McCain / Obama
It’s a shame that America is so greatly divided among partisan lines that a, say, McCain - Obama ticket isn’t an option. That would be quite the ticket, wouldn’t it? Obama, the young, seemingly inspirational VP, McCain the highly experienced moderate Republican, with terrific national security and foreign policy credentials. Question: if they’re so concerned about what’s best for America, why won’t they even consider running on a bipartisan ticket? Wouldn’t that unite the country as never before (well, never, but you get the point)?
admin: Unfortunately, John won’t be expounding on anything
LOL, interesting first comment there.
I don’t know, I think it’s a problem. What platform would they run on- a Democratic one or a Republican one? Who would decide these things? And who’d be POTUS and who’d play second fiddle?
I think it’s a great idea — but what makes it perhaps most impossible is that I doubt either man would agree to take the VP versus lead dog slot. Now, were McCain to miraculously lose the GOP nom, or Obama the Dem nom, then … who knows? We can dream, can’t we?
True, but Obama is so young that VP isn’t a "loss" for him as such. You know, if it’s about the good of the nation, this would be a great option for him to unite the country, firstly, and secondly to get more experience (and understanding of foreign affairs).
In other words, it’s purely personal ambition that would withhold him from taking the second slot, no?
First comment: I am, but I’m not sure how one could come to that conclusion based on this post.
Interesting thought, John. Please expound.
I think this is the kind of idea that sounds better (or reads better?) on paper. In reality, you’d have a GOP admin with a Liberal senator doing perfunctory panels and sometimes popping up in the senate (although that could be interesting, almost like electing a president and prime minister all in one shot). it just defies the make up of our political parties.
Plus, these guys do in fact have a different view for this country, despite the way the media gushes at times over them both. Personally, I’d rather have two gentlemen debate the role of government in America–and abroad–than have them stifle that debate on the same ticket.
Excellent point, Kevin. It’s looking like Americans want governance that comes more from the center, but the debate doesn’t end there. The center, as we all know and have discussed ad nauseum, means many different things to different people, and it’s not possible to lead the country until someone determines what the mandate is- center right, center left, or a combination of both on different issues. If it’s the latter, then really the only way is to give the executive branch to one party and the legislative to another- otherwise there’s no mechanism to direct the debate.
Why is unity such a laudable goal? The Founders never envisioned a unified population. That’s why we have the adversarial political system we do.
How could I, who believe in smaller more localized government, unify with someone who wants to place the entire health care system under an enormous Federal bureaucracy? How is there any possibility for unity between those two positions?
Conflict, especially over political and social matters, is not only valuable but, I would say, incredibly healthy.
While the idea is interesting, what happens to all the Republicans who vote for McCain as POTUS if he dies while in office. BHO then becomes the POTUS of a conservative administration. Imagine the fireworks when Obama nominates Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS.
Shouldn’t he, then, choose a Republican VP? And, wouldn’t an Obama-McCain ticket automatically mean that there would not be a conservative administration, but a "united" administration (meaning quite moderate / centrist in policies)?
SCOTUS: wouldn’t they talk about those things together, in order to find a good candidate? You know, behaving like adults?
Don’t forget: I’m from a country where parties form government coalitions all the time. We have a Christian Democrat Prime Minister, and a socialist (laborite) Vice PM. O, and a Christian progressive (mostly) VP of course.
And yes, when they decide about important issues, they have to compromise.
The result? Most decisions are backed by a firm majority of the people, not just 51%.
On top of that there’s less partisan hatred, because they all share responsibility.
It’s a different world, Michael. Our whole system is designed to be adversarial, as Jimmie pointed out.
Additional advantage: it would mean that where normally half of the Americans are left standing in the cold after elections, it’ll be different. This way, most Americans - the far majority - will support policies at least somewhat (or at least find them acceptable).
With the current system 49.9% believes their country is being screwed.
Yeah, I like my idea. In theory. Knowing it’ll never happen.