This seems like bunk on several levels:

1. The experience issue is a loser. Hillary ran on experience vs. change and lost. She gained ground in the end because of cultural factors, not because working-class Pennsylvanians suddenly realized Obama was inexperienced.

2. The experience issue was not the engine behind McCain’s recent progress in the polls. Energy policy was the key issue that damaged Obama. Palin will be a huge help with energy debates.

3. McCain came to prominence (and ultimately won the nomination) based on his “maverick” (I now despise the word), reformist, anti-establishment nature. Running as an “experienced” long-term Senator, and thus associating himself with Washington DC, was the WORST thing he could do. The Palin pick helps transform this into a much happier change vs. change election.

4. I question to what extent experience is even a political asset in the current climate. People hold the current crop of politicians, Republican and Democrat, in contempt. They are much more interested in the perceived qualities of candidates than in their resumes. That’s true in every election to some extent, but particularly in this one. The visceral adoration of Obama is one example. Palin will likely thrive in such an environment — she’s intelligent, telegenic, has a compelling life story, a record of reform, and comes from the polar opposite of Washington D.C. *ahem*

5. There seems to be a disconnect between mainstream voters and the world of activists, pundits and politicians. From what I have seen and heard thus far, the critics of Sarah Palin come in two groups — 1. Lefties who would attack regardless of the nominee, and 2. Conservative and Moderate establishment types who are fixated on the experience issue and believe McCain has killed himself. The Republican rank and file sees things in starkly different terms – 87% believe Palin will help McCain, only 3% see her as a liability. Even among independents the ratio was 52%-26%. While politicians and pundits fret that she’s never been on Meet the Press, normal people are drawn to someone they see as genuine and courageous. For myself, I see the potential for greatness in her, something we’ve had little of since Reagan.

She’s a bit green, but less so than Obama, who has no executive experience whatsoever. And while Biden has years of legislative experience, his entire federal career has been devoted to undermining the moral and economic foundations of this country. That’s not the sort of experience I’m looking for. While Palin may be new to big-time politicking, I think she’d make an outstanding president. She’s a reformist, a solid free-market thinker, and a strong leader.

It seems to me that Republicans have lucked out twice this year. McCain was perhaps the only candidate who could win in an ugly electoral season such as this one. And now he’s given us an outstanding VP choice. If the online chatter is any indication, I think a lot of fence-sitting conservatives will be electrified by this choice (pun intended!) Palin’s conservative cred will likely also pry open the wallets of reluctant Republican donors still alienated from McCain. In the short-term, she also helps kill any buzz from the Biden nod and the DNC convention.

The liberal blogosphere is already trying to turn her into Dan Quayle redux, but I don’t think it will work. For once, the gender double-standard will work in our favor — “hitting the girl” only makes the attacker look churlish and in this case will further annoy Hillary voters. More importantly, Palin’s old nickname was “Barracuda.” I think her wit and intellect will defy any attempts to quail her.

What’s your initial take on the choice?

There are also political downsides to a Lieberman VP selection, of course, particularly the chance that conservatives will be further alienated from McCain.

But forget political gamesmanship for a moment and look at the real world. We’ve had 43 presidents. Eight have died in office. McCain has many good qualities, but youth is not listed among them. Joe Lieberman has a 70% approval rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and an 8% approval rating from the American Conservative Union. The positive numbers he did generate came mostly from Iraq votes. Joe Lieberman is a good guy, but an awful Senator.

It would be insane to put a liberal Democrat a heartbeat away from the presidency just to gain a few percentage points in the polls.

Here’s my initial take:

Charlie Crist — Nooooooooo! Charlie was a good ally to Katherine Harris when I worked her first political campaign. But that was about fifteen years ago. I don’t trust the man on global warming or a series of other issues. He might help shore up Florida for McCain, but a LOT of conservatives mistrust the man.

Mitt Romney — Another guy whose conservative credentials are a little shaky. Yes, movement conservative types like myself supported him during the campaign, because once Fred Thompson fell asleep he was the best viable choice. But National Review, me, and the rest of the movement types have already signed on with McCain. It’s the refusenik types that McCain needs to reassure. And Mitt Romney doesn’t inspire. On the other hand, McCain is broke, and there are tens of millions of reasons why Romney might make a good VP candidate.

Bobby Jindal — Awesome guy. Dynamic, rising young pol. Conservatives of every stripe love the man. If he had been born about ten years earlier, he would be the uber-perfect VP choice. And despite his youth, he’s still the best one on this list.

Which of the three do you prefer? And is there someone outside the list you’d prefer?

UPDATE and bumped (by pgepps): Some further reading on the options (though obviously these meetings are going to start narrowing things down, I’d expect)

• a discussion of McCain’s VP prospects over at the Old Grey Lady (sorry, not Grey Goose)
• a longer list of possibles (from February) at Right Wing News (of these, I’d be pretty happy with Coburn, De Mint, or Pawlenty; and I note that Jindal is left off as too young)
• the LA Times discussion of the possibles, with lots of pragmatic speculations
• a short list from The Oregonian, somewhat idiosyncratic

THIS is his message outreach? Who’s advising this guy?

Maybe we can get some of the big Pentecostal ministers backing McCain to raise Lee Atwater from the dead? McCain needs the help.

Any questions?

(How I learned to stop worrying and lick the boot)

A Turn to Economic Issues

With the economy making people jittery, McCain is turning his attention to economic issues and populist concerns.

For starters, McCain has introduced legislation to suspend the 18-cent federal gas tax through the summer months.

Seizing the opening provided by Snob-ama, McCain termed Obama’s recent comments “elitist.”

He’s campaiging in the “Forgotten America” of “African-Americans, displaced factory workers and people living in poverty.” … “Starting Monday, the presumptive GOP nominee for president will stop in Alabama’s ‘Black Belt,’ then move on to the struggling steel town of Youngstown, Ohio, and the Appalachian region of Kentucky.”

Mike Huckabee, backed by his newly-founded PAC, is set to campaign for McCain. This is helpful on two fronts: Huckabee is a populist’s populist, and he’s trusted by the voting bloc most skeptical of McCain — Evangelicals.

U.S. News summarizes: McCain’s Speech Shows He’s a Pro-growth Populist, Like Reagan.

Other Campaign Headlines:

McCain Veepstakes: Probable Pawlenty?

McCain accuses Russia of undermining Georgia.

Pro-Life Group Applauds John McCain for Saying VP Should Oppose Abortion.

Young Voters Say McCain’s Age is No Big Deal.

On the other hand, two recent articles reminded me that while he can be infuriating, there is greatness in John McCain.

The first was a Times piece on the Iraq War service of his son, Jimmy.  Serving not as an officer, but as an enlisted Joe in the Marine Corps, Jimmy signed up at 17 and is currently serving in Iraq.  Any other politician would be using his son as a poster boy for the campaign, particularly one such as McCain, who has staked his candidacy on the war.  Instead, the McCain campaign forcefully argued for the Times to spike the article.  That impressed me almost as much as his son’s service.  The headline says if all: Vocal on War, McCain Is Silent on Son’s Service.

The second article is on McCain’s friendship with the late Democratic leader Mo Udall.  The article is definitely worth reading.  Long after the time when others had abandoned the ailing old man, McCain would still visit him in the veteran’s hospital.  While McCain’s willingness to compromise with Dems is annoying, I like that he comes from an earlier time when partisanship wasn’t so vicious. 

Right. But you can in “good conscience” elect by default a man who supports the gay lifestyle, partial birth abortion and is on the opposite side of every other issue you believe in? Honestly, people, are you smoking the marijuana?

It’s ironic, really. Evangelicals believe that only the Bible can bind one’s conscience. On all the issues which have a solid basis in Biblical teachings – defense of the unborn, defense of the traditional family, etc. — John McCain has a solid voting record. His disagreements with conservatives – campaign finance reform, the Gang of 14, “man-made” global warming, etc. — have little to do with specifically Evangelical concerns. If God has a policy on the Senatorial approval of judges, He has not shared it in his Word. Even if you believe that judges are an issue of conscience, wouldn’t that bind you to vote for McCain? After all, he is clearly more conservative than Obama, and the next president will likely select 2-3 Supreme Court justices.

So how is it an issue of conscience not to vote for McCain?

Let’s put it in perspective. Reagan was the exception, not the rule. From the early-1950s birth of modern conservatism onward, Reagan, Goldwater (and to an extent George Bush ‘43) have been the only consistent conservatives we’ve nominated. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, and Dole were all moderates. These days, our purity test has gotten so stringent that even Barry Goldwater, old AU-H2O himself, would be unacceptable because of his socially libertarian views. Reagan would be highly suspect as well. While governor of California he signed the nation’s first law liberalizing abortion, but then later on embraced the cause of Life. Who could vote for an untrustworthy flip-flopper?

Don’t let the perfect Reagan be the enemy of the good McCain. He needs our energy and he needs our money. As my buddy Inkling said in comments, “Get McCain in office and *possibly* deal with another Sandra Day O’Conner on the SCOTUS or get Obama in office and GUARANTEE a steady stream of 50 year old Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.” That’s the future under an Obama presidency.

 My old friends at The Rough Woodsman are also blogging on McCain.  Welcome back to the ‘Sphere, guys!