.

Earle's a goofball who should be behind bars himself.

Andrew,

Mitt is my favorite - he would demolish Biden in the Veep debate, and is quite possibly the most articulate public speaker I've ever seen, in addition to John Roberts.

But how do you account for the unfortunate number of Americans who have said they aren't ready to vote for a Mormon for president - more than for a black candidate or female candidate. Of course, Mitt wouldn't be the presidential candidate this time around, but there would still be some prejudice against the ticket.

Nevertheless, I think McCain-Romney is our best bet, with McCain-Pawlenty and McCain-Portman also excellent. I don't much agree with those who believe Portman is radioactive because of his involvement in Bush's administrations. His roles had very little to do with policy and nothing to do with Iraq and the War on Terror. In fact, he would be strengthened by it since he could be painted as a rare voice of fiscal reason and restraint in the administration. Portman would be a great asset for McCain for his economic/fiscal acumen and his debating skills and articulateness.

Not often discussed is that Pawlenty is also as outstanding speaker and debater - quick, calm, charming, and articulate. In fact, all three - Romney, Portman, and Pawlenty - are particularly adept speakers and debaters, easily better than Biden. I'd be quite pleased with any of them.

BillM,

I don't know how it could be argued reasonably that Portman is not qualified to be POTUS. Excellent educational achievements (graduated high from Dartmouth and Michigan Law School), 13 years as a Congressman during which he was Budget Committee chair and authored more than a dozen bills that became laws (real accomplishments, unlike B. Hussein Obama, who's authored zero bills and done nothing in the Senate), and 2 Cabinet level positions. Those are real accomplishments and qualifications that few politicians can match, including Obama. If the argument against Portman's qualifications is he doesn't have executive experience - well, that of course is false, as Cabinet posts are executive positions, and Budget Director in particular requires executive oversight of a large number of persons.

Bottom line, Portman is quite qualified.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but as I understand it he didn't actually drop the case and certainly he didn't drop the charges. The trial began and it must have been extremely short. He refused to act after the trial opened and the judge jammed a stick in his eye. If you google it you'll find lots of people saying that the case was dropped, but the only thing Earle dropped was the ball.

On Portman, I'll defer to you as I was ignorant. I just know what the MSM would do.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-clinton-in-denver-again-undercuts-...

DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

Amusing.

Bottom line, Portman is quite qualified.

Not in the public eye. Nowhere near a big enough name. Most people who don't follow politics closely have never heard of him. The only Portman they know is Natalie.

I don't think any President or presidential candidate has been more clear (or could be more clear) than John McCain in his opposition to Roe v. Wade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252699,00.html

The question is what to do if the Senate tries to usurp the nomination power. Reagan made a huge mistake in that regard. The president is obliged to only nominate people who the president thinks are most qualified and most attuned to the president's own judicial philosophy. If the Senate stonewalls, then the seat should go vacant. I'm not sure what McCain would do in that situation, but the seat should definitely go vacant. If Reagan had let that happen, then the issue would have come to a head in the presidential election of 1988, and then GHW Bush would have filled the vacancy.

Agreed 100% w/your last post. The historical evidence is overwhelming--GOP POTII should always leave the seat vacant near election time, while Dem POTII should fill it with a moderate. LBJ just got off the charts powerball lucky w/Burger.

In fact, if Dems have made any error in the judicial wars, it's not realizing that a "moderate" is essentially the same as a "liberal" at the end of the day.

And I would also agree that McCain is more "pro-life" than Reagan, Poppy, Dole, W, etc.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Agree with 80% of your post.

Even though you did not specifically state such, the Senate under Reagon did not stonewall Bork. In some ways I feel Bork got treated better than many of W. Bush's nominees who have not even been given a hearing and who have been filibustestered. There was never a threat of filibustering Bork.

Also, while I wish Bork had gotten on the SC rather than Kennedy, if Reagon had nominated another nominee who the Democratic Senators were able to demonize and defeat like they did Bork, and the vacancy were to have continued through the 88 election, I think it is possible President Dukasis may have named Powell's replacement.

Oh boy! Biden's speech to be "wide-ranging"! C'mon, Joe! Don't let me down.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

If McCain picks Dole or Hutch or some other Senator as his running mate, a question - when, if ever, has the US had four Senators being the two major party pres and VP candidates? Ever happen before?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/28/america/28repubs.php

"WASHINGTON: Senator John McCain has decided on his running mate, two Republican strategists in contact with McCain's campaign said Wednesday. He is expected to reveal his choice at a rally at a basketball arena in Dayton, Ohio, at 11 a.m. Friday."

Anybody have an off-the-wall pick for VP that no one has been talking about?

My personal preferences for VP are as follows:

Thune, Palin, Romney, and I'm warming up to the idea of Hutchison just in order to win.

I'll be disappointed with Pawlenty, Portman, Ridge, or Lieberman. The first two simply because they add no electibility to the ticket, and the latter two because they're liberals. This election is too critical and too close for Mccain to pick someone who the average person just goes "ho-hum".

My off the wall pick is Newt Gingrich, the man is an absolutely brilliant speaker with revolutionary ideas. He was and is the heart and soul of conservatism the way it should be taught, and when he stepped down in favor of Hastert and Delay, that's when the Republican Party was transformed from the party of conservatism to the Party of Liberal "Conservatism". Newt has gotten on board the global warming bandwagon lately, but other than that, he's as good as it gets.

Anyway, picking Hutchison is a guaranteed victory for Mccain as it picks up a lot of the hillary voters. I'm just not excited about her conservative credentials. Palin would be fantastic, but her lack of experience makes her a questionable, but powerful pick. It'd be water cooler conversation, that's for sure.

Picking Portman or Pawlenty is a guaranteed snooze fest, and Mccain simply can't afford that.

Romney delivers Nevada, and possibly MI and CO, so he at least helps the ticket, although his conservatism is suspicious as well.

Thune I like because he's young and seems vibrant, with a beautiful family, and I understand he's attractive for the ladies, plus he has more experience than Obama. He'd be a great pick, IMO.

But it comes down to the fact that the only one on this list that is guaranteed to win the election for Mccain, IMO, is Hutchison. Her lenghty resume lends credibility to picking a female, wheras Palin just doesn't have the experience.

Won't happen in a million years... but just for fun...

What would happen if McCain picked Ron Paul for VP?

Michael Bloomberg?

Jeb Bush?

I'd also like to go on record as saying that Rudy has a much better chance of being picked than we've been led to believe. Has anyone heard that he was OUT of the running for VP?

Remember, he was the frontrunner when the primaries started, and he and Mccain seemed to get along quite well in the primaries. Plus he helps in the 'swing state' of FL (although i think it's safely Republican anyhow, but that may be a means of justifying the pick)

One thing you can say is that Rudy would appeal to moderates and that would be a Presidential ticket ready to face down our enemies and handle the job on day 1. It would be a good marketing strategy, and honestly, not a bad selection despite the anger it would raise in the conservative right.

Also,

Does anyone remember the news stories a while back that claimed Romney had a Michelle Obama "whitey" video in his posession that would be released after his nomination?

If Romney does indeed have this tape, it may well be his key to convincing, or perhaps bribing, his way onto the ticket.

Just a thought, but an interesting possibility.

The more I think about it, the more I think McCain will pick Hutchinson. She would be a great pick politically, add some excitment to the ticket. She would have a credential and qualifications to be president. She is conservative enough to satisfy the right wing, but not too conservative to offend the left wing. Nobody could say she is not qualified with 15 years in the Senate. She would not even be seen as a 'female pick', not like Mondale picking Ferraro. The only question I have is how does she and McCain get along personally in the Senate. How is the chemistry between the two of them? Could they work together in a team? If so, I think she is the obvious choice.

I haven't checked the site for a while so I was quite surprised to see the support for Kay Bailey Hutchison. After all of the fighting in the primaries about this person or that person not being conservative enough, how can conservatives support Hutchison? I'm really surprised and still searching for the answer. Support of Roe, a constitutional abomination, is the same as pro-choice in my book.

I was more comfortable with McCain as president than others because I believed he was the only one who could win. I also expected he would choose a rising conservative star for his VP choice. While Hutchison, Lieberman, or Ridge might make political sense, we have to draw a line between electoral math considerations and principles. If conservative principles can be jettisoned for electoral reasons, where does it stop? Why not elect of pro-government, high tax, pro-choice Republican?

For me, McCain's VP selection means a lot because I am still remain lukewarm to him. I'm certainly anit-Obama, but I have yet to be given a reason to actively support McCain. I suspect there are many like me and that's why the VP choice is so important. A pro-choice or otherwise drab choice will do nothing to increase support FOR McCain. He must remember that as he chooses his VP.

I really don't have a favorite for McCain's VP choice because the group from which he is choosing is so weak. If one there is one consistent characteristic about them, it's that none of them are true conservatives. Romney has had every position in the book, Pawlenty is an economic liberal, and the others are just dull. To be certain, none are rising stars in the conservative movement.

Right now, I would be happy with Romney, but not over the moon. I've always believed McCain needed to make an out-of-the-box pick. Why not go bold and choose Fred Smith of FedEx or Sarah Palin of Alaska? McCain's campaign has been pretty dull, but he could have spiced up the race if he wanted to do so. What's wrong with any of these people?

Mike Pence
Bobby Jindal
JC Watts
Steve Largent
John Shadegg
Michael Steele

anyone know why she voted AGAINST the j. leon holmes confirmation?

Hutchison just announced on Neil Cavuto's show that she is not the Veep nominee.

In the same interview, she said her "guess" would be Mitt Romney.

Her exact words:

"I would guess it's Mitt Romney if I had to bet the ranch."

Samuel Kent, a notorious federal judge in Texas (Bush 41 appointee), has been indicted for sex abuse.

Ref: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5972279.html

Fox News has reported this morning it isn't Pawlenty or Romney, but very possibly is Palin, who allegedly took off from Alaska for Ohio in a chartered plane. Maybe.

My guess is it's Portman, esp. since it's in Ohio, but what do I know??