2008 Ticketing
It's often thought inconceivable that a party's nominee for vice president could be from the other party. The reasons are: that slot is used to reward party factions not delighted by the presidential nominee; the slot is thought to lead to a nomination for president in the future, so it must be given to one of the party's own members; it would be difficult for a vice president from the opposing party to operate successfully in the White House; the person might be an enemy within, politically speaking.
And so conventional thinking goes. But in fact if Republican Colin Powell had been willing to run as Al Gore's vice presidential nominee, not only would President Gore have been sworn in -- since Powell would have added a million votes nationally and certainly more than 500 in Florida to the D ticket -- but also the Gore Administration would have handled the country's challenges in a vastly different and superior manner, focussing on building a centrist approach to the Arab world, global warming, income inequality, and the rising business challenge from China.
Powell now would be able to change parties and run as a centrist Democrat and win the party's nomination for President. Of course, he could not run as a Republican, since they do not welcome apostates, but of course history shows he did not feel he could do that in any case.
In 2008, any Democratic presidential nominee would be lucky to have Republican Senator Chuck Hagel agree to run as the vice president on his or her ticket. On many social issues he is far more conservative than most Democrats but his fiscal and foreign policy views are intelligent, moral, and courageous. He not only showed immense personal courage fighting in Vietnam, but also has developed a deep understanding of security matters since then.
Of course the Republicans should want him to be their Presidential nominee, but Americans should not expect to see such wisdom on the part of the party formerly known as the "majority."
In any event, the likely Democratic nominees for President may well want a military man as vice president.
Put Chuck Hagel on the ticket and lose the election big time as every Democrat in the country sits on his or her hands.
Hagel isn't a centrist, he is a hard right conservative. We've had enough of that in this country.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 26, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was this a slow news day???
Seems just a mite silly to indulge in this kind of speculation before the dust settles and the Democrats begin the task of counterbalancing the insanity which has dominated Washington for the last six years. Isn't the idea that there aren't enough bright, honest, and appealing democrats to cobble together a winning ticket well, to put it mildly, just a wee bit insulting?
Powell? Of the "we broke it, we gotta fix it" school of foreign policy? The General who couldn't face down Cheney and Rove and who ran the State Department as if he were still a general taking orders from the Secretary of Defense? This speaks well of the need for a "military man" on the ticket?
Who are we afraid of? What glamor-puss is standing in the wings, ready to resuscitate the Republican party and make it a national party once again? McCain? Romney? Brownback? Certainly not Rudy. The more I think about this, the more I conclude this post must be satire. It is, isn't it?
I guess is isn't without precedent that a vice-presidential nominee come from the other party. Lincoln did it. Of course, it didn't turn out too well for Lincoln, or for the country, for that matter.
aMike
November 26, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Hagel is a breath of fresh air...when compared to run of the mill clueless and corrupt GOP politicians. And I actually put some stock into what he says when it comes to foreign policy. But if the D's are looking for a military man for their ticket in '08 there are many in the party who are veterans. Wes Clark is at the top of that list...and he possibly still could be a top of the ticket candidate. No need to look to the GOP...
November 26, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone please explain to me why in God's name, with probably well over a dozen contenders for the presidential nomination and a respectable handful who bowed out but wouldn't be averse to the number-two slot, we would have any reason at all to try to pick off a GOPer for the 2008 ticket? We've got well over half the governorships and IIRC we actually had more pols who served in the military than the GOP has, yet for some reason our bench is considered thin?
We've got Clark, Webb, Cleland, Kerry, Murtha, Harkin, and any number of others who may not have been as decorated but still served at least one stint, including Kennedy, Gore, & Daschle. When it comes to military service, the Democratic Party is not lacking in credentials; we just have never exploited them as successfully (and in some cases, dishonestly) as the Republicans. Yes, I know that we're talking about marketing and image here, but the fact is that we still have to be the party of substance, and this kind of completely obvious pandering is not only beneath us, it doesn't work for us either.
FTR, my only objection to Clark as VP is that he would be getting on too much in age to be a safe presidential candidate in 2016... but I still intensely dislike this sort of desperation for military credibility. We have the credibility; what we don't have is a completely open pocketbook for contractors and shameless pandering to militarism itself.
November 26, 2006 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel.
Best, Terry
November 26, 2006 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a Baptist approach to vanilla ice cream or an astronomer's take on marriage counseling.
With all due respect to the military, they were given $300 billion to win a war and they lost.
And they gave us Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
Which is why Clark is toast. I know, I know, it was all Rummy's fault, not the generals'.
Nonsense: they acquiesced. Everything else is excuses. The US military lost the war fair and square.
I think it's about time this country outgrew its fondness for all things military and just... grew up.
November 26, 2006 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats will start winning consistently the day that the kind of thinking represented by Mr. Hundt's article is given the proper reception: any consultant proposing this kind of thing should be shown the door. This is laughable in the extreme.
It presumes, at its core, that only Republicans can be taken seriously on security matters, despite the extremely sorry record the Republicans have. It gives phony mavericks like Chuck Hagel more credit than they deserve: they dissent just enough to win the respect of shallow journalists, and to convince fearful Democratic senators to accept the "mavericks" as their negotiators, and quickly fall into line when the Republican leadership turns the screws.
The purpose of the 2008 election is not to compromise with the Republicans. It is to defeat the Republicans, including people like McCain and Hagel who've positioned themselves as mavericks to save themselves from what they are intelligent enough to see coming: the massive rejection by the public of all things Bush.
November 26, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great thinking but you didn't go far enough.
Americans lost the war. Time to grow up and ask to be taken over by Mexico.
No Mexican general has lost a single war this century.
Best, Terry
November 26, 2006 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. The defeat of the Republican Party in its current incarnation is more than a Demorcratic priority, it is a national priority. Reaching out to enablers like Chuck Hagel or John McCain would retard progress toward Republican defeat, upon which genuine national security depends. I disagree with most of Reed's posts, though sometimes he surprises me with a discerning one. This was not one of them.
Ovid
November 27, 2006 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Up thread Terry Hallinan answered amike's question of "Who are we afraid of?" with Chuck Hagel...
What about Newt? Will Newt Crash the Grand Old Party?
~OGD~
November 27, 2006 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I learned from Reagan, Negroponte, Abrams, you know, the Wise Men, that the invasion would come from Nicaragua... But I see your point. Eventually all roads lead to Tijuana.
In this century so far, ONLY American generals have had the privilege of losing a war. And they did it for a mere $300 billion.
November 27, 2006 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many voters will see th Democrats' running a Republican candidate as a continuation of the cringing behavior that makes them think that the Democrats are contemptible and worthless. How can a party that doesn't even like itself run the country? (As Bartcop keeps saying: "How can the Democrats protect Americans when the can't even protect themselves?")
November 27, 2006 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Easy solution. Hagel can flip to the Democrats.
November 27, 2006 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a joke, right? Just when the GOP has the country horrified, Reed wants to embrace it. And just when the country's sick of war, not to mention four years after Kerry already tried the tactic, he wants to run on someone's military record.
Clark is a good person and, heck, he agrees with me on a lot of things, but I have trouble taking his candidacy seriously. First, he seems to have not so much a fervent base as supporters who think maybe we should like him, because he really should be electable. Second, he did badly in 2004 and has done zilch since then toward improving his viability.
He could have overcome the liability of running for president as his first serious entry into politics by grabbing a senate seat or governorship. He could have been out there hustling like Edwards and making speeches articulating a political vision like Gore. I suspect he's too reticent for politics, not indeed unlike Powell, another overrated name.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 27, 2006 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a depressing thought. America must have a "military" personage in the top echelon of the executive branch because it is presumed that America will always be operating on a war-footing? I guess we can kiss goodbye the myriads of domestic issues that so desperately need attending to.
(After all, as soon as she became a legitimate senator, Hillary made a beeline for the Senate Armed Services committee and if nothing else, Hillary always does today what's going to stand her in good stead tomorrow.)
Aside from the dismal thought of having to live in a country perpetually at war, why aren't we expending our energy on today's problems instead of on an event two years down the road. Electioneering, or whatever it's called, has become just about all politicians ever do. Congress was in session a grand total of 69 whole days last year - guess what they were doing the rest of the time.
November 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my book, someone like Gore or Clark should head the ticket. Any others who we might want consider should be as far away from corporate contribution money as we can get them (aka the DLC). First on my priority list for 2008 is a ticket that will get the opportunity to help put in a national campaign public finance system in place, which in my mind is the long term strategy to get some true populist power back in our government.
I'm hoping that Feingold, even though he's not running for president, will consider filling out the ticket that the Dems pick. Gore/Feingold or Clark/Feingold would do what is needed I think. How well that sells to American and whether they can win with that combination is another question. I think that comes with a better selling job of our candidates. Something that a DLC-ridden Democratic Party has been very poor at in recent years.
But if the right issues are emphasized, I think it can be done.
Another concern I have with Hagel is that he's probably too close to the E-Voting systems industry too. Being a former CEO of ES&S and having many suspicious events helping him get elected initially have me concerned how he would ensure our voting infrastructure would be reformed with him in office.
We should be able to win with an all Democratic ticket for a change in 2008. The Dems just need to sell themselves better.
November 27, 2006 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a hard-core independent (voted for Perot twice), it sounds as if some of the more partisan Democrats are ready to commit the same mistake the Republicans are paying for: ignoring the middle and relying too heavily on your base.
This last election was not a sweeping mandate for the Democrats. They offered no broad program, no sweeping vision, no Contract With America. This last election was a repudiation of the hypocrisy, corruption and incompetence of the Republicans. It was the independents that put the Democrats in power, not their base.
It was the election of moderate Democrats who are willing to show some independence of the "base" that gave them the majority. It is sheer folly and reeks of Republican incompetence to think all the Democrats have to do is placate their 40% base. It is the 20% independents that they need to placate.
Regarding reaching out to the other party for a VP - it's way too premature. The next year-and-a-half will be an interesting time for leadership to develop. A military man is probably not needed, and our generals right now are not a great lot.
However, one of the things this country rejected was excessive partisanship, and all wise leaders have reached across the aisle. Clinton had several Republicans in his inner circle, FDR had a Republican Secretary of War and Lincoln had a Democrat for VP. Kerry certainly would have won had he been able to persuade McCain onto his ticket. The idea has some merit; it's just too early for anything other than idle speculation.
November 28, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hagel isn't a centrist, he is a hard right conservative. We've had enough of that in this country."
This is exactly correct.
I'll never forget reading an interview in 2000 with a West Virginia woman who was literally dying and her husband was dying from lack of affordable health care. But she was going to vote Republican, because Bush was "a good Christian man." But seeing the absurdity of her position she shrugged and said "if the Democrats were ever going to do anything serious about health care they'd have done it under Clinton."
When will we be rid of the useless triangulating B.S. that has brought defeat after defeat?! And while we're at it, let's talk about how wonderful fast-track trade deals are for America and how it makes our economy stronger by exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas! Hurrah! There's a great reason to vote for Democats!
Until 2006 voters haven't had a reason to vote for a Democrat since 1992! They listened to Clinton's populist speeches and voted him in, only to have him turn and ignore everything he ran on.
Nobody believes Democrats are any different from Republicans, that they don't stand for anything and won't ever fight for what they believe. Republicans (until recently) tried to deliver some red-meat to their core constituency. Democrats simply don't deliver.
They haven't won because they simply haven't given people any reason to vote Democratic. In 2006 Bush screwed the pooch so badly he almost forced them to vote in SOMEBODY different. Bush even clinched the deal by traveling around the country reminding everyone exactly WHY they didn't trust the Republicans anymore, with his insane rhetoric about "victory in Iraq." He was the most effective poster boy for change.
As for the "run the right-wing VP and that will pick up some votes" theory --- why the hell didn't that go down in flames with Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen who won exactly 10 states in 1988?
November 28, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where Sterling said:
One needs only to take a moment and take a quick tour of the WaPo Voter Data Base on Chuck Hagel.
~OGD~
November 28, 2006 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: They listened to Clinton's populist speeches and voted him in, only to have him turn and ignore everything he ran on.
Yes, Clinton dumped a couple of his campaign promises, notably the middle-class tax cut (but we got more progressive tax policies and the end of the 80s deficit as a result of that). Otherwise he did at least attempt to follow through, and at most you can fault him for failing to bring home the bacon, most notably on healthcare where he ran into into a tsunami of corporate big money interests that would have defeated God Almighty. Yet all in all, most of us remember the 90s as a pretty good time and despite his bad-boy issues Clion left office quite popular.
November 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink