McCain's Pick

Who’s he gonna pick? Who should he pick?

Who, as a Veep candidate, gives John McCain the best chance to win?

Conventional election wisdom says: first you secure your political base, then you go for the middle. For McCain this would seem to mean: tell conservatives you’re sorry and want them back, and say it like you mean it.

And do it by picking a solidly conservative Veep.

That’s the conventional wisdom, and far be it from me to buck it. It is, after all, both conventional and wise. Thus the name.

Still, I see another path for McCain, and I won’t be at all surprised if he takes it.

He could pick Joe Lieberman.

Let’s get the “secure the conservative base” argument out of the way first. There’s only so much McCain can do, there, and even if he does, it still won’t satisfy everybody. Elements of that base will not vote for McCain. Will. Not. No matter what McCain does.

On the other hand, other elements of the base will vote for McCain, regardless of his semi-conservative past.

Sure, you’ve got your Ron Paul contingent – that, I expect, will be quite small by November, but it’ll be there. You’ve got your Bob Barr variable – the once-Republican now-Libertarian candidate who openly bragged that he would – and probably will – take votes from McCain in battleground states.

Granted, more conservatives will cast third-party protest votes if McCain bucks them again and picks a non-conservative Veep. The question is: can McCain gain more votes than he’ll lose?

Conversely, can McCain win by courting conservative votes?

My answers: I think maybe so, and I think maybe not.

Unsubstantiated speculation, coming up.

Right or wrong, Democrats are trying to portray McCain as Bush’s third term. And when I say “right or wrong,” I mean wrong. Other than their positions on the war, their history with airplanes, and the letter “R,” there’s no obvious connection between the two.

Still, the strategy may work. The great pendulum of American politics – which hit its apex early in November of 2006 – is still swinging Democrat. No, 2008 won’t be a repeat of 2006, but Republicans – McCain included – are the underdogs.

So: McCain wants to show that he’s not just the same-old, same-old. Not just Bush the Younger, Episode III. He has to show some separation between himself and politics-as-usual in DC.

What better way to do that – what better way to wrest the slogan “a new kind of politics” away from Obama?

By picking Lieberman, McCain could honestly point to seriousness on foreign policy, on tort reform, on free trade. Lieberman helped break the judicial nominee stalemate in 2005. And he survived a serious challenge from within his own Party over his stance on the war.

At the same time, Lieberman’s decidedly liberal positions on abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, and gun ownership could assure waffling center-lefties that they’re not signing onto the party of God, Guns, and Gays by voting McCain.

Plus, look, the Democrats say they want to change politics-as-usual. Obama talks the talk. We’re walking the walk.

I dunno. Sounds like that could make up for the disgruntled conservative non-vote, and more.

And remember: many – if not most – conservatives will still vote McCain. They’ll do it for the war; for the anti-pork; for the judicial nominations. At the least, they’ll do it to prevent President Obama, whose values are universally contrary to conservativism.

The really interesting question about a Lieberman vice presidency comes either four or eight years from now: following President Obama’s first term, or President McCain’s second, or the first term of whoever defeats President McCain in '12.

At that point, Lieberman will have run for the vice presidency twice – once as a Democrat, once as a Republican. He may have won the office with the Republican Party.

Four or eight years from now, after zero, four, or eight years as Vice President, what does Lieberman do? As a member of what Party? Awfully hard to pass up the chance.

But awfully hard to switch back to the Democrats, too, and if he did, it might be awfully hard for Republicans to oppose him.

That's a whole lot of speculation, of course. I'm not predicting, and I'm not endorsing. But, boy, it would be interesting.

I am shocked - shocked...

...to find that a government-run health care program is going overbudget!

That's the gist of my new column, up at FoxPolitics. A blurb:

Let this be the last time we are surprised by something like this. That is, if any of us were surprised in the first place.

Doesn’t this always happen?

Remember the Medicare prescription drug program? Originally, the Bush administration said it would cost about $400 billion over 10 years. The program passed into law on that assumption. Just over a year later, that estimate was up to $532 billion. Not long after that, it was at least $720 billion, and maybe over a trillion.

I especially like the ending, but I'm hardly an objective observer. Go see for yourself.

FFRF: Devout in Victimhood

The Freedom From Religion Foundation – the Wisconsin-based anti-faith organization – is back, and they’re mad.

Why? Because the State Assembly sets time aside for a prayer at the start of each session.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation said its review of 16 prayers led by legislators in the past year found all but one of them were explicitly Christian. The group said some of the prayers appeared to denigrate other faiths while promoting Christianity, which it called a violation of the separation of church and state.

How, exactly, did these prayers "denigrate other faiths while promoting Christianity?"

"Legislators and clergy routinely invoke the Christian deity, Jesus Christ, as well as the Holy Spirit and Christian prophets and saints," group co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote to Huebsch. "Many of these 'prayers' are nothing less than sermons meant to proselytize and advance the Christian faith to the Wisconsin general public."

I have several thoughts, most of which can be adequately explained by a brief but heartfelt roll of the eyes. The phrases “Oh, Lord,” and “Oh my God” also come to mind.

Inappropriate, maybe, given the topic, but there it is.

Here’s the deal: I can see the FFRF’s (pronounced: Furff’s) argument. Honestly, I can. It’s akin to Nativity scenes displayed on public land, which could be a sign of government support of the message, which could lead to influence.

At the very least, it adds up to free advertising. Like giving one political candidate air time, but not that candidate’s opponent.

I get that. I get that including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance could be interpreted as an official position and that this could cause nonbelievers to feel uncomfortable and thus not fully a part of American society.

I think it's weak, but I get it.

I won’t be hurt by it, should every local government ban religious displays on public property, or should the U.S. remove the words “under God” and “In God We Trust” from the Pledge and from our money. We can’t display it on public land? Fine. We’ll find somewhere else. “Under God” is no longer an official part of the Pledge? Fine. I’ll say it anyway.

Faith has to be tougher than that. Removing these things from Officialdom would affect me not at all.

One wonders why Furff can’t take a similar approach.

Their faith is that weak, I guess.

Anyway, back to the Assembly prayer. Furff’s position is wrong for one simple reason: access.

It’s not unconstitutional for a Representative to invoke Jesus and ask for His blessing and even to ask Him to kick the devil’s ass right on out of here…as long as the invocation of Jesus isn’t required. As long as the prayer doesn’t have to be a Christian prayer.

And guess what? It doesn’t. Annually, the prayer is given by a representative of Wisconsin’s Indian tribes. It’s a traditional native prayer, given in the native language.

It’s not Christian.

There’s no rule – nor should there be – that a person of Jewish faith, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Wiccan can’t give the prayer. They can.

There’s no reason an atheist can’t do it. Surely, the folks at Furff could ask an Assembly Representative to sign them up. And then one of them can give the prayer.

Except, you know, it won’t be a prayer, exactly. A statement, an admonition, a plea, an exhortation. Something like that.

Odds are, the majority of prayers are still going to be Christian, or at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Newsflash: most of the Representatives – and most of Wisconsin’s citizens – come from that tradition. Thus, most of the people signing up to give the prayer will also come from that tradition.

But: that doesn’t matter. As long as other people of other faiths (including faith in no God) have access, it’s constitutional.

And: whatcha wanna bet Furff won’t do anything of the kind. Such a positive, constructive approach isn’t in their character. It would undermine their victimhood. Rob them of an Enemy. They wouldn’t get as much attention, or as much press, or as many fundraising opportunities.

A spirit of friendly agree-to-disagree cooperation would dent their overall Sense of Outrage, and, God love ‘em, they couldn’t live like that.

Democrats: Fighting the Last War

My newest column is up over at FoxPolitics. I'm just curious: not that there's no reason for Democrats to be optimistic, but so very optimistic?

...why shouldn't Democrats be encouraged? The Great Republican Slaughter of 2006 is still a fresh and heady memory. The war and President Bush remain highly unpopular. The economy is down, and the Dems finally have a candidate who reminds them of Bill Clinton. Without the infidelity.

The latest national polling has Barack Obama beating John McCain – narrowly, and within the margin of error, but winning. The latest Wisconsin poll puts Obama way ahead. Democrats are optimistic. Arrogant, even, in some quarters.

And, maybe, willfully ignorant.

Read the whole thing.

Didn't see this coming

Want to know how to make God laugh? Tell him your plans.

Replace “God” with “Mother Nature,” if them’s your druthers.

Very early Monday morning, hundreds of people were working hard at the dam that makes Lake Delton Lake Delton. Filling and placing sandbags, hoping they could protect the dam and, thus, the lake against the storm-urged waters that are still threatening other dams around the state.

Protect the dam: that was the plan. The water had other ideas. It went through the land.

A piece of built-up land between the lake and the Wisconsin River – built up in order to build County Highway A, between Baraboo and the Village of Lake Delton. The water broke through there, taking the highway, four houses, and over a million cubic feet of ground with it.

Almost like the water was laughing at the guys who’d spent all day making sure the dam would be all right.

So the lake is drained now, and with it a big part of Lake Delton’s economy – that’s a tourism town, dependent on people who spend their vacation money there in the summer. Especially in the summer.

Not only that, but filling it back up again is going to be trickier than just filling in a hole. The river bed has changed. Moved. It no longer goes through the dam – it goes through the breach.

Somebody call Hercules. We need a river moved.

But all is not lost. There’s a lot more to do in Lake Delton – a lot more – that has nothing whatsoever to do with the river.

Plus, the ratio of hard-charging entrepreneurs to…well, whatever the opposite of that is…in Lake Delton is a damn sight higher, I'll bet, than in the population at large. I fully expect they’ll turn the empty lake into an attraction all its own.

Here, I’ll get them started, free of charge. There’s an old story that goes around Baraboo: decades ago, when the circus made its winter camp around here, the circus folks would dispose of dead animals – the story usually says elephants – by dragging them onto the ice and leaving them. Spring came, ice thawed, elephant fell in. Problem solved.

So, quick, get a fake elephant skeleton made and put it in the lake bed. Or maybe three of them. And a fake human skeleton with a big red nose and wig and floppy rubber shoes. You know, a clown. Look what we found!

Then, once the lake is re-filled, sell scuba tours. Or glass-bottomed boats. Or maybe submarines. I bet people would pay for a submarine ride.

Again, no charge. I’m available for consulting.

Anyway. Economic damage, dramatic news footage, and freakishly unusual Acts of God notwithstanding, it’s tough, if not impossible, to say that Lake Delton got the worst of things.

Baraboo itself hadn't gotten it too bad so far – some flooded basements and closed roads, but that was it. So far. Of course, the river was going to peak today, and then begin to decline, and now we’ve got more rain. And flooding. Like a lot of other places.

But part of Rock Springs was already underwater. Part of Spring Green was already underwater. Part of North Freedom is underwater. Reedsburg. LaValle.

Vast fields that should be dotted green with corn and soybeans instead look like we could stock them with fish.

Gays Mills – for the second time in less than a year, Gays Mills is underwater. After all the work they went through to get their town back after the last time, it’s happened all over again.

That might be the end of Gays Mills. I know I’d find it hard to go back.

And all that is just in my part of the state.

It’s a repeat – or maybe a continuation – of what we got over the winter. Remember? Snowfall after snowfall, until you couldn’t see over the snowbanks.

That stopped after a while. For a while, anyway. This will, too, we hope.

But if we're smart, we won't figure its gone for good, because it isn't. We might not know what's coming – Lake Delton sure didn't – and we won't know when. Not for sure. But for sure, we'll know something's coming. Or we should.

It always is.

The Blame Game in Janesville

My latest column is up over at FoxPolitics. An excerpt:

They want higher gas taxes. They want more expensive gasoline. They want SUVs off the road. Thus, they want the Janesville plant to stop making SUVs. Not in so many words, maybe. But that’s the logical end to the environmentalist – Democrat – agenda.

Go read the whole thing.

How to impress a Democrat in four years or less

Remember Darrell Bevell?

Oh, come on, sure you do. Tall. Athletic. A little nerdy. He played quarterback for the Wisconsin Badgers in 1993, when they won the Rose Bowl.

Ah. Now you remember.

He graduated in 1995, and spent the next few years bouncing from one college coaching job to another. In 2000, he came to Green Bay to coach quarterbacks. Then, in 2006, the Minnesota Vikings made him their offensive coordinator.

Offensive coordinator for a pro football team. That’s a big deal. And he got there only 10 years after leaving college. Only 6 years after getting his first NFL job.

That’s fast. Meteoric, even.

But, let's say he got that job in, oh, let's say four years. Or, say, if he’d become a head coach, back in 2004.

That would have been fast.

But nobody rises that fast. You can’t. You shouldn’t. You’re setting yourself up for failure if you accept such a prominent job – such a huge responsibility – without putting in the time. Without paying the dues.

For example: in 1958, Colin Powell was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Four years later, he made captain. Fourteen years after that, he graduated from the National War College. He made brigadier general two years later, and then, in 1989, was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thirty-one years from entry-level to The Man, and rightly so. That’s not a job for a neophyte. Not a place to stick some greenhorn who hasn’t seen it all with his own eyes.

Experience counts

You don’t become CEO of a major corporation four years out of business school. You don’t become Chief of Police four years after joining the force.

You don’t. You can’t. It takes time to learn. It takes personal knowledge of a variety of situations, events, emergencies, and how to deal with them. You have to understand the limits of your authority and of those around you. Know the personalities. The relationships.

Some positions, okay, four years is plenty of time. Department manager at Wal-Mart, for example. Others, though – head coach, general, CEO – four years isn’t enough.

President? Now, President of the United States…sure, that’s okay. Four years is plenty.

If you’re a Democrat.

Impressive resume, Democrat-style

This week, it became official: Barack Obama, who on Inauguration Day will have served in the U.S. Senate for four full years, is the Democrat nominee for President of the United States.

Experience, for the Democrats, is not a prerequisite.

They could have chosen experience. Experience was available to them. Obama’s main rival, Hillary Clinton, has twice his experience in the Senate, not to mention eight years as First Lady. Hey, it was a front-row seat. It counts for something.

What about the other candidates? Well, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) has served in the U.S. Senate since 1973 (Obama turned 12 that year). He chaired the Judiciary Committee for 8 years, and currently chairs the Committee on Foreign Relations.

That’s experience.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) was elected to the House in 1974 and the Senate in 1980. He chairs the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) was elected to the House in 1982, where he served for 14 years before being appointed Ambassador to the United Nations, and then Secretary of Energy. He’s been Governor of New Mexico now for over five years.

That’s an impressive resume.

But no, no, and no. Those candidates – each with resumes covering nearly my entire life – earned zero delegates during the campaign.

Instead, the one-term Senator from North Carolina was the Democrats’ third choice.

Clinton was the second choice.

The guy with a high school diploma’s worth of experience was the first.

This is not the action of a serious political party.

Personal experience. Time on the job. Personal knowledge of what it takes, what it means, what it is to hold power at the highest levels and what you can and can’t do with it and when. At least three Democrat candidates have it.

But not the candidate the Democrats chose. Not Barack Obama.

No matter, says the Democratic Party. We don’t need experience. We need Hope. And Change. And a winning smile, and a vote against the war, and a chance to call our opponents racist.

That’s all we need. It’ll be fine. We’re sure.

Two years ago, the Green Bay Packers hired Mike McCarthy to be their head coach. He’s been coaching in the NFL since 1993.

Had they hired Darrell Bevell, instead…well, Wisconsin’s a majority Democrat state, right? Obama won here by 18 points.

So. An inexperienced kid, at the helm of the most storied franchise in the NFL…Packers fans wouldn't have minded? Right?

And even if they did care, well, that's football. Much more important than the Presidency.

The most lethal third-party candidate...ever

New column up over at FoxPolitics. Read it here. And for a brief overview of the comedy of error (that's not a typo - it was one error) that led to its eventual posting, click here.

A small sampling:

In a two-party race, both candidates are going to get…oh, let’s call it 30%. That’s the baseline. The trick is to get more of the remaining 40% than the other guy.

How to do it? Turnout. Attracting new voters. Reaching to the middle. That’s all pretty basic. Then there’s this: don’t get caught by a credible third-party candidate.

Or, rather, have the least credible third-party candidate possible running on your side of the spectrum.

Read the whole thing.