Kerry Aides See McCain As Perfect Running Mate

There's hope for us yet ...

The union of a Democrat and a Republican "would make good on the president's promise to be a uniter, not a divider," said one Kerry aide, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity. Such a ticket could offer Americans the prospect of a reduction in the partisanship that has increasingly gripped Capitol Hill during the past decade, as well as a return to the national unity experienced in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

Above all, the aides hypothesize that by choosing McCain as a running mate, Kerry would energize the election, create a weeks-long buzz in the media, and, perhaps most importantly, attract the support of swing and independent voters from both parties. Surveys earlier this year showed that many of the people who supported Howard Dean's insurgent candidacy for the Democratic nomination were the same "McCainiacs" who helped McCain win the 2000 Republican primary in New Hampshire against Bush.

"The narrative fits the country right now," a Kerry aide said of a potential Kerry-McCain partnership, while not ruling out other potential tandems and asserting that the decision is Kerry's alone.

McCain has said he would not run with Kerry and has vowed to campaign for Bush, but last month he renewed speculation about a potential matchup when he was asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" whether he would consider running with Kerry. He replied, "Obviously, I would entertain it." Democratic Party rules do not outlaw -- nor specifically address -- nominating a candidate from another party, a Democratic National Committee spokeswoman said.

Author John Avlon has made a significant contribution to the ranks of literature covering the middle of ideological thought. I wish, however, I could say this is a competitive field. Despite a handful of books hitting the shelves of bookstores recently, few have given any coherent type of vision of what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. defined as the "vital center" in 1949. Yet with such a great collection of individual political histories that demonstrate a coherence and unity of mainstream political thought from the middle, Avlon overreaches on one critical element that many of the more recent writers committ to even more ... an attempt to define a centrist platform.

What is evident throughout the collection of histories that range in time from Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose campaign to the 2000 election between two moderates competing over the very middle itself is that the middle is movable.Where Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt saw the need to steer the government into a more protective role to serve as a counterweight to big business, more recent efforts have sought to balance competing demands between fiscal conservatism, a disdain for raising taxes, and a desire to do more with less at various government levels. Various moderate campaigns have sought to adapt elements of the opposing political party (Eisenhower) or to redefine the party of one's choosing, in an effort to reframe the debate (Moynihan, Clinton, Bush). Avlon even covers those who have rejected (or been rejected by) the two parties and run as pure independents.

The similarities in these histories is that each involves a case of actively defining one's political outlook so as to position ones self in the middle. Avlon does not seem to note this tendency enough, I think. The need for this is critical for centrist candidates. In order to escape the caricatured view that exists of the party one is running to represent, the value of defining one's candidacy and ideology is at a premium. Without such a definition, one is left to be defined by the letter next to their name and the inherent strength is denotes on election day.

While seemingly a shortcoming, it should not take away from the impressive collection of well-written histories. Of note ....

Gov. Buddy Roemer - Admittedly, seeing a chapter on this was a draw for me, personally. Stated bluntly, Buddy Roemer was (is?) my type of reformer. Roemer, of course, ran right in the belly of the beast, tackling corruption and cronyism in Louisiana state politics. His initial campaign was one to marvel at for the directness in which Roemer critiqued the state of Louisiana politics, replete with the image of Roemer sitting on a stool in a bare television setting, riffing his thoughts into the camera, noting "I love Louisiana, but I hate Louisiana politics." Taking on the dragon of Louisiana corruption himself, Edwin Edwards, Roemer had the ideal target. In noting that he would endorse anybody who was running against Edwards in a runoff (were Roemer not to make the cutoff - something he was in danger of as late as the very late debate in which he made the statement), Roemer ran as a pure reformer. In the end, he would lead the initial voting with a plurality, but not a majority. Instead of facing Roemer in a sure loss, Edwards opted out and ceded the race, handing the keys to the Governor's mansion to Roemer.

Somewhere along the way, reality set in as the status quo of Louisiana politics became a bit too overwhelming for Roemer to fully tackle. Likewise, unreality set in as Roemer endured a midlife crisis with a divorce and new age self-help guru advising Roemer right from the Governor's mansion. By the time Roemer stood for re-election, he would also switch from Democrat to Republican, taking leave of whatever Democratic support he had left, but gaining nothing from Louisiana Republicans who felt Roemer did nothing to communicate with them. Isolated, Roemer faced a squeeze in his next election. Edwin Edwards to the left, and David Duke to the right. With the extremes energized, it would be those two who faced off in a runoff ... offing Roemer in the process.

The tale is inconclusive in how it tells a tale of a successful centrist campaign. Roemer's first win statewide was not with a majority (although Avlon leaves out Roemer's total, vague memory pegs it around 30%). His administration was a series of hits and misses, as the very reform that Roemer sought made enemies within the business community. This would lead to one impassioned opponent to spend a million or so dollars buying every remaining open slot of TV ad time late in the second campaign to prevent Roemer from hitting the airwaves in order to pull into the runoff. He would end up trailing Duke 30% to 26.9% and having to laboriously note that he advocated a vote for Edwards, while not endorsing him personally.

Pres. Bill Clinton - There's not a lot unknown on Clinton's 1992 campaign that ended up leading Democrats out of the wildnerness. Avlon begins with a retelling of Clinton's initial campaign foray at the DLC's Cleveland convention, noting "It is difficult to remember how revolutionary those words sounded" in describing Clinton's manifesto of responsibility, opportunity and community. The sad thing is, there seems to be more than a few willing to forget how effective the message was in rebuilding the Democratic party to the status today's 50-50 electorate. Once more, the candidate defines himself aggressively, assertively, and with certainty. Being a moderate need not mean being unsure of oneself. While most candidates (yes, even Bush) will leave just enough wiggle room in their comments, and Clinton certainly seemed to raise this to an artform, I emphasize the primary message of the campaign in this instance (and likely most others, too). Candidates of all striped will leave their foot in their mouth or trip over their tongue in responding to a question or offering an unscripted response. While not discounting the importance of those comments, how one defines themself at the fundamental point of giving both the critique of the other side and stating one's own outlook is viewed separately in noting that centrists need not merely hide behind saying "me too" in order to fit into a 50%+1 model of winning elections.

Gov. Earl Warren - An interesting tale, to say the least. Warren won the primary for both parties in his campaign for Governor of California. Warren's brand of centrism seems almost as if to model a pseudo-Unitarian "all of the above" approach to politics in that he was primarily a Republican, but adapted to the New Deal era and had benefit of running against far left candidates in the Democratic primary while holding onto just enough Republican support despite notable opposition to his politics. While I think Warren's brand of centrism is one that may not apply to today as well as many other candidate histories in the book, it is at least an historical curiosity worth reading.

Sen. Patrick Moynihan - Where the Roemer chapter had my interest perked to full attention, this one closed the sale for me. While Roemer's tale is one that does not leave a happy ending, Moynihan at least offers success in the political realm ... and in the rocky terrain of New York politics at that. The chapter covers his initial campaign against Bella Abzug in 1976 as its focal point. From the Democratic side, this is a must-read chapter. Sadly, Moynihan's critique of Abzug reads all to much like the basis of a good critique that modern Democrats should heed for challenges to the energized (and often loony) left emerging in our own ranks.

As far back as 1967, in a speech that would be delivered a mere 2 months before my own birth (coincidence?), Moynihan would offer a speech to the board of Americans for Democratic Action in which he offers the following points, as offered by Avlon:

1. Liberals must see more clearly that their essential interest is in the stability of the social order; and that, given the present threats to that stability, they must seek out and make much more effective alliances with political Conservatives who share their interest and recognize that unyielding rigidity is just as great a threat to continuity of the social order as an anarchic desire for change.

2. Liberals must divest themselves of the notion that the nation - and especially the cities of the nation - can be run from agencies in Washington.

3. Liberals must somehow overcome the curious condescension that takes the form of defending and explaining away anything, however outrageous, which Negroes, individually or collectively might do.

While the speech's context was within the social unrest at teh time, the fundamental aspects made then stand as true today. Moynihan's 1976 campaign, as he seemed to note ... was to save liberalism from its excesses. Abzug, in turn, seemed intent to make the campaign turn on the issue of which candidate was the "real" Democrat. In words that clearly sum up my own belief, Avlon quotes Moynihan in a campaign speech, railing against hijackers of liberalism:

"Much lip service is given by persons of this poltical persuasion to teh idea of improving and refomring things, but in practice, more often then not, they show no interest in the kind of incremental improvement taht the traditional liberalim of the Democratic party has always sought and always fought for."

My kingdom for more candidates who steal that quote from Moynihan.

Govs. Weicker (CT), Ventura (MN), King (ME) - This tale of three independent candidates may give some ray of hope for other candidates running as independents. But look more closely, and any ray of hope will seem more like a train light headed their way. Each of these three successful candidates had more than a capital "I' next to their name when election day rolled around. Lowell Weicker had years of service as a Senator, elected statewide until being offed by yet another of my faves: Joe Lieberman. Jesse Ventura, as many might have heard, had some sort of quasi-sports related career going before trading that for a job as small town mayor and Reform candidate for Governor. Angus King was a popular radio talk show host in Maine before figuring out what to do after his time with the failed Paul Tsongas campaign had come to an end. In short, each of the three had some sort of name recognition to trade on that aided their candidacy. Each is a great story in its own right, but each should offer little hope for future independent candidates without such similar currency.

As stated, the histories are the strong point for this book. Avlon attempts to define a course for moderate politicians: pro-choice, pro-environment, reasonable gun control, school prayer, campaign finance reform, tax simplification, bilingual education reform, and tort reform. Avlon concludes that an "overdue realignment" is in order, just waiting to happen. I'll disagree. No such realignment need happen where agreement already exists. When the two parties fail to encompass many of the areas Avlon notes, moderate voters are often left to make false choices (anyone here in Houston recall the 2001 mayoral runoff election?). When a candidate defines himself in the realm of this middle ground, the alignment is already in place (anyone here in Houston recall the 2003 mayoral runoff election?) - ripe for the taking. It is up to the candidate to best define himself within this mainstream agenda, first by keeping in mind that the salient issues that define this group of voters changes and the risk of missing the definition is one that is easy to make (personally, I think Avlon misses the point with bilingual education ... is this REALLY an issue that a large number of people are so concerned with?). Secondly, it is up to the candidate to state this case, often without party support, often running against intraparty challenges that attack the legitimacy of this agenda within the party context, and and often without the built-in constituencies of support that frequently go along with traditional party candidates. To define the vital center, one must put it into the context of their party (see "Moynihan, Senator Daniel Patrick") and challenge the status quo within the rank and file (see "Clinton, President William Jefferson" and "Bush, President George W."). How that message is delivered and received are separate concerns worth addressing, but I'll leave that for another day & time

A few brief takes since I've been busy with putting some book reviews and longer articles together ...

Strayhorn rips into governor

Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn on Friday lambasted Gov. Rick Perry's proposal to cap tax increases for property owners, saying it was like "rearranging the chairs on the Titanic."

"And the Titanic's problems aren't going away," Strayhorn said during a lunch gathering of civic and business leaders in Dallas.

God bless that crazy granny. For a little more Perry madness, Rick Casey has a great writeup on his latest pick for State Education superintendent that is simply devastating and continues to show this Gov seemingly finding new and inventive ways to half-ass his way through anything.

With the red meat main course out of the way now ... Gregland is a bit occupied. Home sick today, so I'm catching up on reading when possible.

Yesterday was eventful enough with a movie, a hockey game, and a concert. All have their highlights, not the least of which was sharing a bit of company with two hot blondes at the hockey game. Look for the entertainment bits to show up on ClownCarBlog soon. Longer think-peices will hit this site around the same time. Brace yourselves.

Although, seriously ... can I possibly top Kevin's writeups on the city's pension mess?

First things first ... Mo-Joe Goes to State!!!!

Given that political conventions can only be best summed up as a combined form of heaven and hell, anyone writing about the subject must cover a great amount of good and bad. So despite spending 8 hours with a lot of sitting, a lot of listening, and a lot of nothing, let me start with neither the good nor the bad, but the humorous.

I stroll into Robert E. Lee High School knowing merely a few things to expect. I'm on the Resolutions committee, so I look forward to the ferocious debate of every issue under the sun. I also know that I'm sticking to my guns as a Lieberman delegate just out of principle and if that means I miss the state convention, then so be it.

Given my moderate bonafides, I walk in and am greeted by the convention chair and promptly asked to conduct a workshop on liberal media. I note that its a bit more red meat than my diet normally allows for, but this sways nobody. I spend an inordinate amount of time drawing up a list of sites to pass on and my preparation for organizing a 30-40 minute group session is severely lacking.

In the midst of the first group session, there I am opining on a litany of topics concerning liberal media sources, supposedly an expert ... and then Byron Barclay arrives from the Nominations Committee to inform me that I can't go to state as a Lieberman delegate. The irony, I'm sure, struck only me the most. It would later turn out that after reviewing the rules, I will be taking MoJoe to state since I was voted out of my precinct as a Lieberman delegate by the landslide margin of one vote to zero. Hurray for democracy.

OK, so the bad? ... David van Os needs to never run for office again. He was our keynote speaker and admittedly, has a tough role as both a statewide candidate, the state party's top ticket candidate (which isn't saying a lot in Presidential years for Texas ... there's basically the Supreme Court & Railroad Commish to battle over). Anyways, David has to give a somewhat big picture speech as the quasi-standard bearer, plus this is a keynote event, so the speech might want to be about more than how Democrats would govern the Supreme Court were they given the keys to justice once again. After hearing David's speech, I still have no clue how Democrats would conduct themselves as Supreme Court justices. That's a shame. I do know, however, where our Supreme Court candidate stands on Iraq. And yet, instead of pondering WMD, about all I'm left to think of David's speech is BFD. We need to do better.

There's more bad, and a lot of mediocre, but let me get to a few good things to note just to keep this a bit balanced. In arriving early, I peruse the program, look for a few familiar names to see which ones might show up, and notice two right off the bat ... Byron Barclay listed as a sponsor and his wife Rhonda showing up on a few committees. I run into both and learn that Byron has been a one-man PR machine for this very site. If you see me washing his car at some point, you'll know why. Best quality time had to be in the all-too-brief time I spent with Byron, Rhonda & acquaintances at Pappasito's after the convention. Hard to top having a lovely woman buy me a beer, but the rest of the time was pretty entertaining as well.

Back to everything inbetween ... Chris Bell showed up fairly early, and I'm semi-sweating if he's read a recent post-mortem on his candidacy where I'd written a few critical notes of him. I'll amend them here ... and without contradicting myself, I think. Chris gave a pretty damn good speech to the group, but the medium is notably different than the smaller groups I'd normally seen him in. And to be fair, Chris is perhaps the single best television candidate that Texas Dems can put forth. That may mean he makes a better statewide candidate than a Congressional candidate (or Mayoral candidate). His problem in small groups is simply that he isn't engaging. I've dealt with him one-on-one, and know him to be as engaging as he wants to be, witty, and everything else you could ask for in a candidate. In front of a few hundred people from a stage setting, he does a pretty good job, getting a very good reaction from the partisans. And I've got no doubts that in media settings, with TV or radio, his skills in those mediums as a professional will help him immensely. But somewhere between crowds of one and crowds of 250, there's some work yet to be done. Not sure how critical that will be as a statewide candidate ... you've still got to host fundraisers with groups in that headcount range, so I suspect he'll need to address it if he seriously wants to pick up some enthusiasm from peole he meets.

We had the normal plethora of candidates speaking ... that's what these things are for, after all. Al Edwards, Scott Hochberg, and Rodney Ellis stood out as impressive. John Martinez (CD07) did not. I excused myself for procuring a slice of pizza while Al Green spoke. I like to think I chose wisely. Reginald McKamie still strikes me as intriguing if for no other reason that you've got to think his energy is contagious. If the groundwork he's putting out through Harris County is a reflection of that, then he could push the Democratic percentage up another point or two (yeah, I'd like more ... but color me sceptical that any Dem wins countywide this time).

The workshop I had to conduct was pretty good when all was said and done. I was seriously hoping that I'd end up giving it to a bunch of people I didn't know so I'd have the freedom to screw up with my dignity intact. No dice, as a trio of acquaintences from Precinct 256 show up. They didn't heckle me, so I like to think that survival is a moral victory of sorts. One of the ladies questioned my inclusion of The New Republic as falling within the center-left realm of media. It was nice to see a little thought like that going on. In fairness, I did give a few mentions of the harder left sites, incuding some that I'm not overly fond of (like DailyKOS). About the best advice I think I managed to pass on is to just check the links here at this lil ol site, as well as on Charles Kuffner's. Charles has a more exhaustive blog listing, and a few other links that I skip over. Mine is a bit of a highlighted list, admittedly with a few ommissions that I fail to read often enough for a variety of reasons (not all of which are due to not liking them). BurntOrangeReport.com also got a highlighted plug for their statewide coverage. From the links on all of the above, just carve an hour or two out of the day and find sites that you like to read for whatever reason, bookmark them, and pass on the best work to your Republican friends to irritate the holy hell out of them. One thing worth plugging in addition ... Kevin Whited's site. He's no Dem, but he's also not the most vitriolic freeper in the world. And even if you don't like the current events takes of his, the sports and music posts are quality stuff. He's the reigning champ on Houston Press' award for Best local blogger. If the Houston Press can give him props, then so can anyone else, I think. Oh, the one downside of doing the workshop ... it meant I missed out on the Resolutions committee fun. Apparently, the standard fare debate over Israel once more rose its ugly head and led to the most contentious debate during the floor votes.

The second session I had for the workshop was a smaller group, but started off with a pretty good question that again showed some pretty good thought put into the topic. A lady wanted to know if the Chronicle was conservative or liberal. My answer (debatable, I'm sure) ... neither. They reflect the downtown business establishment now as they did when they were an independent newspaper. That means their business coverage is absolutely abyssmal (name one critical Enron article pre-implosion), the national coverage is predominately newswire work. The local and state coverage is insanely chummy, so as to be not the least bit revealing. I recall when one of the mayoral candidates (can't remember if it was Turner, Berry, or Sanchez ... I think Berry), I exchange a few emails on outrage over some rather substantial historical notes left out (part of the confusion ... all of the candidates have their baggage). I'm greeted with a response of something like "Oh, John Williams can't write anything negative on anybody." I was also offered a $50 bet on one of the later-to-announce candidates getting same treatment when his announcement was official. I declined to take the bet due to the fact that I felt my challenger's information was better than mine. Neither liberals, conservatives, or even moderates have much to like about the Chronicle ... it just sucks.

All that said, the event seemed to go as well as one could realistically expect. By the end of the day, the bunting I'd been enlisted to put up was starting to fall off, so I kept praying we'd end before everything just fell apart. We managed to accomplish that. I'd later learn that in the midst of all the "fun" of voting on resolutions from the convention floor, that I was being used as an opinion leader of sorts when a few others weren't sure where they stood and used my voting as the basis of their own decision (these things tend to be insanely mind-numbing after about the 1st resolution ... kudos to Ella Tyler for enduring the task of reading them). Its ironic because in moving over from my island as the lone delegate in Precinct 430, I hang out with the better organized neighboring precinct of 256, chit chat a bit, and catch all forms of hell for the times I end up voting opposite the ladies I'm conversing with. Nothing keeps things livelier in conversation than excusing yourself to negate one of the two votes your acquaintances just cast. I'm sure I can expect to catch several forms of hell at the next meeting (or two, or three, or ...) of Sharpstown Democrats.

Final kudos to Bert Anson, the convention chair. I might have been inclined to hold him in disdain for enlisting me to conduct a workshop on liberal media, but his job is thankless enough for this event.

After the convention, I headed out to the Aeros game, the good guys won. Today is a movie, another hockey game, and a concert afterwards. Apologies to anyone I don't get in touch with that I need to. Damn busiest weekend I've ever had.