Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

I am just finishing reading Richard Nixon’s Leaders (I love lazy Saturday afternoons). It is an excellent book - go on Amazon and buy a used copy for $0.01. I particularly recommend the chapters on Churchill and de Gaulle. I thought this section from his final chapter would be of interest, given the news of the week:

If in 1952, acceptance of the idea of women in high office had advanced as far as it has today [1982], Clare Boothe Luce could well have been a strong candidate for Vice President. She had the brains, the drive, the political acumen, the judgment, and she was the first really interesting woman to make a major mark in American politics. She also had a well-honed ability to engage in the cut-and-thrust of political conflict and she was identified as strongly anti-Communist - two of the specific qualities for which Eisenhower chose me. If he had chosen her instead, this book might never have been written. But she would have turned in a stellar performance.
In 1952 Clare Boothe Luce was ahead of her time. But I believe that before the end of the century we will probably elect a woman to the vice presidency and possibly to the presidency.

Before seeking elected office, Clare Boothe Luce was a playwright and reporter for Life and Vogue.

In 1952, the point at which Nixon says she would have been a viable VP pick, she was an ex-congresswoman. She had represented Connecticut in the House from 1943-47, after which she wrote an Academy Award nominated screenplay about two nuns and edited a book on the saints. She returned to politics later in life, but in 1952 she was an ex-two term congresswoman. And Nixon thought she would have made a “strong candidate” for VP and would have “turned in a stellar performance.”

Let’s start from the premise that the McCain Campaign decided it needed a woman vice presidential nominee, to reach out to Hillary voters, to be a “game-changer,” to be “historic,” etc. If you start from that premise, and then you say that you’re looking at current and former governors and senators (I’ll also include cabinet officers for fun).

Your list looks something like this:
Governors: Christine Todd Whitman (NJ), Judy Martz (Montana), Linda Lingle (Hawaii), Jodi Rell (Connecticut), Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Senators: Lisa Murkowski (AK), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Sue Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX)
Cabinet: Condi Rice (State), Ann Veneman (Agriculture), Gale Norton (Interior), Elaine Chao (Labor - but not US born), Mary Peters (Transportation), Margaret Spellings (Education), Lynn Martin (Labor - Bush 41), Barbara Franklin (Commerce - Bush 41), Ann McLaughlin Korologos (Labor - Reagan), Margaret Mary Heckler (Reagan - HHS).

Okay, Whitman, Lingle, Rell, Murkowski, Collins, Snowe, Hutchinson, Martin, are all out for being pro-choice to some degree or another (C.f. The Corner). Rice, Peters, and Spellings currently serve in Bush’s cabinet, so are subject to more “third term” attacks. Elizabeth Dole has troubles of her own in N.C. this year. Gale Norton would be very interesting, especially being from Colorado, but has Abrahamoff issues.

Martz served one term in Montana and had some pretty bad approval ratings, so much so that she didn’t seek reelection. Veneman is currently head of the UN’s UNICEF program, so she’s out (not to mention she was already floated as a VP - for Obama!). Korologos is on the board of Fannie Mae - not a popular political cause at the moment. Heckler is 77.

So if you’re criteria are woman, governor/senator/secretary, and pro-life, you’re serious options are Governor Sarah Palin or a Bush 41 commerce secretary turned PBS commentator (and I’m not even sure how she feels about abortion - nothing from Google either way). Not a hard call.

Sarah Palin is a fine pick for VP. She is great on the issues closest to my heart - strongly pro-life and pro-marriage. Early indications are that she’s very good on judges. Her fifth child, Trig, was born in April - he was diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb - they took the pregnancy to term and she proclaimed him “perfect” upon birth. She has received universal praise from conservative Christian and evangelical leaders and interest groups.

Politically, she’s a calculated risk. I’m not worried about any Dan Quayle-style stuff coming out of her background. Obviously she’s not very experienced in terms of time in office - less than 2 years as Gov of Alaska, and before that mayor of a town of 5000. So it will tough to attack Obama as inexperienced - although 2 years running a state is much more valuable than 4 years as a US Senator, 3 of which were spent running for president. Moreover, in that time he has done nothing, whereas her time as governor and before that as mayor and ethics commissioner show a real record of leadership and reform. I assume the McCain Camp is thinking, Hillary staked her all on saying Obama was too inexperienced to be President, and voters still chose him. So McCain needed a “game-changer” who could reinforce a reform message (and Drill Drill Drill!).

Obviously Palin is meant to reach out to the Hillary voters and women while at the same time energizing the base and reinforcing a reform message. She’ll help with Hillary voters some, but not the same as a Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Meg Whitman. She will absolutely energize the base - reading my friends’ facebook statuses, it’s all excitement. I’m skeptical that McCain can out “reform” Obama, Mr. Change personified. I suppose the “reform” mantra is meant to offer a two-fer: with McCain, you get experience to keep us safe AND the reform we need.

Finally, I think she and her husband will provide a good story and be good communicators. She’s pretty, she hunts and fishes and likes moose burgers. He’s a champion snowmobile racer. “NASCAR dads” will eat that up. She drives a jetta to work and is a self-described “hockey mom.” She used to be a TV sports journalist, so she’s comfortable with the camera. She beat a sitting Republican governor in the primary and a former Democrat governor in the general in ‘06 to become governor, so clearly she’s a good campaigner. Looking at the electoral map, hopefully she can make a particular impact in Colorado as a fellow Westerner.

So on the whole, I’m quite pleased. They held the leak until an hour before the event, the event was packed, McCain was smiling, they stole the news cycle from Obama’s acceptance speech. Now we just have to hope that Hurricane Gustav does not through the GOP convention’s schedule down the drain and we’ll be okay … This race doesn’t really start until Sept. 10 - that’s the first poll I’ll take seriously.

It seemed to me like there were two goals for the Dem Convention last night. One was to show that Obama and Biden together could be leader of the free world and competent as commander in chief. The second was to show that the Democratic vision of multilateral engagement and international institutions is a superior policy to the Republican vision of a coalition-of-the-willing Freedom Agenda.

Bill Clinton certainly did his part on the first count. He proclaimed that, in his judgment, Obama was ready to be president and commander in chief. He also gets a 8.5 for delivery - it was very good, but not on the top of what he’s capable of. And a 9 for appearance - the short haircut and makeup made him look a lot younger, but the flag lapel pin was missing when he’s looking out on an audience waving flags. As for message, I give it a lower score - only an 8. He was good on the experience imprimatur, but failed to sell any sort of vision on foreign policy and diplomacy. He talked more about domestic policy than foreign policy it seemed (I note that The Fix disagrees with me - he thought it was a stellar speech).

As for Joe Biden, I agree with Hotline On Call - the speech was “middling.” He rambled, he roamed, and he didn’t convince me Democrats have a better approach to foreign policy. A few lines we really bad, like calling for two more combat brigades in Afghanistan - more troop deployments is just not an applause line at a gathering of Democratic activists.

We’ll see how Obama does tonight. I hope the McCain VP name does not leak - that would be kinda classless. (For the record, I’m pulling for Romney or Pawlenty or Cantor). I also am anxious to see the Greco-Roman temple in all its glory. What an embarrassment.

Of course, my offerings on these matters are nothing compared to the brilliance and insight of the one and only Peggy Noonan.

DAY 2:

Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona: 5. It is often the job of the officeholder from the other party’s nominee’s home state to play attack dog, because presumably you know the opponent more intimately than the rest of the country because he’s from your state. Gov. N. failed miserably in this task. Her worst line was “Arizona has seen lots of native sons run for president. Barry Goldwater. Mo Udall. Bruce Babbitt, and now John McCain. Goldwater Lost. Udall Lost. Babbitt lost. Now that’s one Arizona tradition I’d like to keep going this year.” AWFUL! Who claims as a virtue that your state has a poor track record for presidential candidates?

America’s Town Hall: 6. I just can’t keep a straight face listening to Jennifer Granholm of Michigan talk about creating jobs. It’s clearly a subject she knows NOTHING about.

Federico Peña: 7.5. Why wasn’t this guy leaked as on a VP list? He’s Hispanic, from a swing state (Colorado), and a former Clinton Admin. sec’y of energy and transportation, which means he can talk about nuclear non-proliferation, high gas prices, and crumbling infrastructure.

Bob Casey: 6. Abortion gets one-sentence. So much for outreach to pro-life Catholics uneasy about the war and the economy.

Lilly Ledbetter: 7. I felt like I was watching the Democratic version of Suzette Kelo. Sure she’s got a compelling story. But I don’t see that just because a legislator opposes a particular bill, say the Fair Pay Restoration Act, they are automatically anti-woman.

Mark Warner: 7. He looked good, but the speech rambled a bit. At this point, I’d like to offer a brief discourse on Democrats’ vision for energy, the economy, and global warming. Warner said “[W]ith the right policies, within 24 months, we’ll be building 100 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrid vehicles right here — with American technology and with American workers.” Now to me, that seems slightly pie-in-the-sky. The Congress need merely wave a wand, and within 2 years all our energy troubles will go away. Biden hit on similar themes on Wednesday - promising these 5 million “green collar jobs.” Again, it just seems implausible to me that Congress can simply pass a bill, and from the ground will miraculously sprout forth 5 million new family-supporting jobs that can be held by 45-year old unemployed assembly-line workers in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Unless they’re planning for straight-up FDR-style CCC type jobs.

Hillary Clinton: 9. She gave a GREAT speech (here I second Larry Kudlow’s assessment). First off, I liked the orange outfit a lot - wasn’t red or blue like everyone else, looked good against the background. Her “sisterhood of the traveling pantssuit” and “twin cities” lines were both great. It was mostly about her, not much about Barack, but I think she said the right things - particularly the “Were you in this for me or for the mom on minimum wage?” set of lines.

We are excited to announce that two of our bloggers here at Gop3.com will be attending the Republican National Convention in St.Paul, MN. Sarah Kirby and I have obtained special press passes and we will both be blogging and taking pictures at the main event as well as a number of peripheral events. I will be covering September 1-3 and Sarah will be covering some of September 1st and all of the 4th.

For a full schedule of events, see the Republican National Convention blog.  If you see something you would really like to have us attend or you just have suggestions for us while we are there, please make a comment on the post.

I’m starting a new feature here on GOP3, which will continue for the next two weeks. It’s a scorecard of the primetime convention performances, Olympic judge style.

Jesse Jackson Jr. gets an 8.5 overall - his delivery was good, message was decent.
Mike and Cheryl Fisher get a 7. Clearly they’re nice people, real people, but one lunch with Barack Obama does not give you a definitive judgment of his character and personality.

Caroline Kennedy gets a 5. The speech was really stilted and scripted - it was like a 4 for performance and a 6 for writing. She may be a very smart attorney and author and veep vetter, but not much of a stage presence.

The Ted Kennedy video gets a 6. It was well done, clearly well-produced. But it was also off message - John Kerry got beat in 2004, and nothing says “out of touch” like a movie about sailing their beautiful huge sailboat from Nantucket to Hyannis Port.

Ted Kennedy himself gets a 9. His presence was electric - the crowd went wild. The clear missing patch of hair was a powerful visual reminder of his illness. He gets a 9 for speech delivery - he stepped on a few lines, and when he leaned into the mike at big moments it was muffled rather than amplified. The speech gets an 8.5 for writing - one of the commentators said it was a Bob Shrum speech. There were parts that were really disjointed, but I assume that was Kennedy failing to read the lines right, not Shrum’s writing. But he gets a 10 for visuals - the place was rocking.

Claire McCaskill’s kids did a decent job - that’s a lot of pressure to be under for that young age. Sen. McCaskill herself only get a 7. For performance, a 7 - she tried hard to balance being on the attack and being positive, and it didn’t work that well. For writing, a 6.5 - the “that’s my American story. That’s my husband’s American story. That’s Michelle Obama’s American story” got old and wasn’t very interesting. And a 7.5 for appearance - I thought the blue dress clashed too much with the red of the background - I wish the backdrop was a little softer red. And the V cut on her dress could have been up an inch or two, more rounded.

The Michelle Obama video was nice … the focus on her father caught me a little off guard. The brother gets an 8 - he did his job just fine. Michelle gets a 9 - I liked her outfit, I liked her speech, I liked her podium presence. She needed to deliver a good speech that humanized her and her husband, and most pundits agree she did just that.

Darling/Wasserman Debate

On Upfront with Mike Gousha on WISN Alberta Darling debated Sheldon Wasserman, in their first public appearance. I have to say that I think Gousha did an excellent job and I wish that he could be a debate moderator in the future when there is less of a time limit. Also, my apologies for not being able to embed the video.

In the first block of the debate, both of them highlighted their initiatives and success with education.
Wasserman tried to use his experience as a doctor as a reason why he knows about healthcare, but Alberta is the candidate that has put together a full proposal, whereas Sheldon has done little.

Following the commercial break, Wasserman came out lying. And apparently he’s gone through eight pairs of shoes which is more important to him than the $3 million that will be spent in the race. Gousha asked about the tone of the campaign and Alberta’s health was again a topic. Of course he lied about the spreading rumors about Alberta’s health to lobbiests and then lied about a press realease that he sent out on July 23rd.

Here is the press release that came from Wasserman’s own campaign.

“Solid financial planning, prudent campaign spending and the support of over 1000 donors give me a strong overall advantage,” said Rep. Wasserman. “As the long time incumbent and member of the committee that writes the state budget, it is no surprise that Senator Darling out raised me in big money and special interest donations. She talks about being a fiscal conservative but has squandered her campaign resources. The only thing I can be accused of overspending on is shoe leather. I’ve worn through eight pairs since I first began going door to door and meeting with people in the 8th Senate District over a year ago.”

Wasserman, who knocked on 735 doors last week, has visited over 18,500 homes. “My opponent likes to tell people she is ‘out knocking on doors.’ But the voters know the difference between riding in a car watching staff drop off taxpayer-funded road maps that people did not even ask for and actually knocking on doors and talking to people,” added Wasserman. “I run my campaign like I run my Assembly office, with a strong focus on personal service and fiscal responsibility.”

Man, if you’re going to lie about your own press releases and challenge Alberta to find some text about it, you have to hide stuff better. Like always, Wasserman has taken a cheap shot at Alberta that he’ll go on to blatantly deny. I bolded the appropriate section which he claims he never said. And since we’ve found said text, we’ll all be waiting for Sheldon’s response. It’s the political chameleon up to the usual stuff again but as he opens his mouth more and more you can start to see that he can’t even keep his colors straight.

This past week the six candidates for the 24th Assembly (Menomonee Falls/Germantown) got together for a question and answer session at the Menomonee Falls Community Center. Though I only got to be there for a short time, my dad actually took notes about the candidates as he is trying to make a foray into the blogging world and wanted to see what he’d have to do for these events.

Prior to the candidates for the 24th coming together, Jim Burkee talked for about 20 minutes about why he is running against Jim Sensenbrenner. He attacked Sensenbrenner’s stance on immigration because his plan would deport the children and spouses of illegal immigrants as well as the illegal aliens themselves. (I’ll stick with The Sensenbrenner) He claimed that Sensenbrenner is the worst at taking special interest money and that Burkee would never take any money. I am fine with this too; Sensenbrenner wants to get money from conservative PACs that’s fine. Burkee’s claim is really just ceremonial, because he wouldn’t have gotten any special interest money anyways. Burkee also attacked Sensenbrenner for not wanting to drill in ANWAR . Burkee finished by saying that there is no democrat running in the district this year (because Burkee’s buddy dropped out) and Burkee is your only vote for change. And Sensenbrenner has never worked, lived or raised kids in the district so you should vote for someone who has.

–The 24th Debate—

In the 24th debate, there were two democrats Torrey Lauer and Charlene Brady and four republicans. Dan Knodl (Pronounce the K), Randy Melchert, Jason LaSage and Mike Moscikie.

Brady started off the opening statements by making it known that she is the “Verbal Candidate.” Instead of people to donating to her campaign she would rather have them donate to the food pantry. She says she won’t be putting out lit and campaign signs because she thinks that will annoy too many people. She has experience and has been a Germantown Resident for 20 years. Oldest candidate. Though I find this a noble way to go by not spending money, I don’t think it will work out that well in such a local race.

Knodl has lived in the district most of his life. He’s a father, parent and business owner of Menomonee Falls for 23 years and currently on the Washington County Board.

Jason LaSage is running for the 24th assembly because he is concerned about taxes, pork spending and the bad businee economy. He spend six years on the Germantown school board. He has worked at Strong Funds and understands money management. Working on the school board and in the Menomonee Falls school district as a substitute teacher, he has a working knowledge of education system

Randy Melchert is promoting himself as the conservative Republican. He owns a radio station and his goal is to make the state affordable, eliminate the mark up law and help energy costs. He has also attended the blatantly anti-Catholic Bob Jones University. He sounded like he was giving a speech to a room full of supporters, not a debate.

Mike Moscicke- He works for the department of Administration so he’s worked with people on both sides of the isle and does not want to socialize Medicine. His family has been in the Menomonee Falls since 1938.

The first question was about Revenue Caps in municipalities. Most said they were good at the time but not now.

The second question was about the universal health plan and how it should be implemented. Mosecki said it should be subsidized by the employees. Melchert, LaSage, Knodel and Lauer all said that it was not a good idea

The next question debated the future of the 220 program. Melchert, LaSage, Knodl all said that the parents should be allowed to make more decisions on where the child goes to school. Brady seemed to be the only one to favor the program based of improving the diversity of students.

Then came the debate on the smoking ban. LaSage said local control could vary and create government problems. Knodl said the government should stay out. Brady was emphatically against the smoking ban. Moscicke said that the issue can’t be legislated easily. Melchert favored the idea of avoiding the smoking areas and said other issues like drunk driving were of greater concern.

Concerning minimum mark up laws none seemed to favor the antiquated law. Melchert claimed it was unconstitutional, LaSage said he favored the free market.

All of the candidates seem to be against unfunded mandates and promoted state wide economical development through lowering taxes.

I’d talked to one of the candidates a day or so prior to the debate and that person seemed fairly correct. It really was six people agreeing with each other. All of Republicans seemed to have very similar beliefs and even the democrats seemed fiscally responsible. However based off my dad’s grading he said none of the candidates blew him away. He said LaSage spoke the best, but was surprised by Melchert who spoke rather well, but was too grim and over dramatic about taxes . My dad’s thoughts are that it’s not taxes that should be immediately cut, it’s the out of control spending that should be done away with, and then the taxes would naturally come down, not the Melchert way. My dad remarked that the other candidates were too soft spoken and said that if they had to debate on the floor someone like Lena Taylor (he said that woman that ran against Walker) he thinks they would get shouted down.

After talking to my dad (a resident of Menomonee Falls since the 50s) he told me his thoughts on the candidates as a whole. Out of ones that have contacted us, he thinks LaSage has the best lit piece and a quality yard sign. He thinks Melchert has the best yard signs (very ‘American’) but his lit is utterly confusing. Knodl’s yard signs are inconsistent (he has large orange signs that say his whole name and what he’s running for on major streets, while personal yard signs are maroon and white and just say his last name) and his lit is too much to fit on one piece.

On a related note, the Journal Sentinel recently endorsed Jason LaSage for the GOP primary in the district.