Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
KAINE HE KICK IT?
Given my role as TAPPED's resident VP Hater (witness my posts hating on Chet Edwards, Sam Nunn, and Evan Bayh), I feel obliged to pour cold water on the flavor of the day: Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.
As with most potential VPs, Kaine has a great resumé. He's a successful Democratic governor of a traditionally red state that has the potential to go blue this year. He was elected in 2005, weirdly enough, by opposing the death penalty; when the Republican nominee, then-Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, ran an ad saying Kaine wouldn't execute Hitler, Kaine responded by drawing on his Catholic faith.
But as Melissa McEwan points out, Kaine's social views and his stance on Iraq are pretty problematic. Just as his Catholic views led him to oppose the death penalty, so too do they lead him to oppose abortion rights. In a piece for TAP Online from 2005, Rob Graver wrote that Kaine's "views on abortion are roughly in line with those of George W. Bush." Indeed, NARAL declined to endorse his run in 2005 due to his support for parental notification and consent laws and bans on "partial-birth" abortion.
His record on gay rights isn't much better. He opposes civil unions, and while he claimed to oppose the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that passed last year, he declined to veto legislation placing it on the ballot. Perhaps worst of all, in the 2005 governor's race his campaign mocked Kilgore's effeminate voice, and even ran an ad titled "Weak", calling Kilgore "too weak to lead Virginia" and adding "Jerry Kilgore is not being straight." It'd be one thing for Obama to choose an anti-choice running mate; picking an anti-choice gay-baiter is even worse.
Even Kaine's Iraq position is questionable. While he was not in Congress in 2002, and thus not on the record about the war, he went out of his way during gubernatorial run to say that it would send "a horrible message" to "cut and run", and used his inaugural address to compare the war in Iraq to the American revolution, saying that Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson "stood here at a time, just as today, when Virginians serving freedom's cause sacrificed their lives so that democracy could prevail over tyranny."
Tim Kaine is a great governor. Perhaps there’s a cabinet post he’d be well-suited for. If Jim Webb gets appointed secretary of defense, he’d be a natural choice for the Senate. But not the vice presidency.
--Dylan Matthews
COMMENTS (13)
No problem with the VP hate - it's good sport. But do you care to share any possible VP picks you don't hate? Or at least hate less than others?
Posted by: Jennifer | July 29, 2008 6:02 PM
Spot on. And, actually, no one would call Kaine a "great" governor either.
Posted by: felix | July 29, 2008 6:33 PM
It is pathetic. There is not a single interesting possibility.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2008 6:52 PM
Who wants the frickin pope for VP? If we did, we could just go out and get Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2008 9:13 PM
I'm not comfortable with the idea of Kaine precisely because of his position on abortion. Given how tight the primary was, I think picking an anti-choice VP would be an even bigger slap in the face to Clinton's supporters than not picking Clinton would be. I also think it would be a pretty big slap in the face to many, many women (such as myself) who supported Obama from the beginning. love the idea of Kathleen Sebelius. I can see the argument that there'd then be no white male on the ticket, which I think is a pretty strong argument. But I don't think I've seen what the other arguments against her are. Anybody willing to fill me in?
Posted by: Curious | July 29, 2008 9:33 PM
There is also a posting at DKos by david mizner criticizing Kaine for corporate hackery... backing some regressive coal company that is a big campaign donor, and that sort of thing; see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/29/93220/6384
-
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2008 10:28 PM
Care to pour some hate onto Brian Schweitzer? After reading his name on a list complied some time ago by a no-nothing blogger, I've become increasingly convinced he's the best choice. But since I rarely see his name on lists, others must see something I don't. Care to enlighten me?
Posted by: jacob | July 29, 2008 11:52 PM
Actually, I have no problem with Kaine riding the bottom of the ticket. His numbers in Virginia seem poised to put that state in our column. And who cares what his position on abortion is? Is he going to be appointing any justices?
I guess you could argue against him on the notion that Obama will die or be killed while in office, but otherwise, who cares? Given his abortion stance, he won't have a shot at the nomination in 2016.
So someone explain to me why I'm supposed to care about the views of the person positioned to be nominated to the most worthless post in politics? It's even more worthless for Kaine given his social views. He can't even use it as a platform to the presidency. But he might appease some social conservatives and deliver VA to us.
Though I would agree that I'd take Sebelius over Kaine.
Posted by: Big Blue | July 30, 2008 1:12 AM
Also, Dylan, if you're going to continue to shoot down VP possibilities, it might behoove you to throw out a candidate you'd like.
Otherwise, you're exercises are pointless, unproductive bitching.
Posted by: Big Blue | July 30, 2008 1:15 AM
Hmm, I don't understand why you'd (Obama) want to go for a complete unknown when you can have the name power and quite frankly skill of someone much better like Richardson, Dodd, or Clinton. Doesn't make sense. Don't get my wrong, as a long time Obama supporter, I can understand why some would be angry if Obama picked her, but in the end, I do think she might be able to expedite some of Obama's plans and make them into tangible changes faster than anyone else. I used to dred the idea of Clinton, but after thinking about the other options, maybe she's not a bad pick for him. Bottom line, Obama has to win this election!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 2:02 AM
It seems clear that given the amount of leaking on this story, and the fact that Kaine is actually somewhat moderate on some issues, this is a trial balloon.
Obama wants to see if the far left pitches a fit about Kaine. If they do, no Obama-Kaine ticket, if they don't, Kaine is in.
That's from Not WRIGHT for America (www.notwrightforamerica.com), and it makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Gypsy Man | July 30, 2008 3:34 AM
I worry about Richardson. He seems a bit prone to gaffes, and has the weird habit of being overly physical with people.
I'm not sure that Obama need worry about name recognition for his VP. At this point, I'd say Obama has transcended the role of being a person, and has become a brand unto himself. Which is why I'd argue that the most important thing for him is to pick someone that fits in with the qualities America identifies with the "Obama brand" -- youth, energy, change.
This is why I'd rather not have Biden or Dodd on the ticket.
Posted by: Big Blue | July 30, 2008 9:10 AM
ay ay ay... more bitching about social issues. Kaine: nominally pro-choice but not sufficiently dedicated to abortion. The horror! This election is about three issues, and three issues only:
1) getting troops out of Iraq;
2) doing something productive on healthcare; and
3) a sane energy policy to deal begin addressing global warming and ending our dependence on mideast oil.
Obama has said as much. Any veep that the Obama campaign thinks will help them win -- so that they can accomplish these goals contra McCain -- has my support. Everyone else can get with the program or go vote Nader (as I imagine many of the people bitching about the Veep choices did in 2000).
And, as many have said, who do you like who has any chance???
Posted by: Pat | July 30, 2008 5:10 PM