Jack Balkin writes:
Balkinization: The Problem With Second Choices: I see that Bush is now running an ad noting that McCain was Kerry's first choice for Vice-President. The Dems should run an ad noting that Al Gore was the country's first choice for President.
There are many riffs you can do on this:
George W. Bush was America's second choice for president.
George W. Bush says John McCain was John Kerry's first choice for vice president. I can assure you that George W. Bush was not John McCain's first choice for president--or his second, third, fourth, or fifth choice either.
George W. Bush complains that John Edwards was John Kerry's second choice for vice president. But what's wrong with that? John Kerry was John Edwards's second choice for president.
George W. Bush is Ralph Nader's first choice for president.
Carlyle Group founder David Rubenstein says George W. Bush is his 25,000,001 choice for president.
Beat him by more in 2004!
Posted by DeLong at July 7, 2004 01:04 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postit turns out that McCain had also turned Bush down in 2000, link from dailykos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/7/135359/0216
so I guess that means you could also run with "Dick Cheney was George Bush's second choice for vice president."
Posted by: Christopher Brandow on July 7, 2004 01:22 PM"it turns out that McCain had also turned Bush down in 2000"
Projection, again . . .
Posted by: rea on July 7, 2004 01:29 PMMcCain's office is denying he was ever offerred the VP nod. So Bush-Cheney does lie about everything!
Posted by: Harold McClure on July 7, 2004 01:39 PMif I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am certainly not projecting. here is the source for the cheney thing. it was supposedly on CBS's early show:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040322.asp#2
Over on CBS’s The Early Show, Hannah Storm told McCain: “Interesting that Senator Joe Biden proposed a unity ticket with you as a running mate for Kerry. You said a week ago on national television that you would actually entertain that thought-"
McCain: "Hannah-"
Storm: "I know that you two are friends. Have you talked about it. Have you talked about this with Senator Kerry?"
McCain: "No. We are friends. Joe Lieberman is a friend of mine, also, as is John Edwards. You know, in America I think it's still possible to have a friend if they're in another party, at least I hope so. Look, I don't want to be Vice President of the United States, I do not want to leave the Republican party, I would not be Vice President of the United States on either ticket. I told President Bush when he asked me in 2000 if, when he asked me if I was interested, I said I was not interested. I love being in the United States Senate and I am of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. I can not categorically more state, answer no."
Errr... I don't get the Carlyle Group one?
Posted by: a different chris on July 7, 2004 01:59 PMif I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am certainly not projecting. here is the source for the cheney thing. it was supposedly on CBS's early show:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040322.asp#2
Over on CBS’s The Early Show, Hannah Storm told McCain: “Interesting that Senator Joe Biden proposed a unity ticket with you as a running mate for Kerry. You said a week ago on national television that you would actually entertain that thought-"
McCain: "Hannah-"
Storm: "I know that you two are friends. Have you talked about it. Have you talked about this with Senator Kerry?"
McCain: "No. We are friends. Joe Lieberman is a friend of mine, also, as is John Edwards. You know, in America I think it's still possible to have a friend if they're in another party, at least I hope so. Look, I don't want to be Vice President of the United States, I do not want to leave the Republican party, I would not be Vice President of the United States on either ticket. I told President Bush when he asked me in 2000 if, when he asked me if I was interested, I said I was not interested. I love being in the United States Senate and I am of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. I can not categorically more state, answer no."
"Errr... I don't get the Carlyle Group one?"
Rubenstein:
...when we were putting the board together, somebody [Fred Malek] came to me and said, look there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs a board position. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.
I said well we're not usually in that business. But okay, let me meet the guy. I met the guy. I said I don't think he adds that much value. We'll put him on the board because - you know - we'll do a favor for this guy; he's done a favor for us.
We put him on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years - you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.
He said, well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.
And I said, thanks - didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush. He became President of the United States. So you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category. So you never know. Anyway, I haven't been invited to the White House for any things.
Posted by: EH on July 7, 2004 02:13 PMPlease remember that of all the people choosing Vice-Presidential candidates, only Cheney got his first choice.
Posted by: JollyGiant on July 7, 2004 02:25 PMCheney is not Bush's first choice for a running mate, but unfortunately it looks like Ken Lay is going to be otherwise occupied for a while.
Posted by: Kuas on July 7, 2004 02:39 PMGeorge W. Bush was George H.W. Bush's second choice for president.
Posted by: ogmb on July 7, 2004 03:04 PMSorry, the premise for this post isn't quite right. Although the internal name of the ad is "First Choice", the ad itself doesn't say anything about Kerry's choice for Vice-President. In fact, the ad doesn't mention Kerry at all. You can see the ad at: http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/
Posted by: David on July 7, 2004 04:10 PMAs usual, we have reading comprehension problems:
" I told President Bush when he asked me in 2000 if, when he asked me if I was interested, I said I was not interested."
That is not saying McCain was offered the vice presidency, only that he was asked if he would be interested in being considered for it. And, there is no evidence that Edwards was even Kerry's SECOND choice.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 7, 2004 04:33 PMKerry's wooing of McCain is his only embarrassment so far, in a campaign that's been otherwise well done. But there's so much time to go, that this shred will be forgotten--or even turned to advantage with the McCain Repubs, who anecdotally are bailing-out on Bush, due to his ridiculous and insulting social atavism and the blunder in foreign policy.
Certainly, the Bushies make yet another error today, by banging on the McCain syllogism so soon: "Kerry wanted McCain; McCain likes Bush instead; Edwards was second-best !" Can Kerry like McCain, if McCain likes Bush? Golly! I shall consult my third-grade-schoolyard Miss Manners guide!
And by tomorrow, this will be yesterday's snooze.
Maybe McCain understands this, which is maybe why he's stepping up for the GOP, NOW. It's likely that his name is being used only with his implicit say-so. Would it be so surprising if he sits out the rest of Bush's campaign but for the convention--or even if he were bruited for Defense or State, under Kerry (without necessarily caring to accept)?
Many of the things this McCain story implies would matter more if this were the last month before election. But of course there's four months to go, which means the electorate still has one or two major emotional realizations to undergo. Therefore, the electorate is going to discount almost every opinion that is now prevalent.
This campaign is unusually stretched out, so the "emotional beats" are very different. This error in presupposing a normal campaign dynamic (quite aside from the abnormally strong foreign policy issue!) has been propagated by everyone.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 7, 2004 05:05 PMAs usual, Patrick is having logic comprehension problems.
It is the Bush campaign that decided McCain being asked if he's interested (by Kerry) implies that he is was the first choice. If that's true in 2004, it should be true of 2000 also.
Posted by: Kuas on July 7, 2004 05:06 PMMcCain ardently supports Bush after the way he was treated in 2000? I do not think that shows much self-respect.
Posted by: masaccio on July 7, 2004 05:09 PMPatrick is correct on one thing though, there is no evidence that Edwards was Kerry's second choice.
Posted by: Kuas on July 7, 2004 05:38 PMJust so, masaccio! After the way they trashed his wife, you'd guess McCain is just paying lip service to his party, until Bush gets thrown overboard. After the Kerry overture he's required to show at least a little loyalty, no? But that means Bushie unfortunately gets a two-minute story headline.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 7, 2004 05:43 PMIt's probably impossible, but is there some chance that McCain's chief of staff could be featured in an ad saying that McCain was never offered the vice presidency? Even if he is not a willing participant? There's got to be some newspaper out there that reported this, so at the very least, they could mention that article.
Brad, I like all of your suggestions, especially the second one.
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2004 07:22 PMOf the variations on a theme, I thought Poorman hit pay dirt with 'Dick Cheney's second choice for VP was Dick Cheney.'
Posted by: calmo on July 7, 2004 08:09 PMNader is Nader's first choice. It's these seemingly "throwaway" comments are the ones that the some of us remember.
But, I know, I know, it's easier to pick on everyone's favorite whippin' boy: Ralph Nader. Begs the question too, if the statistics are what people say and so many are voting for Nader--then ask yourselves--WHY?
The Left is still the Left. And repeatedly kicking Nader-voters in the teeth really isn't the way to getting a united party. If you want Bush outta office, go after Bush voters or those who aren't planning on voting. Or better yet, sell the Left on Kerry (the fact that he isn't Bush just ain't workin').
Posted by: jaf on July 7, 2004 08:13 PM"if I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am certainly not projecting"
Sorry, I meant that your post showed the Republicans projecting again, of course.
Generally speaking, if the Republicans accuse the democrats of doing something, you can count on it that the evidence will eventually show that the Republicans do it twice as hard and three times as often.
Posted by: rea on July 7, 2004 08:38 PMIn today's WaPo, Bushlet is apparently going around saying that Cheney is qualified to be President, in part because of his foreign policy credentials.
Surely this is exactly the point: Cheney has in fact shown the effect of his credentials by running foreign policy for the past three and a half years.
Real life, the game where empirical results do count.
"It is the Bush campaign that decided McCain being asked if he's interested (by Kerry) implies that he is was the first choice. If that's true in 2004, it should be true of 2000 also."
Don't try this at home, fellas. Kerry decided McCain was his first choice (and more than once tried to get him to accept). Bush never got beyond asking him if he wanted to be considered.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 8, 2004 09:18 AMPatrick R Sullivan:
"Kerry decided McCain was his first choice (and more than once tried to get him to accept)." 9:18 am
Aren't you assuming a lot here? I don't recall Kerry, his wife, Jim Johnson, nor McCain saying what you are saying here. Now, I remember a lot of media speculation to this effect, but not confirmed fact. I remember hearing many times throughout this process that this is speculation on the part of media people without actually anything from the principles involved. Perhaps you could point me to where this assertion of yours is supported by comments from one of the four above mentioned? I'll clarify that I am referring to McCain being asked more than once, since one could make the a case for being asked once given the data available.
General:
As to why this was a good idea, it very effectively neutralized the left wing fringe image attempted the past three months on Kerry, as well as showing that this man can think outside the box, something I suspect many Americans are wishing their current President demonstrated. It also showed Kerry's willingness to work with those of principle that he does not share agreement with in some significant areas, which is never a bad thing in such a polarized environment as currently exists. That there never was any serious chance that such a ticket would come about keeps being overlooked by those that want to argue that McCain was Kerry's first pick. This was a useful rumour that the Kerry camp left run perhaps a bit too long, but that's about it.
I think why this bothers some Republicans is that it reminds Americans that there can be respect and cooperation across party lines when it is with those of principle, and by not scorning Kerry in his refusals of this "offer" he also implicitly recognized Kerry as another man of principle and honour. Coming from McCain, this is very powerful anti-venom to the approach the Bush camp prefers to use, and I also think it was a way of McCain getting some of his own back against Bush for 2000 primaries.
By trying to go this "second choices" route, and especially with this McCain-Bush ad released by B-C we are seeing a bit of nervousness on their part, and that is never something an incumbent wants to have seen. I do feel sorry for McCain, for he is in what I suspect is a very uncomfortable position by doing this support, but he recognizes that to stay in the Republican party he has to support this President in the election. Why doesn't he quit the party if he has such objections, some would ask. I would suspect he is hanging in to be able to redirect the Republican party back towards the principled conservatism it used to have prior to the takeover to the religious right. Personally, I think that is a good thing, because sooner or later this extremist wing will cause a major defeat for the party, and there will be a need to change the leadership of the RR and the neocons with something else, and I think it would be much better to see McCain's sort of renewal than some of the others that might happen.
Now, I realize I am speculating about motives here, but at least I am honest enough to conceed this up front, instead of trying to claim it as something more substantive. This line of attack on the Edwards choice will be minimal to nil in it's overall effectiveness, I think, and the events that made it a possible line I think paid off very well for Kerry. So overall, I think this element has been a negative all around for Bush-Cheney.
Posted by: Scotian on July 8, 2004 06:57 PMPatrick Sullivan's quibble reminds me of an old story about dating in Vienna, the city of diplomacy.
"If I were to ask you to sleep with me, would you say yes?"
"If I told you I'd say yes, would you ask me?"
Truly the story isn't proof that McCain was Bush's first pick in 2000. Bush could have already had five rejections at that point.
Posted by: J Thomas on July 10, 2004 09:47 PMer Ken Lay was to be energy secretaryfor"sprout"according to trader gossip on the tapes released ENRON suit snohomish co. Wa.
Posted by: hortense on July 11, 2004 12:07 AM1879 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 01:34 PM1596 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
4564 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Posted by: cialis on August 10, 2004 10:36 AM5800 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 07:18 PM2645 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 16, 2004 03:23 PM