The Latest From National Review The Latest From The New Republic

Who would best serve as John Kerry's running mate? Print Version   JOHN J. MILLER National Political Reporter, National Review Posted 06.03.04 | 9:10 AM Hi Mike, Tom Vilsack? The failed governor of a small Midwestern state? Oh, please. Perhaps I should put it another way: Bring him on! With a suggestion like this, who needs me planting Trojan horses in the middle of the Kerry camp? As David Hogberg reports here, Vilsack is a tax-happy liberal. In the Cato Institute's most recent Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors, he earned a grade of D. "He does not bother to hide his infatuation with big budgets, high taxes, and statist prescriptions for Iowa's economic problems," commented the authors. The folks at Cato can be tough graders, but Vilsack doesn't even look good on a curve: Only seven governors earned a lower numerical score. (One of them — just barely — was Gray Davis. Remember him?) Jesse Ventura rated higher than Vilsack. Let that sink in for a moment. Even Jesse Ventura demonstrated more fiscal responsibility than Tom Vilsack. Two Democratic governors did reasonably well on the Cato report card: Roy Barnes of Georgia and Gary Locke of Washington. They earned B grades. Barnes would have been a very hot veep property right now, but for the inconvenient fact that voters booted him from office two years ago. So cross him off Kerry's list. What about Locke? The Cato folks aren't really huge fans of his — they point to taxpayer advocates and ballot initiatives as the real reasons for his fairly good mark. Still, he might be worth a look. Here are three quick thoughts on him. First, he'll obviously help in Washington — though if Kerry needs assistance carrying the Evergreen State, then he's got some pretty severe problems to overcome. Second, he's Asian American, which would generate a lot of hot air about breaking glass ceilings — but I also wonder if choosing him would lead to some grumbling among black and Hispanic Democrats that one of their own should have had a shot at veepdom first. Third, if Kerry picks Locke, we're in for a pun-tastic news cycle. Get it? Kerry picks Locke. Brace yourself. The other governor we haven't talked about much is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He was elected in 2002, so we won't know what Cato makes of him until it issues new report card in a couple of months. There's a lot to like: He comes from a swing state, he has foreign-policy cred (a rarity among governors), and he'd do just fine debating Cheney. You'll notice that I haven't mentioned Richardson's ethnicity, which is usually the first thing people say about him. Sure, sticking a Hispanic pol on the ticket would excite a lot of people. But it wouldn't make a difference in key states. If no Hispanics had voted in 2000, Gore still would have prevailed in California, Illinois, and New York. (In fact, if no Hispanics had voted anywhere in 2000, Bush would have won the popular vote and Gore would have won the electoral count, because the absence of Cuban voters would have flipped Florida to Gore. And New Mexico would have gone for Bush.) My point is this: The political demography of Hispanic America will be a big deal in four or eight or twelve years as states like Arizona and Texas come into play for the Democrats. But it won't be a huge factor this year. Richardson's ethnicity is a piece of trivia — he's an interesting option for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that his mother is Mexican. And in the end, all this analysis may not even matter: Richardson has been Shermanesque in saying he doesn't want to run for vice president in 2004. (Memo to self: Send thank-you note to Sherman.) I hope you realize that we can't conclude this exchange without dwelling on Hillary for a moment. No, I don't think she's going to run with Kerry. That's not even worth discussing. But her influence will be felt nonetheless. The Clinton faction of the Democratic party will want Kerry to select a running mate who won't be a rival in 2008 to H.R.H. H.R.C. If Kerry loses — and especially if it's a close race — his veep candidate immediately becomes a frontrunner for the next Democratic nomination. This opportunity to become the un-Hillary would apply only to up-and-comers like Edwards, Locke, Richardson, or Vilsack. I can think of three guys who might run with Kerry this year but won't pose a threat in four years: Gephardt, Glenn, and Nunn. Kerry will feel some pressure to keep the Clintonites smiling and choose from this list, or one similar to it. So I'll finish where I started. It ought to be Gephardt. — JJM MICHAEL CROWLEY Associate Editor, The New Republic Posted 06.03.04 | 2:40 PM John, Given your political leanings I don't blame you for judging potential Kerry running mates by their standing at the Cato Institute, but I'm not sure how useful an exercise that is; how many Americans — much less Democrats — share Cato's philosophy? However, I suppose it would be amusing to see Kerry start taking Cato's advice. Imagine the wonderful dada theater of Kerry barnstorming across America with running mate (and libertarian Texas congressman) Ron Paul at his side. I can hear them now: "Let America Be America Again — Only Without Taxes, Social Security or Farm Subsidies!" Seriously, though, I agree that Tom Vilsack is a strange name for Kerry's alleged short list. Among other things, I have to think that Vilsack would generate less buzz for Kerry than your typical housefly. I suspect the Vilsack hype is just that — hype, a familiar element of veepstakes Kabuki. Presidential campaigns always disingenuously float names they never intend to tap as a way of flattering allies, pandering to interest groups, or head-faking the media to set up a surprise announcement. Kerry certainly owes a debt to Vilsack, who remained officially neutral during the Iowa primaries, but whose wife endorsed Kerry — a gesture whose significance wasn't lost on anyone with a clue. So I suspect that this "failed governor of a small Midwestern state" (although don't forget that it is a swing state with 7 electoral votes) is currently enjoying a very public "thank you" from Kerry. Roy Barnes? What an unfortunate case. A couple of years ago he seemed a serious contender for president. I've always heard that Barnes lacks pizzazz, but the idea of a fiscally conservative southern governor sure was appealing. (After all, that's the only kind of Democrat who's won the White House since LBJ.) It's true that Barnes's quite unexpected 2002 defeat nixes him in the Kerry veepstakes. But given the pathetic quality of the national Democratic farm team, here's hoping Barnes finds a way to politically rehabilitate himself. And damn you for naming Gary Locke, another guy, like Vilsack, whose very name glazes my eyes. (Although I have another pun opportunity for you: KERRY AIDES: LOCKE A LOCK FOR VEEP.) If you're right that the national-security test will be essential then Locke, like most governors, isn't a very serious contender. (I'd argue that a big enough charmer, like John Edwards, can overcome a lack of foreign-policy statute. But Locke isn't such a figure.) As you say, Bill Richardson is an exception, thanks to his experience as U.N. Ambassador. That Richardson might not move Hispanics doesn't seem like a big deal to me: Like Joe Lieberman, he would be a buzz-inducing "historic" pick. As you note, Richardson says he doesn't want it, although I wonder — the man is a maniacal publicity hound. But maybe those cryptic asides on Fox News are true, and maybe a Richardson pick would violate the Do No Harm principle. Finally, Hillary. Inevitably, her name has sucked us towards it with the inescapable force of a black hole. (And like a black hole, it threatens to suck the discussion into some horrible infinite wormhole. Good thing this is the last entry.) You're right that there's no way she'll run with Kerry. But I think you overstate the stealth influence the Clintons will exert over Kerry's selection. For one thing Kerry has never been particularly close with the Clintons (and understandably so: Bill Clinton must watch Kerry on the stump the way Yo Yo Ma would listen to an out-of-tune garage band). More important, Kerry desperately wants to be president and I can't imagine he would pick anyone but the person he thinks will most help him get there (and not screw things up once they're in office). You say Kerry will feel pressure to placate the Clintons, but I just don't see how that will play out in practice. Besides, anyone who runs with Kerry and loses isn't going to pose much of a threat to Hillary in 2008 anyway. Take Edwards: How would he look after two big-league losses in one year? John, I'll finish this debate the way I joined it: by lamenting the Democratic party's talent pool. A lot of the names we've discussed just don't really stir me. Ultimately Edwards, Gephardt, and Nunn are the only three who seem to hold much promise. But for reasons we've already discussed, I think Gephardt presents real problems. And it's neither clear that Nunn is under serious consideration nor that he wants the job. So I finish this debate reiterating the appeal of Edwards, a handsome young Southerner who can speak compellingly about the tragic inequities in American society — just like the last Democrat to win the White House. Edwards probably wasn't quite ready to lead the party's 2004 ticket, but I think he'd be great at shoring it up. Thanks for the fun exchange, John. And who knows — given some of the rumors going around DC, maybe later this summer we'll be arguing about who should replace Cheney on the GOP ticket… Mike Note: Michael Crowley's response concludes this debate. CROWLEY Posted 06.02.04 | 3:50 PM John, When you say John Glenn, I think Walter Mondale. But I don't mean Carter-Mondale. I mean that bizarre 2002 Minnesota senate race, in which Mondale was the break-glass-in-case-of-emergency Democratic candidate after the tragic death of Paul Wellstone. As you'll recall, the resurrection of this old (and elderly) party hero was a fiasco. That wasn't entirely Mondale's fault (that unfortunate partisan "pep rally," for instance, didn't help). But there was definitely something stale, ineffectual and a bit ridiculous about him as a candidate. He had clearly lost touch with the details of national politics, and it showed. Glenn is a different figure in many ways, but I suspect he might come across the same way. More to the point, perhaps, a national campaign is pretty taxing even for a young guy — maybe more than a Shuttle flight, even. (Yesterday I suspected you were trying to give Kerry Trojan Horse advice about Dick Gephardt. Today I wonder if you aren't trying to drive elder Democratic statesmen to their graves.) But I don't think the 83-year-old Glenn is a serious possibility anyway. So let's take up the more pertinent question of whether John Edwards is a hypocritical phony. I don't buy it. It's true that Edwards's rags-to-riches life story is an exception to his rule about "two Americas." But that doesn't mean the argument isn't fundamentally true, or that Edwards has no right to make it. Edwards was blessed to be gifted with extremely rare talents (and looks) that our society rewards handsomely. Yes, it took hard work to cash in on those talents. But his success is small solace to the millions of people with more limited abilities who work really hard and still don't get very far. Should he do more to inspire people towards success? Perhaps. But just as an NBA superstar shouldn't tell some puny kid in the ghetto that he has much chance of following in his steps, Edwards is right to say that millions of Americans face social and economic limitations that they can't do much about. Your second objection is that Edwards, like Gephardt, is a DC insider, and like Gephardt would put an "insider" stamp on the ticket. But by Washington standards Edwards hasn't been around all that long. He's spent a little more than five years in the Senate, where he's never been all that visible or active. Compare that to Gephardt's 27 years in the House, including stints as Democratic leader and 16-years-ago candidate for president. More important, Edwards has a much shorter voting record for the Bush campaign to exploit. And above all, Edwards doesn't really look or sound like a senator; unlike most of his colleagues (certainly unlike John Kerry) it's hard to imagine him chairing some subcommittee hearing. Finally, you say that times have changed since 9/11 to Edwards's disadvantage. True enough. That's why Edwards probably never quite broke through as a candidate for president. But polls show that Americans think the country is headed off a cliff. With Kerry handling the war-and-peace bit, I suspect that adding a fresh-faced optimist — and I think Edwards does seem fundamentally optimistic, your "Mourning in America" argument notwithstanding — to the ticket may be, well, just the ticket. That said, I confess that the gravitas test makes me nervous, which keeps bringing me back to Sam Nunn. There's not enough space to contest your claim that Bush has been stellar on WMD proliferation, (note to editors: there's next week's debate!) but let's just say I disagree. To your point about Nunn boring the base, I say: how much more excitement does the base need anyway? If liberals get any more whipped up about Bush they're liable to burn down the White House. It's probably time to move on to some other names. Before we wrap this thing up tomorrow, we should probably mention two other leading contenders. One is Wes Clark, whose debacle of a primary campaign should, in my view, disqualify him from consideration. If Kerry feels he needs another military man to help him bring it on, he'd be better off choosing Bob Kerrey, whose quirkiness is more charming and who had some fine moments (and some less so) on the 9/11 commission. The other man Kerry is supposedly eyeing is Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. John, I must confess that I've managed to avoid forming much of an opinion about Vilsack. Would you care to do some enlightening? It's either that or debate the merits of Hillary Clinton… Yours truly, Mike MILLER Posted 06.02.04 | 9:15 AM Hi Mike, Here's my problem with Kerry-Edwards: It's the John-John ticket, and I've already had my fill of annoying JFK references this year, from John Forbes Kerry's initials to his Navy experience to his religious background to his home state to the story of him dating Jackie's half-sister to that intern rumor a while back to Teddy K. on the stump... You see my point. Please, spare us this grim fate. But I'd caution against choosing Edwards even if his initials were LBJ. If the Democrats want to avoid an "insider" ticket, as you suggest, then the last thing Kerry should do is run with a sitting senator. These guys famously fail when they campaign for high office. The last one to become president was Kennedy (sigh). Before that, you have to reach back to Warren Harding (no role model he). And before Harding--well, Harding was the first. I'm not sure why senators are so cursed, even in the post-17th Amendment era. Perhaps it's something in the water at the Dirksen building. More likely, the nature of the office tends to inflate egos without providing the executive experience voters seem to crave in a prez. Whatever the truth, putting a sitting senator at the top of the ticket looks like a pretty big risk to begin with. I'm not sure I'd go double down on this one. The deeper problem with Edwards is that he's a hypocritical phony. No point in mincing words, right? Here's a guy who put himself forward as a self-made man, and not implausibly. Then he gave that "Two Americas" speech declaring that the United States is a caste society divided between haves and have-nots. "Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward," he proclaimed. "An America where those who own the most get the most, while those who work hardest own less and owe more." Et cetera. But hang on a second: Isn't Edwards' own biography a real-life rebuttal to the theme of his most famous speech? He's a living, breathing example of American success, for crying out loud. He should use his story to inspire us. Instead, he insists that we can't possibly be like him, no matter how hard we work. Something tells me he can't pursue this "Mourning in America" message and simultaneously hope to give Kerry a boost. (My colleague Kate O'Beirne shredded the "Two Americas" nonsense in more detail here.) A final thought on the one-term senator from North Carolina: He just isn't right for the times. Compared to other Democrats, Kerry arguably became a stronger candidate following 9/11. Edwards, however, became a weaker one. Slick charms and fresh breezes were a better fit in the 1990s. Nowadays, people place a higher premium on proven leadership. Your other suggestion, Sam Nunn, is much more in tune with the times. Nobody would be talking about him but for 9/11. The first person I heard tout a Kerry-Nunn ticket was James Carville. That made me sit up straight. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Nunn appeared on Kerry's secret short-short list. The former Georgia senator is not a bad choice, but he isn't a better one than Dick Gephardt. He would do nothing to help Kerry geographically or excite any particular segment of the Democratic base. Perhaps his nomination would tone down some of Zell Miller's anti-Kerry rhetoric. Nunn's main appeal, as you say, comes from his knowledge of national-security issues, especially weapons proliferation and nuclear terror. But doesn't this in fact highlight one of the genuine strengths of Bush-Cheney? Seems to me that the current administration can take credit for at least two foreign-policy successes so unqualified that even Kerry can't nitpick them — and both of them in the areas of Nunn's supposed expertise. The first is Libya's decision to disarm. The second is shutting down Pakistan's frightening export bazaar. Neither would have happened without the invasion of Iraq, whatever you may think of that endeavor. It would be hard to convince Americans that dumping Bush-Cheney will allow them to trade up on the issues Nunn worries about the most. Because we're on the subject of retired senators, let me throw a curve ball your way: How about John Glenn of Ohio? Yes, I know he's an octogenarian. Maybe he's simply too old for the job. Then again, he went up in a Space Shuttle a few years ago. His heart may be healthier than Cheney's. Assuming he's up to the task, what's not to like? He's a brand-name American hero from a swing state Bush can't well afford to lose. He wouldn't have to be an activist veep on the Gore-Cheney model; he could even resign halfway through his term. Maybe my imagination is running away with this one, but I'll be frank: The more I think about a Kerry-Glenn team, the more worried I become for Bush-Cheney. Oh no! Another John-John ticket! — JJM CROWLEY Posted 06.01.04 | 3:45 PM John, Thanks for your graceful opening pitch. Let me say at the outset that, as the liberal in this exchange, I find the quality of the Democratic "bench" extremely depressing. I can just about count the number of credible and likeable veep contenders on one hand, and when I hear some of the names being taken seriously I don't know whether to laugh or cry. That said, I think Dick Gephardt is a Democrat who should make Democrats proud. In fact, during the primaries I even argued that Gephardt would make the best Democratic nominee. Now that Kerry is the guy, however, I'm less of a Gephardt booster. As you point out, Gephardt offers lots of appealing qualities — from his credibility with the party base to his blue-collar, Midwestern roots to his ready-to-be-president experience. But that last point — his experience — is actually the main reason I worry Gephardt would be a bad veep pick. Indeed, I find myself wondering whether your promotion of his isn't some kind of Machiavellian scheme designed to benefit the Bush-Cheney campaign. Let me explain: It seems to me that John Kerry has no greater liability than the quadrillion or so votes he cast in the Senate. Virtually every day I get a press release from the Bush-Cheney campaign claiming to expose Kerry's hypocrisy on some issue or other. These releases are extensively footnoted with scores of references from the Congressional Record, some dating back to the mid-1980s. And, of course, we're already seeing Bush campaign ads savaging Kerry's voting record on national defense and intelligence. The Bushies dishonestly portray a lot of these votes, but in the heat of a campaign, alas, that won't matter. Another endless voting record like Gephardt's would be a nightmare for Kerry. More broadly, it would just make it easier for Bush to run as a reg'lar-guy Washington outsider: a Kerry-Gephardt ticket would be insiderness defined. Then there's the charisma question. Kerry has so far been a rather dreary candidate, and I suspect his stentorian drone won't wear well with voters. What he doesn't need is another stentorian droner like Gephardt. You argue, quite cleverly, that "[d]ullness is a virtue." But I'm not sure that's an iron law. For instance, don't forget that when Bill Clinton chose Al Gore in 1992, Gore was seen as a young and exciting figure. If not Gephardt, then, who should Kerry pick? Who has Gephardt's working-class cred — but not his bland manner? Who can appeal to the liberal base — without a thousand inconvenient votes to prove it? Who can help Kerry escape his image as a jargon-laden DC insider? The answer is John Edwards. You disqualified Edwards this morning on the grounds that he doesn't pass the stature test. I agree that might be a problem. Then again, Dan Quayle was seemingly engineered by late-night comedians to be unsuited for the presidency, and I've never seen evidence that people voted on that basis. Besides, stature isn't everything. Edwards might appear green onstage next to Dick Cheney. But I'm not sure that the average American will prefer the long experience of mean-spirited Secret Location man to the sunniness and charisma of Edwards. (Remember that a couple of months ago the Bush team was worried enough about Cheney's sinister reputation that it engineered a PR campaign to soften his image.) John Kerry is trying to sell America on a fresh start, and Edwards is fresher than a Carolina breeze. He's inspiring, handsome, and doesn't have that long voting record. He's also a southerner. And while it's true Edwards probably won't tip any deep-south states from red to blue, I think he could help to offset Kerry's Northeastern liberal image in a way that voters everywhere will appreciate. Finally, I especially like Edwards in the context of my opening lament: As one who doubts that Hillary Clinton can be elected president, I would argue that Democrats need to groom more future leaders. Edwards would really benefit from four years of stature-accumulation in the West Wing. Let me kick things back to you with one other suggestion: Sam Nunn. Today Kerry delivered a speech saying that nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat facing the United States. I couldn't agree more. And I'd note that few people understand that as well as Nunn, a former Georgia senator who now runs a private outfit called the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As a senator, long before 9/11, Nunn also toiled heroically to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He's a bit wooden, unfortunately. But if Kerry agrees with you that dullness is a virtue, and that stature is essential, he should be vetting Nunn now. So, John, which strikes more fear into your conservative heart? The blazing charisma of John Edwards, or the awesome geopolitical wisdom of Sam Nunn? Yours, Mike MILLER Posted 06.01.04 | 10:00 AM Hi Mike, Isn't Memorial Day supposed to be the traditional kick-off date for political campaigns — the day when TV news anchors inform us that the public is finally ready to pay attention to the presidential race? Or is that some other day? I can't remember. At any rate, let's debate Kerry veeps. I wrote about them for NRO way back on February 12. If nothing else, that's an indication of how quickly I became bored with the Democratic primaries — I was desperate to change the subject from John Kerry to his possible running mate. And let's be frank: Who among the Democrats is more fun to talk about than Dick Gephardt? Hardee har har. Okay, enough joking. I'll admit Gephardt is not the most scintillating personality on the left-hand side of the aisle. But he's also the best choice Kerry could make for his party's vice-presidential nomination. Dullness is a virtue. Just look at a few of our recent successful veep candidates: Cheney, Gore, Poppy Bush, and Mondale. Call them the "unglitterati". This roster of boring pols practically screams for Gephardt's inclusion — and it's much less interesting than Lieberman, Kemp, and Ferraro. The winners are snoozers and the quirky ones are losers. Clearly, there's something to be said for the humdrum. A factor Kerry will have to consider even before dullness is of course whether his veep nominee is ready for the top job. (America's first vice president John Adams: "Today I am nothing, but tomorrow I may be everything.") The ancillary political question is whether the public will agree, especially when this person appears beside Dick Cheney during the inevitable V.P. debate. The last thing Kerry needs is for his number-two to suffer from a credibility gap. This worry torpedoes the chances of a figure like Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. It even hurts the odds of a guy like mop-top Johnny Edwards, despite his showing in the primaries (which, by the way, seems less impressive in retrospect than it did at the time — we're talking about a single victory in a small southern state that Bush is going to carry in November anyway). Say what you will about Gephardt's Old Democrat politics, but the man is a certified grown-up who possesses the necessary heft to be commander-in-chief. Old Democrat politics may even be an asset this year. Ralph Nader basically endorsed Gephardt for veep the other day (Edwards, too). If Kerry wants to defuse the Nader threat on his left, then Gephardt is a good way to start. Another one of Gephardt's backers is Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa. Choosing Gephardt will help mollify the protectionist wing of the party, which remains skeptical about Kerry's support for NAFTA. The irony here is that a portion of the Democratic base views Kerry the same way Republicans do: as a waffling flip-flopper who is better at sniffing for opportunities than abiding by principles (despite a voting record that mirrors Ted Kennedy's liberalism). A recent Fox News poll reveals that 78 percent of Republicans "strongly" support President Bush but only 59 percent of Democrats "strongly" support Kerry. If 2004 is going to be a base election — more about turning out loyalists than converting the mushy middle — then Kerry would be well served by an ideological lodestar. Next there's demography. Conventional wisdom tells us that veep candidates have a minimal geographic impact. Yet a Gore-Bob Graham ticket in 2000 almost certainly would have resulted in a Gore presidency. (For what it's worth, I had advocated a Bush-Connie Mack ticket on the pages of NR. Wouldn't it have been nice to go on living in blissful ignorance of chad counting?) Gephardt would boost Kerry in several specific ways. As a St. Louis congressman, he would help in Missouri, a quintessential swing state. As a union-hall favorite, he would provide a little lift in the industrial Midwest: Cleveland, Des Moines, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. Having gone to college in Illinois (Northwestern) and law school in Michigan (the University of) doesn't hurt, either. Another rule of veep selection is Do No Harm. In other words, don't pick someone who will put a drag the campaign. (Fairly or not, Dan Quayle belongs in Did-Harm category). Nobody fulfills this requirement better than Gephardt. The upside of losing your party's presidential nomination twice is that you've been thoroughly vetted. If there were any dark secrets in Dick Gephardt's past, they would have come to light by now. The dude is squeaky clean. (And consider what the current issue of The Economist speculates about New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: "Kerry's people ... [may] have discovered some skeleton in his closet.") I'm only about halfway though my list of reasons why Kerry should go with Gephardt, but I've already busted my word-count limit by a good margin. So I'll stop for now and let you have a word. Will you at least agree that chatting up Gephardt is more fun that you thought it would be? — JJM