…the end of man is to know

In what is the most “No ‘Effing Way” of every “No ‘Effing Way” I have written, McCain has pulled a rabbit out of his hat. Everyone had Romney, Pawlenty, or Lieberman as the top 3 with Condi, Cantor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the second tier. Instead, he completely hoodwinks the entire country and launches Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I always thought she was a great pick, but her lack of media coverage and speculation made me think it wasn’t going to happen. Serious props to The Midnight Ride, who called Palin as a VP pick in late June. Also, Madison Classical Liberal talked about her in early July. Finally, Extremism in Defense of Liberty also called it in late June. I privately talked to Extremism, Midnight Ride, and The Silent Majority about it, but I didn’t have the onions. I was weak and didn’t want to the risk in formally endorsing her. I was wrong.

Palin is a TREMENDOUS pick for a ton of reasons, increasing in legitimacy:

1. She is a woman. There is no bigger middle finger to Obama’s “post-racial” campaign than putting a woman on the ticket. It’s hard to argue you have a monopoly on change when Palin is the first woman with a serious shot to be in the White House (no, Geraldine Ferraro does not count).

1A. Moreover, this could get the Hillary supporters. Clintonites have long argued that Obama and the media were sexist and unfairly cruel to Hillary. Now that Clinton is out of the race, female voters who want to fight sexism will be drawn to Palin. She has a son with Down’s Syndrome and is a former beauty queen. Palin is feminine and has definite appeal to disgruntled female voters looking for a role model.

1B. Palin is tough to beat in a debate. As someone who spent 5 years in speech and debate, I would dread going toe-to-toe with a female, especially an accomplished and intelligent one. It is hard to be a male and go offensive against a female. The fact of the matter is that anytime a guy gets aggressive, he runs the risk of being perceived as a know-it-all sexist pig. While Palin has to face the prospect of being seen as an icy bitch if she gets aggressive, this puts a huge burden on Biden in the VP debate.

1 C. Palin is EXTREMELY attractive. This is a stupid reason. Okay, it’s a really stupid reason. At the end of the day, thousands upon thousands of males will vote for “The Hot Chick”. I think it is exceedingly shallow to vote based on aesthetics, but if it means helping out the conservative movement, I won’t resist. Behold, the new White House Hottie:

2. Palin has real conservative credentials. Any Evangelicals who didn’t trust McCain, must vote GOP. Any small-government libertarians don’t have to waste a vote on Bob Barr. Palin took on the most corrupt state in the country, Alaska, at a time that what was really hard. Ted Stevens is terribly corrupt. The Murkowski family is a dynasty of corrupt, incompetent leaders. Palin has gotten rid of superfluous government expenditures and slashed the budget. She has sound energy policy and is the ultimate on how to reduce oil prices.

3. She balances out this ticket in a way that no other candidate could. Male-female. Old-young. Experienced-fresh. Senator-Governor. There is nothing “missing” from this ticket. There is no weak link that applies to both candidates. They have strengths which back up the other’s weaknesses. Even if Obama wants to hammer Palin on experience, it’s tough-sledding. Obama has 3.5 years of experience in the Senate and Palin as 1.5 years experience as Governor. That difference is relatively small. Also, Palin has been in the City Council from ‘92-’96 and served on Alaska’s Oil & Gas Commission, before resigning in protest of the lack of ethics. She is on the young side, but has achieved great things.

Perhaps Palin’s (and McCain’s) greatest achievement? Taking ALL of the wind out of Obama’s sails, bumping him from the top of the headlines and making this race even more competitive.

After watching Biden’s speech, I was pretty impressed. Not as a fan of Biden, but as a political observer. He hit all the notes that he had to and did everything he could. It was going to be interesting to see Biden’s style and I give him a ton of credit for last night.

As a self-professed moderate who happens to be the 3rd most liberal in the entire Senate, Biden couldn’t pander to the far left. As someone who said he would run on John McCain’s ticket, he had to temper the negativity. As someone who said Barack lacked the experience to lead, he needed to limit his own Oba-Mania.

Check. Check. Check.

Biden played it as a moderate Democrat. He harped on Iraq spending, the low minimum wage, outsourcing, oil profits, not privatizing Social Security, education spending, and bringing focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He’s wrong on most, if not all, of these issues. However, he played some winning issues in a non-extremist way. Most importantly, he didn’t lose any credibility as an experienced moderate.

He handled McCain the best. He did throw out some red meat to his supporters. He did attack McCain on some of the comments he has made. However, this is the line that Democrats need to hit, “These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader, a leader who can deliver change–the change everybody knows we need.” There it is. I think calling Obama “wise” is somewhere short of hilarious, but the mood is right. Biden, and now Obama, CAN’T HIT McCAIN ON PERSONAL ISSUES. The man has been through too much personally and politically to be attacked for partisanship or corruption or experience. Shifting the debate from personality and leadership to politics is exactly what Obama-Biden must do. Biden handled his friendship with McCain and campaign against McCain extremely well.

His support of Obama was also at the appropriate level. Biden will not be able to escape his criticism of Obama in the debates. His arguments were not policy, but overly questioned Obama’s ability to lead. Through his own overinflated sense of self, Biden now can argue that he brings the wisdom and experience to Obama’s vision and message. If the GOP can divide the ticket into: 1. Biden is a Washington insider who is very liberal and supported McCain before he supported Obama and 2. Obama has no idea what he is doing and no plan for the future, they win. If the Democrats can hold the ticket as a solitary unit, we’re in trouble.

As important as unity between Hillary supporters and Democrats is, I think ticket unity is more important. Biden recognizes that united they win, divided they lose. And in a speech that was short on vision, message, and style, Biden made a great stride in achieving unity.

Good luck tonight as you watch Obama. I heard that being so close to The Chosen One and hearing his clarion calls can cause people to speak in tongues, hyperventilate, or have heart attacks. .

Just so this post cannot be interpreted as support of Biden or Obama:

1. Biden wants to critique McCain on foreign policy?

Biden opposed the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Biden supported the Iraq War that apparently only Obama had the fortitude to oppose (mind you, Obama wasn’t a Senator in 2002, so he never actually voted against the war)

Biden opposes McCain’s support of spending money in Iraq, but voted for the spending (Biden even criticized Obama for not supporting the spending because Obama wanted to withhold money necessary to safely and properly equip our soldiers)

Biden opposed the troop surge, which has been fantastically successful

Biden opposes free trade agreements, like NAFTA. Since NAFTA was passed in 1994, the American economy has grown by 50%!!!! Those kinds of gains are only possible when countries can freely swap goods and maximize profits.

Biden wants to tax oil companies for offering a fair service at market value. The real “audacity” is not of hope, but of the idea that the government can arbitrarily declare when companies make too much money, seize that money, and give it to constituents.

Biden is too afraid to let Social Security money enter the economy and spur economic growth instead of being a lender for pet projects. He also fails to recognize the impending collapse of the system unless we start making fundamental changes soon.

If John McCain sends out a telegram (we know he doesn’t do text messaging), I really want it to say, “McCain-Lieberman. Tell that Obama boy to take his partisanship and shove it…” Alas, it won’t.

Before I crash the bi-partisan party, humor me as I look at all the positives:

1. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, but could be powerful in slamming them. He was kicked out by the Democrats after losing his primary to Ned LaMont. After no Democrat asked for his support in 2008 and McCain did, Lieberman officially supported Johnny Mac because he wants to cut through partisan hackery. As a punishment, the Democrats stripped Lieberman of his superdelegate status, making him the same as an *bad pun coming in 3,2,1* average Joe.

Lieberman could be effective in talking about how the Democrats have failed him, and America. His public disputes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be very effective. If Obama wants to pretend that he has great bi-partisan support, he will have a hard time selling the American people if Lieberman is on the other side. Also, McCain’s negative ads may not seem so harsh since they are coming from both sides of the aisle.

2. He is a moderate liberal on domestic issues. libertarianism (small “l” is intentional) is growing as a political movement. The public is seeing the value in enhancing personal liberty. Whether that means low taxes through the elimination of superfluous issues or protecting a “woman’s right to choose”, libertarianism is an appealing philosophy. With McCain running policy, he can hold the conservative base together while Lieberman dances on the sidelines and convinces confused liberals to jump ship. Unless voters are willing to bet on McCain’s death AND a Supreme Court vacancy, Lieberman will be helpless to promote a progressive social agenda on the courts. In any event, some voters are on the fence and a pro-choice VP on the GOP ticket could be just enticing enough.

3. If McCain doubles-down on experience, they could absolutely tear apart Obama-Biden. Obama took Biden because he knew he was lacking in experience. Four years in the Senate simply doesn’t cut it to be a successful President. Biden brings 35 years in the Senate and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. These solid credentials will be thrown out if McCain takes Lieberman.

Think of it this way: if McCain takes a foreign policy lightweight, like Romney or Pawlenty, then McCain can crush Obama, but Biden will hit Romney/Pawlenty in debates. Though the Presidential debates are more visible and more important, not taking Lieberman mitigates McCain’s great policy advantage.

With Lieberman, McCain gets to maintain a strong edge on foreign policy AND accuse Obama of being a hypocrite by taking a Washington Insider as a running mate. It’s win-win.

4. Lieberman is old and will not seek a second term. In this race, the only way McCain can win is to be far as possible from party identification. In a generic election, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats by double-digits. Therefore, it is crucial to make this election as non-generic as possible. McCain can win on the platform of being a maverick outsider. Bringing in Lieberman fits that mold. Given their ages, it is a sure bet that neither will run in 2012. The White House will have two men who have proudly served their country and are immune to the rigors of campaigning for re-election or kowtowing to party bosses. If America wants to give it a try, it can get four years of good, honest politicians working for the people, not themselves. That is a powerful message, but is incumbent upon McCain and Lieberman promising not to seek re-election.

5. Lieberman is Jewish. I know that being Jewish and in politics is not rare enough to be “special”, it would dispel a few myths and problems for the GOP. First, if Obama wants to be the first bi-racial person in the White House, then McCain can ask Americans to put the first non-Christian in the White House. The DNC spent all night last night focusing in on minorities (Pelosi: female Italian-American, Jesse Jackson Jr: black, Ted Kennedy: catholic, Obama’s half-sister: Asian, Michelle Obama: black). It is hard to call the GOP the WASP party when it’s VP nominee is Jewish.

Also, being Jewish offers electoral advantages. Prior to Obama’s run, Jews were the most partisan demographic, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Lieberman will certainly appeal to Jewish voters and can go hog wild on Obama’s anti-Israel stance (call me anti-anti-Semitic, but I’m pretty sure Lieberman could have a field day talking to Jewish retirees in Boca Raton about Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan). While most Jews are in solid blue states, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada are battlegrounds and could use any boost possible.

The negatives:

1. McCain is already too far to the left. The conservative base is pretty unhappy with McCain. Campaign finance reform, a path to citizenship for illegals, opposing torture, and waffling on the Bush tax cuts are all very damaging. McCain got beat by Bush in 2000, because the Rove machine turned out the Evangelicals. McCain certainly will have trouble doing that if he has a pro-choice running mate who is mildly sympathetic to gay rights. If McCain can’t hold together the conservative base, there is no amount of moderates that can save him.

2. Lieberman is hawkish, hurting chances of building a bi-partisan coalition. If the Democrats want to win this election on the drumbeat of failure in Iraq, then Lieberman doesn’t help McCain. Democrats can turn the tables and say that it didn’t leave Lieberman, Lieberman left the party. Joe’s hawkish stances on Iraq, Iran, and Israel are all directly at-odds with the Democratic Party’s platforms. The Democrats will only need to make a slight alteration from “The Republicans caused this war and the war needs to stop” to “the War Hawks caused this war and the war needs to stop”. It’s a pretty simple sidestep and mitigates the appearance of bi-partisanship.

3. Lieberman is too old. If you thought the charges of senility on McCain were bad, wait until he gets Lieberman. The campaign will be branded Grumpy Old Men. I think of Walter Matthau as more McCain and Jack Lemmon more Lieberman, but the Obama people can sort it out. As Obama is trying to show, it is very easy to cast old people as “out of touch”. And that is exactly how the Dems will play it.

The easiest way to win an election is to get 50.1% of the population as close as possible to the edge of not voting for you. The GOP needs a big coalition to take down Obama. To cater to multiple groups, it must be willing to risk losing them. But it cannot afford to. The question is whether or not McCain-Lieberman pushes to the Evangelicals into staying home. If not, this pick will all but seal a Republican victory. It is this question that is tearing up the McCain War Room.

We are counting down to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado here at blogivists. The coronation of Barack Obama as the savior of humanity is nearly complete. I’m not a huge fan of the Democrats, but I don’t wrecklessly bash them, either. However, I will put some fun facts up.

1. Kwame Kilpatrick will be attending the convention. In case you were curious, Mr. Kilpatrick is the disgraced mayor of Detroit. Aside from facing previous scandals, he most recently was thrown in jail for violating his probation after assaulting a policeman. The cop’s offense? He was serving a subpoena to one of Kilpatrick’s “friends”.

I know you think Kwame’s mother must be very proud of her baby boy, right? Well, the voters in the Detroit area thought so highly of her as to re-nominate her as the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s 13th congressional district.

Even the Democratic Wizard of Oz, the Daily Kos, has asked Kilpatrick not to attend.

If you were concerned about Democrats doing the Larry Craig tap dance, just do the Kilpatrick shove, find an attractive mater and tell him/her that John Edwards says “help is on the way”.

2. The Democrats have no idea what to do with Hillary Clinton. The woman whose husband has been the face of the party for almost two decades and nearly won the nomination is stuck in purgatory. The party needs to satisfy Clintonites and win them over. However, this convention must be about Barack Obama. They have settled on letting her speak on Tuesday night. Traditionally, Monday goes to someone cool, Tuesday goes to a rising star, Wednesday to the VP, and Thursday to the candidate. The Dems made the wise move of giving Hillary her time in the sun on Tuesday night. One small hitch: SHE WILL NOT BE KEYNOTING! Hillary is being upstaged by *drum roll* Mark Warner. Way to go, DNC. You found a way to make a compromise that ticks off both sides.

3. While Hillary will be speaking Tuesday night, Monday night’s keynote will be Michelle Obama. I may be opposed to Michelle more than most, but this is an unfathomably bad idea. Her favorable-unfavorable is 30-35! When more people think negatively than positively about you, it’s unfortunate. When you are married to a presidential candidate and speaking in front of tens of millions, it’s a trainwreck.

Some of the things I hope Michelle brings up during her DNC speech:

A.

B. Her senior thesis at Princeton ranges from scary to racist. Some of the highlights (and these are quotes)

i. “…I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation” - since when is being successful a “White” goal?

ii. “Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments,” - aside from capitalizing “white”, why is offering unparalleled opportunities a “White” thing and why is it bad? Princeton doesn’t force anyone to take racist jobs as capitalist pigs.

iii. “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before” - this coming from the wife of the first post-racial candidate? Are you ‘effing kidding me? NO. ‘EFFING. WAY.

C. “The truth is most Americans don’t want much. Folks don’t want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit — but that’s out of reach for them.” - Michelle Obama advocates austerity, even when it isn’t necessary. Way to boost morale. I have HOPE that Barack can bring CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. I BELIEVE that he will only give me a little bit, but won’t let me get the whole pie.

Michelle Obama is so scary that Democrats have created the… Michelle Obama Truth Squad. Funny, I don’t remember Laura Bush ever getting a Truth Squad.

4. The actual convention itself redefines what it means to be liberal. Here are some facts:

A. The convention will have 800 people in a trash brigade to make sure all garbage is disposed of properly (no word on whether or not Obama’s speeches count as “recyclable trash”)

B. The host committee lamented its inability to find 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. And the packs have to be made in the USA. By unionized labor. And out of organic cotton.

C. All food served is highly regulated. Fried food will not be allowed. Each meal must include at least three of these colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white. 70% of ingredients must be grown organically and/or locally.

D. Those sinning, conservative, greedy capitalists at Coors finally have come to reason - and will donate biofuel made from beer waste. This one ticks me off the most, because every college student knows: there’s no such thing as “beer waste”. Wasting beer is downright un-American!

Beer waste? Republicans don’t believe in beer waste. They believe in beer-amids!

E. The DNC is actually proud of their insanity and showcases its arrogance here.

So there it is. The Democratic National Convention is simply unbelievable. It is over-the-top liberal and oppressive in its inner-workings.

The only way it will win voters is if this country is farther to the left than I can possibly imagine. Please let it NOT be pragmatically political.