This really isn't a very plausible argument, since you've ignored all the counterarguments, and the biggest elephant in the room, a pro-choicer as VP.

I think Schmidt is too Rovian to let McCain screw the base this badly.

It would be a funny scenario: the Democrats could lose New Hampshire, and win South Carolina.

The big question is whether the religious right, not the leadership but the rank-and-file, are willing to fall in line. If you think they will believe/do what they are told despite the nomination of someone with no social values in common then this is a great choice. If you think they will actually revolt then this would be a disaster.

Ezra clearly thinks they are suckers and I agree with him...

Sorry, I think Ezra and Sven are wrong. The base would abandon McSame by droves.

With all due respect, Ezra, this post reflects a profound ignorance of the Christian conservative base. The Southern Baptists alone make up 16.2 million souls and as much as they may admire Lieberman they will never, ever accept a pro-choice veep. Never. Ever. You have no clue how immutable a line in the sand that is.

If you're going to comment on politics, dude, you should spend less time linking to kindred spirits like Yglesias and Spackerman and more time doing real reporting from, say, red and purple states. Spend a few Sundays in a Baptist church in suburban Atlanta and then see if your Lieberman theory holds up.

"Sorry, I think Ezra and Sven are wrong. The base would abandon McSame by droves."

We can only hope.

The question is, if John McCain singlehandedly grants the Libertarian Party federal matching funds in the 2012 election by choosing Lieberman as his running mate and practically assuring the Libertarians of 5% or more of the vote in 2008, will they abide by their supposed principles and refuse the money, or will they happily accept taxpayer finance? I'd bet on the latter, which would be really amusing to see, so go for it, McCain!

I have to agree with lampwick. McCain can ill afford to trust that a third of his supporters will pull a lever--not to mention foot soldiering--for him with a pro choice VP. With Barr on one side and Paul on the other--both providing a fair amount of pressure, I bet he makes a choice that third can live with.

Conservatives have "warm feelings" about Lieberman in comparison to other Democrats. Once he's switched he's just a Republican who disagrees with the on practically everything except the Islamofascist and communist menaces (and maybe a few other foreign menaces).

By this logic, the Democratic base loved McCain in 2000 and would have welcomed him onto the ticket with open arms. That doesn't correspond with reality as I see it.

Even if you buy Ruffini's preposterous "Picking him did something for Al Gore in 2000, taking him from a sure loser to a position of strength in the fall", Lieberman 2008 is not Lieberman 2000.

hmm...

These people wouldn't ever vote for someone who doesn't recognize Jesus Christ as his savior.

Obama is simply confident in himself but he has to reassure voters. Remember him telling Clinton on her face he looks forward to her advising him? Thats how confident he is among rivals and competitors, unlike McCain who craves attention and affirmation from democrats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w

The idea that the right-wing base would have problems with Lieberman is based on the premise that they are concerned about the specifics of views on things like abortion, rather than being drawn to the gestalt of his pro-authoritarian mindset.

The problem for picking Lieberman is that he has no established constituency within the Republican party. There needs to be a Republican party interest group that would be satisfied if he were picked...

Tyro:

The GOP neocons would looooove a Lieberman pick. The evangelicals would stay home. Simple as that.

I would so love to see a Biden-Lieberman debate.

Bingo David. I doubt the base would hold it's nose and vote for a ticket with a pro-lifer. I really, really, really doubt they would hold their nose and vote for a ticket with a Jewish pro-lifer.

I really think Ezra is making a huge logical mistake born of ignorance. The Republicans he personally knows aren't that committed to christianity and pro-lifery, it's just a bludgeon they use to win elections. In the real world, outside of the political one, Christianity and Pro-life positions aren't just cynical stances, they are deeply held beliefs. No matter how misguided these beliefs are, it doesn't change the fact that they hold them as strongly as we hold our views on equality and social justice.

Why do voters on the religious right vote for Republicans? In the 1980s and 1990s I would have said agreement on social issues was the most important factor, today I would say it is fear.

If you listen to the religious right-wing media they rarely spend much time on abortion anymore. Instead, they paint a picture of the world in a losing struggle against the forces of darkness. Joe Lieberman is socially liberal but absolutely endorses this world-view. Among the hard-core right, notice that the take on Obama is NOT that his is pro-life but rather that he is a scary, crypto-muslim, terrorist-loving, scary, black power, possible anti-christ, who is scary.

With a pro-life candidate for President and a 'scary' opponent I think the risk of a Pro-Choice VP becomes acceptable.

Will they be unhappy?
Will they gripe?
Will they worry and fret?
Yes, of course they will but....

Will they vote for pro-choice Obama?
Will they vote for Barr and risk Obama winning?
Will they stay home and risk Obama winning?
No, a few would, but most would just hold their nose and vote for the Republican.

""The problem for picking Lieberman is that he has no established constituency within the Republican party. There needs to be a Republican party interest group that would be satisfied if he were picked..."

Actually, I'm beginning to think that there is a good argument that McCain's best bet is to pick a VP that nobody in the Republican party really likes.

The party is severely fractured right now and everybody is digging in. The money elites want Romney. The evangelicals want Huckabee. The libertarians want Paul. All three groups despise both of the other two.

The only way McCain can navigate that is to pick a VP who doesn't elevate one of those three over the other two, but is still reasonably popular among Republicans as a whole.

Lieberman might be the best answer to the dilemma, although it's equally possible he'll cause support to bleed away among all three groups instead of causing two of them to revolt.

If you want to make an argument for McCain making a daring pick, why not make the case for him picking a woman? He's already got Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman at least near the inner circle, and the MSM's CW says there are all those millions of disgruntled Hillary supporters, there for the taking.

John McCain has spent every second of his waking life, for the last four years, winning over the base. He has finally, with the recent hard turn right culturally and rhetorically, finally solidified the Republican vote.

He would be completely insane to risk losing what he's worked so assiduously to gain since 2004. The base right still doesn't trust him, and a drop of 1 or 2 percent in evangelical turnout would win it for Obama pretty easily.

It's going to be Pawlenty. I'd take pretty short odds at this point.

McCain (and Obama) cannot count on only the center to win. It isn't a center OR the base question. Its a base AND at least some of the center proposition. Just as there aren't enough members of either party to win an election single handedly, so too are there not enough independents--even if one candidate were to win all of them--to propel a candidate to victory, if they are abandoned by the base. That was the Bush/Rove strategy. Secure the base, and scare the shit out of enough people in the middle to get to 51%. And while I am not a member of the hardcore Christian right, I have been paying some attention to them, seeing as how they've been running the country for the past 8 years. They are all or nothing deadenders. And if you believe that life begins at conception, and will make no exceptions for rape or the life of the mother, than that isnt the kind of thing you ignore in favor of lower taxes. The Christian right would take higher taxes before they'd even hint at supporting abortion.

Lieberman may help with indys (though I question whether or not that thesis is accurate), but McCain will lose his base, entirely. Then, he'll lose the election, and will go down in history as the candidate who thought he could become a Republican president without the Republican base.

I certainly hope he's stupid enough to try it.

Unfortunately, there are millions more conservatives who don't believe that a woman should be president.

I know that neocons love Lieberman, but does anyone else? The Republicans I know don't think much more of him than the Democrats, and the distaste seems to be character-based.

What are Lieberman's national approval/disapproval scores among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents? Would he help McCain among the voters, or would the boost be limited to the neocons?

More names please

Linda Lingle

Mary Jodi Rell

Christine Todd Whitman

Senator Collins

If I have to bet, I'm probably with DivGuy on Pawlenty. But I'm really curious about what would happen if McCain did this. Where is the religious right's breaking point? We've all wondered for a long time, and I want to see the answer.

Picking Lieberman would make me weep for joy as I could simultaneously hate two of my fave five loathed. But there's no way for reasons already described.

If McCain can go pro-choice, Tom Ridge seems a good choice. But flipping on pro-choice, even indirectly, seems real dangerous.

With all due respect, Ezra, this post reflects a profound ignorance of the Christian conservative base. The Southern Baptists alone make up 16.2 million souls and as much as they may admire Lieberman they will never, ever accept a pro-choice veep. Never. Ever. You have no clue how immutable a line in the sand that is.

If you're going to comment on politics, dude, you should spend less time linking to kindred spirits like Yglesias and Spackerman and more time doing real reporting from, say, red and purple states. Spend a few Sundays in a Baptist church in suburban Atlanta and then see if your Lieberman theory holds up.

Define irony: Ezra Klein and "BrooklynLibrul" arguing over who has the better red-state credentials.

The time window for a successful Lieberman pick (if there even was one) has lapsed. If he announces Lieberman Friday, the social conservatives / evangelicals will make a huge scene at the Convention and ruin the whole party.
That said, I don't believe McCain considered Lieberman even for one moment. This is a guy who got a 16% rating for his Senate record from the American Conservative Union (compared to 83% for McCain), even lower than Evan Bayh's. Given McCain's age, it's not unthinkable that Lieberman would have to take over at some point. That would mean a de facto Democratic President (except on matters of terrorism and foreign policy) and of course, a Democratic Congress. Republicans would go berserk.
So no, Lieberman is absolutely out of the question. He can give McCain enough of that "bipartisan cred" (cough) without being his pick.

McCain has to choose first between his 'gut' and his best counsel.

His 'gut' tells him to pick a buddy like Lieberman or Ridge.

But doing so would destroy his party.

His best counsel should tell him to pick Romney or a woman.

But he hates Romney, and he's basically a misogynist.

So he's kinda stuck.

Pawlenty would be neither fun nor all that smart a pick.

Spend a few Sundays in a Baptist church in suburban Atlanta and then see if your Lieberman theory holds up.

At the very least, maybe it's time for a CAP field trip to McLean Bible Church. Ezra, we want some "man-on-the-street/cab-driver"-type quotes before we can accept your observations.

Ezra Klein and "BrooklynLibrul" arguing over who has the better red-state credentials.

To be fair, I believe that BrooklynLibrul moved to Brooklyn from a red state. (seriously, do you know any Brooklyn young professional liberals who are from there?)

Um, I was raised in a devout Southern Baptist family in Georgia, was Bible Drill State winner in grade school, Youth week Pastor my senior year in high school. Half of the men in my family went to seminary to become Baptist preachers. Just because I've done a 180 in my adult years (moved to NYC, married a Jewish atheist from SoCal) doesn't mean I've lost my red-state cred. I'm more than qualified to comment on the evangelicals.

What Emma said about timing. A Lieberman pick would turn the GOP convention into Chicago 1968.

Really, McCain has no good choices. And this is just a reflection of how poor the Republican contenders were during the primary this year.

Giuliani is a more plausible dark horse than Lieberman.

Noun-Verb-911-Noun-Verb-POW.

The doomsday ticket.

So he's kinda stuck.

He really is. It's conventional to say the Maverick will pick someone from the gut, but his campaign has been nothing but formulaic.

Instead, they paint a picture of the world in a losing struggle against the forces of darkness.

Those forces of darkness, for a significant segment of Republicans, include not only Islamofascists but also abortionists and homosexuals who are trying to destroy the American family. I can't see them going for a socially liberal VP.

Ok, one more comment:

Ruffini:
"Now, to the caveats. I certainly wouldn't Lieberman to be President."

Great; excellent rationale for selecting a VP. Also, McCain: 72 and not in good health.

"A Tom Ridge pick could signal that the party itself is abandoing the pro-life plank. But can you say that in the same way if the nominee is not a Republican? A Lieberman pick would say nothing about where McCain wants the party to go."

So, two wrongs = one right?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Even Lieberman stops short of infanticide...Obama goes there and then some.

Obama argued that if a doctor botched an abortion and the baby was living outside and totally apart from the Mother, that another doctor should not be brought in to save the babies life.

Forget all the other stuff for a second (though, like Neil, I'm wondering just where the religious right's breaking point is - maybe I ought to poll my in-laws on JoeMentum).

Look at those two together. Would this be the "Grumpy Old Men" ticket, or what?

@ low-tech cyclist
Indeed. McCain/Lieberman would be like Statler/Waldorf '08, only less funny.

Whoever mentioned Senator Collins above is high.

Don't think 'Dan Quayle with tits'.

Think 'Pro-choice Dan Quayle with tits.'

The thing that gets lost in the calculations of McCain picking Lieberman to be his VP is what Lieberman is doing NOW as a Senator. While Lieberman is caucusing with the Dems he's serving as chairman on Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs: while he does that, the Bushies have an ally who refuses to investigate the many faults and failures that the Homeland Security situation is currently in. If Joe goes to McCain, Reid will most likely deprive Lieberman of his chairmanships, and put in place a Dem, most likely Carl Levin, who will investigate the Bush Admin during the autumn leading up to the election. The more Bush and the neocons get embarassed by the failures and corruption regarding Homeland Security, the harder it will get for McCain/Lieberman to win over indies and uncommitted Dems. And this isn't including the non-neocon Republicans who will become depressed that their party's more sensible foreign policy advocates are gonna get ignored again.

Picking Lieberman sure did do something for Al Gore in 2000, it cost him my vote.

Why is it a given that Lieberman 'switches parties'? This isn't a parliamentary system where you need to be a card-carrying party member to receive a nomination.

If Joe goes to McCain, Reid will most likely deprive Lieberman of his chairmanships, and put in place a Dem, most likely Carl Levin, who will investigate the Bush Admin during the autumn leading up to the election.

You really think so? The chairmanships are set by the organising resolution, and amending that to replace Lieberman would presumably fall to Cheney's casting vote. I think he gets to keep his chairmanship -- on a committee that has done fuck-all since 2007 -- until January.

The Senate is basically out of commission between now and November, in any case.

And I think Lieberman fits the bill for a GOP power elite that's got its eyes on 2012, meaning that McCain gets his gut pick. They want four years' space to blame the Democrats for everything Bush did, then the Romney and Huckabee factions can see who heads that ticket.

[2 McCain Point deduction to the Anonymonomorans for tedious predictibility.]

Don't you mean "McCain will pRick Joe Lieberman"?

pseudonymous in nc: According to Steve Benen, some GOP state parties have rules that the Pres and VP nominee do have to be in the party.

Ezra: McCain should take your advice - you make a lot of sense. My guess is they pick a conservative, though, because of concerns about their base, which they'll combine with massive negative advertising in an effort to scare the electorate off Obama.

McCain would be unwise to pick Lieberman. If Lieberman had recently converted to the anti-choice side, it would be a no brainer. But McCain can't risk tearing his party in two.

And he doesn't need to. He's running very, very close as it is. His best bet is to hope that a Jeremiah Wright-based smear campaign will shave 3 or 4 percentage points off of Obama's lead. That strategy is much more likely to succeed than the Lieberman gambit.

It's true that Lieberman's pro-choice record is a problem. I'd think that could be finessed, but possibly not.

Why not? He can point to his airy dismissal of Connecticut rape victims being denied emergency contraception as a turning point in his thinking. He now believes in the sanctity of the (non-Muslim) unborn as a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian thought. Anything to deliver yet another preening "Fuck you" to the progressive Democratic base that dared to suggest he wasn't anointed Senator-for-life. Sure, he might be lying, but he lied about wanting to end the War in Iraq and got away with it. And people like Dobson and the Saddleback crowd have already demonstrated that they don't care about deeds as long as you mouth the right platitudes, however listlessly. To wit:

These people wouldn't ever vote for someone who doesn't recognize Jesus Christ as his savior.

Except that they're already voting for McCain.

Lieberman is already, in effect, McCain's running mate. When McCain picks somebody else, he'll have two running mates.

Also, the party establishment will not tolerate Lieberman as vice president. The GOP is hierarchical party; McCain's VP must be a credible heir apparent.

As with the Romney post, this seems backward from start to finish... and about as useful as smirky Bill Kristol on Fox News today saying that Obama should have picked Hillary. Perhaps the most ludicrous is the idea that McCin Lieberman unites something, given that Lieberman is all but out the door as a Democrat and has become nothing short of a pariah. Lieberman made sense when Obama was toying with the idea of a Kaine or a Bayh, someone who would have seemed as young and as inexperienced; Biden offers no such contrast. McCain is 72, Lieberman is 66 - there's nothing youthful or vigorous in that pairing, and no clear notion of a successor. It's not clear that Lieberman can even be nominated, since he is not a Republican. And all of those problems come to play before even beginning to dive inot specific issues, like abortion, which would be absolute non-starters. Lieberman's political future is DOA. That's a good thing. McCain trying to keep his pal relevant shows loyalty and speaks well of him. Nominating him for VP is an impossibility, and it won't happen.

Chris O. -- got a link for that? I'm not questioning you (or Benen) but I'd like to read about it.

The GOP is hierarchical party; McCain's VP must be a credible heir apparent.

Did that ever apply to J. Danforth Quayle? Or Jack Kemp?

I think you're right to the extent that McCain got the nod because many GOP primary voters considered it 'his turn'. But I also think there are people wondering if Jeb! can get past his last name either in 2012 or 2016, as a potential synthesis of the money and the Jebus wings.

I think it'll be Pawlenty for McCain's VP--he has to try to pick off a swing state with his running mate. But one thing stands out in Ezra's post:

"My guess is McCain will now revert back to his 2000-era persona. The bipartisan war hero who can reach across party lines. "

I think this is McCain's best desperation play--an apology that his campaign's gotten too nasty, perhaps a repudiation of the Corsi book or something similar, praise for Obama and a promise to renew his Straight-Talk Express and run a clean campaign from then on. McCain's true tire-swinging base (the media, that is) would eat that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and tut-tut Obama for not being first with a mea culpa. He'd get the faux-bipartisan benefits of picking Lieberman without actually having to choose Lieberman.

Yeah, it's unlikely, but for some reason it worries me...

John McCain can't remember how many houses belong to him. Joe Lieberman can't remember which party he belongs to.

Please, Grandpa, pick Holy Joe!

Lieberman is a stone liar who not two years ago was telling the people of Connecticut not to vote on one issue, Iraq. Now it's all one issue. On taxes, drilling, choice, and a host of other issues Lieberman can't be reconciled with McCain.

And Lieberman can be pretty quickly painted as a desparate politician who cares only about his own career and not service. Have you seen his attendance record? He almost never shows up in the Senate.

Lieberman is a dangerous pick for McCain and the GOP. It forces Obama/Biden to make the argument about phony bipartisanship and if they win that argument then the GOP just isn't going to lose they are going to collapse.

You get 90% of the benefits of Lieberman with Tom Ridge and 90% fewer headaches. Ridge also allows McCain to double down on the military service record.

What the hell, stop giving McCain ideas.

Kim writes:

Lieberman may help with indys (though I question whether or not that thesis is accurate), but McCain will lose his base, entirely. Then, he'll lose the election, and will go down in history as the candidate who thought he could become a Republican president without the Republican base.

I think Kim is exactly right. I'm voting for McCain in November, no matter who he nominates, but that's because I'm motivated enough to show up and vote against the Democrats, pretty much no matter what. But not that many people on the right share that viewpoint--2006 being a great example, where I was more than motivated enough to vote a straight party ticket and my state (Tennessee) did send the only freshman Republican senator to Washington in 2006 (Bob Corker--who I had plenty of doubts about, btw, just like a McCain/Leiberman ticket). Still, 2006 demonstrated that plent of the base wanted to stay home or vote Independent/Democrat, in large part because the Republicans had disappointed the base on a number of fronts.

If McCain does something that is seen as flipping the conservatives and evangelicals the bird, such as nominating a pro-choice VP, I'll still vote for him. I won't like it, but I'll still vote for him (because technically, I'm voting against the Democratic party). But I'm a minority in that voting strategy, so the best thing that could happen for the Obama campaign right now is for McCain to nominate a left-of-center RINO, or Leiberman.

We'll see what he does, but I consider that strategy as ill-advised as Chet Edwards (or Chuck Hagel) would have been for Obama.

I'm hoping for Rudy Giuliani as the veep for McCain. That would be perfect. All Joe would have to do on the stump is say "McCain = Noun, Verb, POW" and "Rudy = Noun, Verb, 9/11".

And the ads about Rudy? Wow, sorry but I lived in NYC during the Rudy years. Rudy has a pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage record, and he has no foreign policy experience. He's so deeply connected to fortune 500 interests and lobbyists that it would make McCain look like another GW patsy. He wasnt' even a good mayor. It could easily be argued that the only reason the streets of NYC were cleaned up during his years as Mayor is because Joe Biden brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass the 1994 crime bill, putting 100,000 cops on the streets and starting an eight-year drop in crime across the country. Rudy just rode the coattails on that one, some would say.

And lastly, just think about the pairing: two adulterers on one ticket?

What a romp that would be. I'd sure like to see it. Like watching a plane crash, train wreck and Death Race all at the same time.

Unfortunately, there are millions more conservatives who don't believe that a woman should be president.

That's just stupid. Give me--or any other conservative--Margaret Thatcher, and you don't think we'd take her over any Democrat/Liberal? Give me Jean Kirkpatrick over Barack Obama, or John Kerry, or Al Gore . . . any day of the week. Give my a solid conservative woman and I'd vote for her over John McCain.

A solid conservative female VP would do good things for John McCain. The female version of Joe Leiberman? Not so much.

These people wouldn't ever vote for someone who doesn't recognize Jesus Christ as his savior.

Yes, they would. If that candidate was otherwise on the same page with them, wasn't anti-religion, wasn't pro-choice, wasn't pro gun-control, wasn't a purveyor of class envy and "tax the rich" get-even-with-them-ism.

Dubya may be solidly born again, but is McCain nearly as religious as Bush? Was H.W. Bush all that religious, or was church attendance like

Kevin actually understands part of the dynamic at work: plenty of voters will stay home if they don't like the candidate. This is, actually, what will screw McCain in November... Bush only eeked out a tiny victory in 2004 because he was able to depend on mass evangelical turnout from people who thought that he was "God's chosen candidate." In the absence of that level of enthusiasm, a lot of Republicans are going to stay home instead of voting for McCain.

Evangelicals are not big voters: they came out for Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and, in 2004, George W. Bush, but for the most part, they stay home. I don't know how Lieberman is viewed within the evangelical community (it seems to me that Lieberman has been trying to make inroads with evangelicals for most of his senate career), but it strikes me that Lieberman is not exactly the obvious choice if McCain wants to energize the evangelical voters he needs to win.

An interesting post as an intellectual exercise but I'm pretty sure that the first four word of the title aren't a mark of confidence. I was talking to a friend this weekend whose father is an advisor to James Dobson so he gets some interesting insight although no actual inside information. I don't think McCain can win with only his base but he sure can't win without them. I would say that Lieberman and Ridge are out and that Romney is a longshot because of his religon. (Oddly enough not because he is one of the more loathable politicions anybody has seen) I think McCain will go safe and pick Pawlenty. His strategy looks more likely to be to smear Obama and try to drive down his popularity rather than to build any bridges. Really, do you think that they could be that worried about how they fare in the Vice Presidential debates. How many people watch those again (and are undecided)?

Kevin - Thanks for your honest appraisal. It's the rare Republican who comes here simply to give his view rather than start fights. (And I'm sure the reverse is true.)

f Joe goes to McCain, Reid will most likely deprive Lieberman of his chairmanships, and put in place a Dem, most likely Carl Levin, who will investigate the Bush Admin during the autumn leading up to the election.

No, not Carl Levin. Levin is chair of Armed Services, and most likely would want to stay there. Probably Homeland Security would go to Daniel Akaka.

I'm surprised no one has yet commented on the fact that Ezra's analysis was largely echoed this morning by none other than Wm. Kristol: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kristol&st=cse&oref=slogin

The return of Joementum!

Give me--or any other conservative--Margaret Thatcher, and you don't think we'd take her over any Democrat/Liberal? Give me Jean Kirkpatrick over Barack Obama....

Oh, I get it. You'll vote for a woman as long as she's dead.

Herschel says:

Oh, I get it. You'll vote for a woman as long as she's dead.

Are you trying to miss the point on purpose?

I'd take Kay Bailey Hutchison over pretty much any Democrat you could throw up there. U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn--she'd be great. Condaleeza Rice? I'd vote for her. I'll vote for any woman . . . as long as she's reasonably conservative.

Kevin - Thanks for your honest appraisal. It's the rare Republican who comes here simply to give his view rather than start fights. (And I'm sure the reverse is true.)

Well, naturally--most of the failing we attribute to people because of their ideologically viewpoints are actually failings that are intrinsic in human nature. I've probably said some things in the past that would make me sound like Ann Coulter.

But, yes--I've found the tone of the comments at Ezra's blog refreshingly candid and wonkish, which is what I love. Everyone is informed and opinionated, generally.

Yes, I've been in plenty of scorched earth, take-no-prisoners political "debates", and I begin to wonder: what's the point of this? I find it more interesting to try and objectively observe what is happening, rather than shoehorn it into an ideological template (i.e., many on the right say Obama is running a poor campaign, and I don't think he is; that Biden was a poor choice, and I don't think he was, and defend McCain on lots of things I don't think he deserves any defense on).

Not to make it all about me. Just wanted to respond to the comment.

I'd take Kay Bailey Hutchison over pretty much any Democrat you could throw up there. U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn--she'd be great. Condaleeza Rice? I'd vote for her. I'll vote for any woman . . . as long as she's reasonably conservative.

Hey Kevin, good to see another Tennessean posting here. As a progressive resident of the state, I get kind of lonely, ya know?

Have to disagree with you, though. The same SBC women who still refuse to wear pants are the same ones who don't think women have a place in politics, and would never vote for one. And from where I sit, I still see many of these types of women around. Not just in red states, either. McCain won't pick a girl, but I do agree with those that say he will toe the Rove/Schmidt line and pick a guy the Christian conservatives can warm up to. Huckabee or Pawlenty would be fair bets, but it could also be a dark horse. I'm thinking Duncan Hunter. He was, after all, Ann Coulter's first choice.

I'd take Kay Bailey Hutchison over pretty much any Democrat you could throw up there. U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn--she'd be great. Condaleeza Rice? I'd vote for her. I'll vote for any woman . . . as long as she's reasonably conservative.

Hey Kevin, good to see another Tennessean posting here. As a progressive resident of the state, I get kind of lonely, ya know?

Have to disagree with you, though. The same SBC women who still refuse to wear pants are the same ones who don't think women have a place in politics, and would never vote for one. And from where I sit, I still see many of these types of women around. Not just in red states, either. McCain won't pick a girl, but I do agree with those that say he will toe the Rove/Schmidt line and pick a guy the Christian conservatives can warm up to. Huckabee or Pawlenty would be fair bets, but it could also be a dark horse. I'm thinking Duncan Hunter. He was, after all, Ann Coulter's first choice.

Oh, man, sorry for the multi-post. I got error messages, I swear.

Ezra's right on this and Kristol floating the idea makes it crystal clear IMO: the Right doesn't want the Democrats to gain a trifecta. That totally destroys hopes for the future of the democratic party. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC screws senators and house memebers and focuses on the presidential which it CAN win.

The elites in the party will rationalize the move, the evangelical base will be made to believe Obama is a baby killing terrorist, and you can see that the base has solidified around McCain giving him room to bleed a bit and recapture the magic that put him in the nomination.

I think it's a gutsy move that McCain has clearly signaled he wants to play; and Rush Limbaugh and Co. will swallow and go with the flow IMO.

U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn--she'd be great.

ITYM Congressman Marsha Blackburn. No, really. She's Bush in a dress. Regular finalist in Dumbest House Member. Your standards are pretty low, Kevin.

Q: How is a women going to get the Republican nomination? Or, to make it less contentious, what's your under/over on when you'll see the GOP nominate a woman?

I'm still surprised nobody's talking about Rob Portman of Ohio--Portman brings a lot of advantages that Romney does, and none of the drawbacks--he's a solid pro-lifer, he's from Ohio, the conservative business elites are comfortable with him. Anyway, I don't see why McCain would pick Lieberman--unless Lieberman delivers a come-to-Jesus speech on abortion--which probably wouldn't be trusted at this point--he'll actually *lose* votes for McCain. Violates the first law of a VP pick: first do no harm.

many Christians have been outraged by the comments of Nancy Pelosi over the weekend. Though the link provided will take you to a piece written by a Christian, look at the comments as well (Something for Jews & Muslims). There will be no Pro-Choice VP in the Republican Party or the Republican Party will lose... PERIOD.

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=1243

There's one electoral reason, and one reason only, for McCain to pick Lieberman: Florida.

I really saw Joe as more of a Secretary of State type, especially in any cabinet Mac would assemble. I sincerely think Mac is going to placate the "wide" right with his VP pick and go pro-life/pro-right. In my view, Mac can either try and drive that wedge and appeal to independents with a centrist like Joe or Ridge, pick a steady, towards the right guy like Pawlenty or Romney, or a woman like Kay Bailey.

Or he could kill two birds with one stone: Sarah Palin.

A female, conservative governor who has just as much execuitve expierience as Obama. Rather than bore you with more details about her (pro-life, pro-gun, etc...wikipedia it if your interested), it would more than likely assure the Hillary vote AND placate conservatives and/or evangelicals. She's a regular hockey mom (and a beauty pagent winner...).

She's getting attention, but I am surprised she's not getting more.

McCain is not 3 points behind. Statistically, they are tied. Even with a Realclearpolitics.com average of 1.6%, it does not change the fact that they are tied. It's called the margin of error for a reason. I would argue that if the race is within the margin of error, McCain wins. We all remember the electoral college of 2000 right?

Lieberman is not only pro-choice, he's a little Jewish.

Picking him would alienate more whacked out fundamentalists as well as pro lifers, than it would attract supposed centrists who might like the Lieberman brand.

Or, as it was pointed out at least a week ago, this might not happen since it violates GOP rules regarding the VP nominee being a Republican Party member for at least 60 days...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODc3OGQ0OTIwMTMwZWE1OGY3NTJlODgxN2U4MDNmYWU=

Republicans don't make picks like this. He'll make what he thinks is the safe choice and go with Romney, because he's the Manchurian candidate and that's what his smearful advisers will tell him to do. Plus, William Kristol made this call yesterday. Anything he says is usually wrong. McCain should just run with Kristol.
http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/WilliamKristol

Herschel says:
"Oh, I get it. You'll vote for a woman as long as she's dead."

Are you trying to miss the point on purpose?

Actually, I was making a wisecrack. Occasionally I make very substantial, meaningful, and well-reasoned remarks (dazzling, really), but here I was just making a wisecrack, which often involves willfully ignoring the point. And sheesh, nobody even noticed that Margaret Thatcher isn't quite dead.

Holy Christ I hate this crappy preview-less bullshit system. The anonymous, and format-challenged, post above was from me, if that wasn't obvious.

Trust me, McCain ain't pickin' Lieberman. If he were 15 points behind in the polls, then maybe so. But he's running neck & neck with Obama and momentum is on his side. As people are taking a closer look at Obama and his paper-thin resume for the most important job in the world, more and more of them are moving to McCain. Under those circumstances, McCain just needs to not screw up with his VP selection.

Mitt Romney will be the choice. He's strong on economic issues, he can help deliver Michigan & Colorado, he's got a ton of presonal money that he's not shy about spending, and he definitely passes the "ready to be president" test.

As a center/right Libertarian, I welcome Lieberman to the VP slot. And to all those that doubt that the religious right won't turn out to vote... you have two choices... a Moderate Republican (whose platform is pro-life) running with Moderate Democrat as VP who is pro-choice but would realistically have little to no impact on abortion issues... and two flagrant liberals, who will govern over two more extremely flagrant liberals (Pelosi, Reid) that will guarantee free abortions for all, regardless of the term.

So, it's pretty clear, you conservatives better pull your heads out of your butts and support McCain, because the alternative is horrifying.

As a center/right Libertarian, I welcome Lieberman to the VP slot. And to all those that doubt that the religious right won't turn out to vote... you have two choices... a Moderate Republican (whose platform is pro-life) running with Moderate Democrat as VP who is pro-choice but would realistically have little to no impact on abortion issues... and two flagrant liberals, who will govern over two more extremely flagrant liberals (Pelosi, Reid) that will guarantee free abortions for all, regardless of the term.

So, it's pretty clear, you conservatives better pull your heads out of your butts and support McCain, because the alternative is horrifying.

I like Joe. I think he'd be fun on the ticket, but I am not your target market...I am pro-choice and supporting McCain.

I think McCain will pick a woman, and I am hoping it is Condi Rice.

You know, if I hadn't read it here I never would have imagined it possible that anyone on planet Earth would think or say that Joe Lieberman would be "fun" on the Republican ticket. Fun. Really. Fun! Whee!

You pro-choicers supporting McCain and hoping for Condi Rice as Veep are a major demographic, I think. You go, girls!

I have been making this recommendation & gotten reviled for touting Lieberman, even though I agree that for every vote Joe gains, he may lose somewhere else.

Interestingly, the Repub Party Chmn of Palm Beach County told me that around 40% of PBC Jews are actually secret Repubs, but voted for Joe in 2000 because, their leaders told him, "blood is thicker than water."

I really don't think Joe would get almost all Jewish voters, but a significant number would not fund Obama or would vote McCain/Lieberman, making this into another landmark election. Black vs. Jew on some level. That's the way of the world.

And if Biden could switch on the war, Joe could switch from Pro-Choice to a more Pro-Life.

I'm aware of the strength of the Catholic/Baptist Pro-Life proclivity, but Johnny Mac may not make it otherwise.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney is a governor & has met a payroll, but he still is shaky on abortion & also has the negative bias some carry against Mormons.

Also, ford might be right about Condi Rice, who had a spectacular Quinnpiac poll showing she & McCain could take NY state by 5 points back a few months ago. Was that a fluke?

Ezra, what color is the sky in your world? There's no way McCain will pick Lieberman. Not least of the reasons why is the not-that-inconsiderable chance that McCain would die in office (he's already outlived his father). Conservatives won't want to take the risk of someone with Lieberman's social views standing a heartbeat away.

Wow a forum on McCain's possible VP choice sure has gained alot of interest from the McCain supporters. McSame and McOld are funny where did you come up with that stuff. I get online when I get time and check out a various political forums. I would say 75% of the comments are Obama supporters bashing McCain. They call him McSame or and old fool. Its always an attack on his age. I got to thinking why so many anti-McCain comments when the polls are deadlocked. Then I realized that like me, most of the McCain supporters might actually have a job or something better to do than post 24/7 on a blog or forum. All you Obama supporters if youre waiting for the McCain supporters to show up and argue these attacks then you are wasting your time. We will show support when it counts the most and that is on election day. Lets see how this plays out when everyone gets a chance to vote! Yes please attack this comment all you want because I wont respond because I will be doing something productive with my life.

This Jesus Christ fellow was just that, a fellow, a guy, who lived a long time ago. When are you nuts going to stop making decisions not in your or your family's best interests based on the blind worship of another human being who's been dead for over 2,000 years? If you go down in flames by sitting in the corner holding your breath, do you really think the skies are going to open in January and an angel's going to come down and make it all better?

The majority of the base will not abandon McCain for this pick. They will gladly vote for a McCain/Lieberman ticket over Obama any day. The question is whether he would gain more voters than he would lose. I think he would. This kind of pick would flip this election upside down where McCain is the one transcending standard politics, and Obama is stuck in the same old Democrat mold - with Joe Biden

PETER LORRE-ELMER FUDD

McAmnesty and Lieberman should go form their own neo-con globalist sellout party and see if endless wars financed with borrowed Chinese Communist money, disastrous one-sided "free trade" agreements, and the lawless, borderless North American Union are winning issues.

Lieberman is a sociopath. (This is a factual description, not an insult.) He isn't pro-choice if being pro-choice will keep him from being on the ticket. He will spontaneously become a born-again fundie whackjob -- or sound just like one -- if McCain guarantees him a spot on the ticket. Don't rely on the voters staying home.

ed hardy ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothing

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!