Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

John McCain

I used to like John McCain.  I never liked the majority of his political positions, but I liked John McCain the person.  He had dignity.  He had respect.  He had independence from his party.  He, in many ways, had everything George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican leadership in Congress lacked.  This campaign, however, has changed John McCain; changed him or brought forth the true John McCain --- I'm not sure which.  Whatever the case, my opinion of John McCain has changed, and changed for the worst.

It was not too long ago when John McCain said he would run a respectful campaign.  He correctly claimed that "Americans want a respectful debate" and promised to give America just that.  He vowed not to question his opponents "character and integrity".  

But with the election just months away and McCain bracing for a significant loss, speaking with regard to the electoral college, McCain has changed his tactics.  Desperate to destroy the Democratic nominee, McCain and his camp, just this week, rolled out their latest despicable line of attack --- essentially calling Barack Obama out for treason:

"Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

The previous line was used by McCain over and over again.  This is turning in to 2004 all over again.  Why must one's patriotism be questioned in a political campaign?  Why can't Republicans show some decency and admit that just because they disagree with Democrats on policy, their love for this great country and its troops is equal and abundant.  

Attack lines like the one used by McCain are disgusting.  They are completely uncalled for.  How dare John McCain say that any one wants to lose a war?  How dare he?  

John McCain, sir, you have lost all my respect by going after Sen. Obama in that way, and by extension, all Americans who oppose this war.  No amount of recollections of your time as a POW in Vietnam can restore honor and dignity to you name in my eyes.  You were a hero to this country.  You were honorable.  You came into this campaign with that honor and respect.  But when you use that honor and respect bestowed upon you by the American public for your courageous service to this country, and you twist it in order to make the case that you and your party and only you and your party and it's positions show love for this country and our troops, you lose that honor and respect.  

It Was Reported Here First On POLITIDOSE

For the past week or so, the news media in general has been carrying stories concerning (1) Senator McCain's flubbing the facts as he has done so many times;  (2) The Huffington Post ran comments by Zbigniew Brezezinski and Brent Scowcroft alluding to the fact that Iran will have influence in Iraq regardless what happens in Iraq;  (3)  Also reporting was comments by administration officials and military officials that more troops will be going to Afghanistan because the war is going badly there. 

 

If all of the above sounds familiar it is because you read it here in Politidose first long before the news media picked it up.  The flip flops and inaccurate statements and the derailment of McCain's straight talking express were covered in articles on Politidose dated November 5, 2007, December 18, 2007 and February 23, 2008.

 

The Iran-Iraq alliance was covered on Politidose in an article dated April 8, 2008.  The Afghanistan problem was covered in Politidose in articles dated December 13, 2007, January 19, 2008, January 20, 2008 and January 29, 2008.

 

Politidose was able to bring those stories to the American people long before our government and news media made the connection.  All this adds to the belief that it is the independent ideas and opinions found on blogs such as Politidose, instead of news companies backed by special interests and corporations, that serve to truly inform and enlighten the American people.