There have been a few threads about the possibility of John McCain being John Kerry's Vice Presidential candidate. While McCain disavows such talk and the merits of this have been discussed, I would like to bring up a different tangent of the discussion. The May 16th airing of Meet The Press featured an intriguing idea mentioned by Bob Kerrey. It would entail allowing McCain to keep his Republican party affiliation, and have the Democrats put forward a "fusion ticket" Since McCain isn't die-hard pro-life, democratic constituencies might not disagree with his selection. On the show, Joe Biden stated that a fusion ticket is what is neded to heal the blue-red rift that is dividing neighbor from neighbor.

Questions for debate.

1.)Was Biden correct in asserting that such a fusion ticket would heal the blue-red divide?

2.)Does the idea of a fusion ticket(Bush-Miller if you're GOP) water down the standards of your respective political party?

I think there is most definitely something to the idea of this being a sort of "healing" ticket...maybe not in the purest sense of the term "healing" , but I think it could certainly create a sort of mutual respect between members of both parties.

I think it's pretty simple, really. Many people at least respect McCain because, though he is affiliated with a party and most of his beliefs are centered around that party's set of values, he doesn't just do what he's supposed to do as laid out by his party affiliation. He backs bills that he thinks are smart, which often go against what he "should" be doing. I'd like to vote for someone I can respect, and I can't think of too many people who would earn my vote in that regard - McCain is one of them, however.



I don't think so, but maybe I'm being idealistic. Sure, it's not the sort of political direction I'd like to be headed (any farther away from the left), but I must again say that I respect McCain enough to put that respect over my own personal political "wants". I would rather have a *gasp* more moderate ticket if it meant: a. beating Bush; b. creating a sense of respect for the ticket/Kerry/whatever; c. bringing in more independent voters; d. did I mention beating Bush.

While I can't say for sure whether I think McCain has or will honestly entertain the idea (really, why not?), I think it could be a good move, especially considering Bush's current status with the American public on the war in Iraq. Adding McCain to the Kerry ticket would not only add bipartisan support & at least a small amount of respect (I haven't yet met a person who doesn't at least respect McCain - maybe that's cause I live in Arizona?!?), but it would perhaps be a start toward getting people to start thinking about and evaluating our current two-party syste, which is always good.

I would love to vote for a Kerry/McCain ticket. I think it is a fantasy, but at least it is one the high level Washington figures share.

We have taken partisan fighting to new places in the last several years, including only allowing members from one party to make important committee decisions.

Partisan bickering and gamesmanship is an old story. But for all of our interest in term limits, outsider candidates, etc. over the last thirty years, we are at a bad place in terms of this fighting.

Heck, why not make McCain Secretary of State? There is precedent for using people from other party as secretaries.

In all honesty, as an aggressive conservative, I fear this idea. I voted for McCain over Bush in the primaries because I think he is the best thing in politics today, and I would feel quite compelled to vote for Kerry-as reprehensible as his ideas are to me-if McCain was on board. McCain is a real reformer and would be the ultimate secret weapon for the Dems this year because of people like me.

But I know McCain just can't stand how extremely liberal and irresponsible Kerry is, so I really doubt it will happen.

In the Arizona primaries 2000 I voted for Mc Cain, but I would in no way vote for John Kerry even with McCain as a running mate. Sorry, I just couldn't do it. Who votes for the VP anyway? Not me.

There's something warm and fuzzy about the idea of John Kerry and John McCain on a "unity" ticket, but because Kerry hasn't given the press much else to talk about they're trying to breathe new life in this story.

It could happen. Just because McCain says "no" doesn't mean he has said, "never." While it's true he isn't a liberal like Kerry, I don't underestimate how little he cares for Bush. Bush and McCain may share the same party affiliation, but they can't exactly swap Vietnam war stories, now can they? Bush ran a ugly campaign against McCain in 2000 and while he may have forgiven Bush, he sure hasn't forgotten it.

The main reason it won't happen is I don't see what McCain gets out of it. In 2008, the Republican nomination will be wide open. Will McCain be tagged with the RINO label (Republican In Name Only) and find himself too moderate for the GOP? Would Kerry choose not to run for reelection and support his Republican vice-president over the Democrats that would be running instead?

There are too many variables at play to make this marriage work.

Bush and Zell Miller works for me, no problem with that at all because Miller pretty much agrees with Bush on the issues anyway. But by the same token, it offers very little in the way of healing the Red/Blue split since Dems don't seem to accept Miller as really one of them anymore. Well, it might help Bush in the South but it wouldn't happen unless Cheney needs to drop out for health reasons or something.

Kerry/McCain doesn't make a lot of sense because McCain isn't remotely like a Democrat on the issues except for a couple of them. McCain has a solidly conservative voting record, much more so than Zell Miller, enough so that he can fit in only as a Republican.

Another trial balloon that's been floated is McCain as SecDef in a Kerry administration, and that makes a lot more sense. McCain is a very sensible guy on defense issues and there's plenty of precedent for naming a SecDef of the opposite party.

Both men are very pragmatic, respect one another, and count each other as friends, and agree to disagree on some issues, without it getting ugly- truly a "unity ticket" with civil discourse between the actual issues instead of the partisonship we have today- if this were to happen, it would change the face of politics in America in a positive way. McCain is a true conservative- in a fiscal sense- which I love- though he is fairly socialy moderate. Pro-choice and whatnot.

If these guys were to combine - it would be a great thing- for one thing- we would get back to the issues in discourse.

I'd vote for McCain/Kerry but not for Kerry/McCain. It makes a lot of difference who's at the top of the ticket. It is after all the President who has all the power; the Veep is just a supporting player.

But despite this editorial I have a hard time believing Dems would accept McCain as their Presidential nominee, though they might as Veep.

The entire dems have moved far to the right of where they were in 1980- in fact, the most fiscally conservative president we have had on over 40 years was Clinton!I think the dem party is probably where we need to be on conservative issues right now- and has even had a pretty good movement to libertarianism as well- drug legalization, gay marriage etc.

I think McCain probably IS opposite on some enviromental issues- very typical of a western state republican- which, IMO, is absolutely a good "check" on the east coast dem view on this. The fact that each of them sees each other as a "stand up honorable guy" goes very far in civil discourse- so, perhaps, they will moderate each others stance on issues-which, really, is best for the country. If Kerry went 2 terms, McCain would be an easy shoe-in for his presidency as well.

Every time I see this thread title, the song "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys starts playing in my mind.

I would be quite comfortable with John McCain being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I voted for him in the 2000 primary, and not only to embarrass John Engler, the Michigan Governor at the time. I genuinely like and respect Senator McCain.

It would cause a rift in the Democratic Party, and I don't think it's going to happen. But--wouldn't it be nice?

Firstly, I saw John McCain on the telly today saying that he will never do it.

Secondly, he also said that he wants Bush to be re-elected.

Thirdly, he said that he is the co-chair of Bush's re-election comittee in Arizona and will actively work towards Bush's re-election.

Fourthly, McCain has many times shown his contempt for the position of VP, saying that he will never take a job where the principal duty, each morning, is to enquire as to the health of the President.

Those are facts. This is my opinion: We must all think Kerry very weak, if we are suddenly excited about a person of stature assisting his Presidential bid. Kerry knows that it won't happen. I can only imagine that he is doing it to gain media time and to cause some rancour in the Republican camp.

Think again, CR. John McCain is hardly "pro-choice". From this website ......




Lots of other quotes there as well.

Anyway, the Democrats can dream about McCain all they want to, it ain't gonna happen. Today on Meet the Press, McCain once again re-iterated his support for the re-election of President Bush, said he has and will continue to campaign for Bush and has ZERO interest in being Vice President. It is interesting to me that Democrats are more excited about a possible VP than they are their Presidential candidate. That certainly bodes well for Kerry.

I think the most telling thing here is McCain's feeling AGAINST Bush vs his feelings FOR Kerry- He actually thinks Kerry is an honorable guy- and well, we know how he feels about Bush...

CR, with all due respect, you can't just start making stuff up here. Sheesh!

From Meet the Press this morning on NBC.....

"I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. ... I think he has different points of view on different issues, and he will have to explain his voting record. But this kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

You are right about the pro-life thing Aquilla- for some reason, I had it in my head as him being one of the pro-choice Repubs- my bad

Though McCain has "worked with Bush on issues"- as is expected both being of the same party and needing to pass legislation- the two have never had a cordial relationship- and though McCain makes statements of unity in his party- I don't think he ever forgave Bush for his behavior in SC

That being said- I also don't think McCain would ever become Vice prez- or Kerry would seriously ask him to do this job.

I do, however, think this would certainly go along way to healing this country, and do think honest discussion over policy issues would come back instead of the crap we have been dealing with since Reagan and Atwater started thier dirty tricks methods of US politics!

If we're speculating on a so-called "Fusion ticket", quite frankly I wouldn't be unhappy at all with a Bush-Lieberman ticket. Never happen, I think President Bush is happy with Cheney and I doubt Lieberman would entertain such an idea, but it would be some fun I think. I like Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman is a major liberal. He is one of the most liberal Senators in congress.

A name that may help could be Senator James Jeffords from Vermont. The man is a genius went to both Yale and Harvard has like a 40 year military career was a lifetime Republican who recently turned independant and is a very balanced voter.

Some recent votes:

Bush Tax Cuts Y
Campaign Finance Reform Y
Anwar Drilling N
Ban Gays in Boy Scouts N
Confirm Ashcroft Y
Force in Iraq N

He is all over the board and is respected by both parties.

do, however, think this would certainly go along way to healing this country, and do think honest discussion over policy issues would come back instead of the crap we have been dealing with since Reagan and Atwater started their dirty tricks methods of US politics!


While I understand what you are saying here, I find it sad. 9-11 should have done away with all this partisan stuff, but seems as a nation our memories are very short. And our desire for power is stronger. Just my opinion of course.

Do you really think that McCain has forgotten about all the mud and lies that the Bush campaign told on him during the 2000 Republican Presidental Candidate primaries?

Yes he is the loyal Republican and will stick to that line. But really really in his heart have love and respect for George Bush. Come on, don't insult what little intelligence I have.

I believe McCain is a tall (in stature) honest person in comparsion to the short dishonest Bush. I would have no problem with McCain as vice-president and I sure would not have had any problem if he had won the Republican primaries in 2000 and was elected President.

Ah- but we WERE a nation together, post 9-11 UNTIL GW blew that entire feeling, both with us as a nation, basically evenly divided now, and the world, that overwhelming supported, and stil support us, in Afghanistan.

So some sort of unity ticket would be great, to heal us. To appoint at least some conservatives to the admin at a very high level cabinent position would be far better than the neo-conservative only thing we have going on now. I think Kerry would be wise to be looking for well known possible cross over repubs or conservatives in his campaign.

Sorry, I think from your point of view it would be "healing", but not from mine.

Would you view it the same way if it was a Bush/Lieberman ticket?

1) I think it would be healing for the centrists and moderates who don't like the changes that have come with having the extreme right in charge but wouldn't care for the changes that would come from the far left either.

2) As a Green, this wouldn't water down my party at all -- it might in fact continue to show those in the democratic party that are liberal that the dems are too far right for them and thus give us more people interested in the progressive values that the dems have abandoned.

The dems have been moving farther right each election cycle, so this would do little to "water down the standards" of an already watered down party.

My feeling is, if this ticket were possible, I would be happy to see Bush go, but I'd be be unhappy that the progressive values remain in this country will be eroded by a centrist government (although not as quickly as they would with the far right Bush).

The fact that this keeps coming up, despite the fact that McCain has repeatedly said he won't do it, speaks to a fundamental insecurity us democrats have over the "liberal" tag that Kerry attracts. While we talk about a "unity" ticket, the implicit message is really "we know that Kerry is extremely vulnerable as a liberal senator from MA, and we need some lever to counter that". A question I wonder about is if the Democrats wistful longing for a Kerry McCain ticket reflects 1) our own insecurity about Kerry as a CANDIDATE, or 2) our insecurity about Kerry as a potential PRESIDENT?

For me, its a little bit of both: there is something grounding about McCain that reassures moderates. He is not afraid to call ** on his own party, and presumably he would serve as a checks and balance in Kerry's administration.

er.... what was the question again ?

I think that "fusion" ticket will in some ways break down the blue-red divide-- IMO there are lots of republicans who dislike Bush but are too uncomfortable with Kerry to cross-over; they will feel better if McCain part of the administration.

onto the second question: Yes, this dilutes the standards of parties, and brings about what has been an inevitable trend in american politics which is the blurring of party ideology. This is alarming if you think that American politics needs to see more parties, not less.



Of course, I could be wrong,

JACABO

Bush-Lieberman-now there's an interesting idea! I know that some would argue that he's liberal, but he's more "hawkish" on foreign affairs than anyone else in the senate! With a tight race that 2004 is looking to be, I'm surprised the republicans aren't considering this to some degree. Selecting a Lieberman, Zell Miller, or some other Blue Dog Democrat Coalition member would be a great way to use the "fusion" idea to try and widen the gap in the polls between Bush and Kerry.

Just for fun, I checked Joe Lieberman's Senate vote "ranking" by the American Conservative Union (ACU), and it's not very high, even for a Democrat. Then again, there are some in the ACU that aren't altogether that thrilled with President Bush either. So, I think Lieberman would cause some heartburn for the more right-wing elements of the Republican Party. However, I think he has a lot going for him. He is a decent guy and a good human being. There are no questions about his love of country, his ethics, honesty and integrity and his desire to serve the American people. He has a down to earth common sense approach to things and I think he communicates well with the "average Joe" like me. That will take you a long way in the mainstream Republican Party. Had he received the Democratic Party's nomination this year, we Republicans would be in a world of trouble I think. Back during the days of the "9 dwarves", I was ready to go after pretty much whatever candidate emerged, save one - Joe Lieberman. How in the hell can you go after that guy? In a sense, he is in many ways the Democratic Party's version of John McCain. Oh well, isn't going to happen, but this thread is pretty much speculation anyway. Maybe we'll see a Lieberman/McCain or a McCain/Lieberman ticket in 2008. THAT would make for some interesting discussions I think!

1. I don't see how putting a Repub in the VP slot would do anything to change the brand loyalty of voting citizens. The blue-red divide is there because of legitimate differences in ideas about how this country should be run. The present administration defies some of those ideas, but brand loyalty is such that it really doesn't make much difference. Republicans will support Bush no matter what, and then there's the fear of the other brand. Gotta keep those irresponsible Demos out, right? Keep the irresponsible Repubs in there. Or is it the Repubs who don't take responsibility?

2. I've yet to be convinced that the Demo party needs a fusion ticket this time around. Kerry's still going strong in the grass roots efforts while Bush's extreme spending on negative ads isn't working very well. And yes, I do think a fusion ticket would water down the Demo party until you've got Republican Moderate and Republican Extreme, but all Republican.

For example, Republican Moderate would be for smaller tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) than Republican Extreme, yet all would be for cutting taxes on the top incomes to bolster the economy and create jobs, by goshy. There would be no other view, philosophy, method or whatever.

I frankly don't care to live in a one-party country. Viva La Rift!

But there aren't, really. Which party wants to end the "war on drugs"? Oh, that's right, neither of them do. Which party supports legalising same-sex marriage? Oh, that's right, neither of them do.
On tangible, real world issues that effect all of us every day both major parties are in lockstep opposition to the American public's rights.
We already do, in all but name. Democrats and Republicans are as different as Coke and Pepsi, brand loyalists are the only ones who can even detect a difference.

I'm a Coke man myself

I don't want to take the debate off-subject, but obviously many voters do detect differences between the two major parties. I am one of these people and don't want the Democratic party to shift any farther right than it already has. I'd like it to get back to some of the root issues, such as how do we stop *encouraging* outsourcing and insourcing jobs to foreign nationals? (Hint - just say no.)

Well, that's just one particular issue and sore spot for me. However, it is a demonstrated fact that Clinton favored protecting public lands while Bush favors opening them to gas/oil exploitation. That's a pretty big difference between the two colas. I'm also pretty sure that a Kerry administration would not include neo-conservatives. So there are two major differences to counter your two perceived similarities. I've got more, but that should be a good enough start.

Oh, I agree with you on the difference between the two major candidates, and I actually am so disgusted with Bush that I will vote for Kerry.
But that is a difference between two individuals, both towards the wingnut ends of their respective parties. The actual parties themselves are virtually indistinguishable- Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are much farther to the right (and in Lieberman's case, at least, with the same religious fundamentalism that makes Bush so scary) than some Republicans are.
Lieberman defended the actions of the Abu Ghraib torturers by conflating their victims with the Al Queida terrorists, while many Republicans call for Rumsfeld to step down.

I wouldn't gloss over the differences between the two major parties. They disagree fundamentally on:

1.)Abortion

2.)Outsourcing and the economy

3.)Labor

4.)Health insurance and social security

5.)War on Iraq

6.)Patriot Act

7.)Tax cuts

8.)No child left behind, federal funding of education

9.)Deficit spending.

These issues are what Americans are concerned about. These are also the issues that clearly divide republicans from democrats. Now I understand that members of both parties hold views contrary to their respectie party on or two of these issues, but for the most part, they are the exception, rather than the rule. A "fusion" ticket might be just the way to get Americans talking, and not arguing again over these issues that we face as a nation.

The Demi-Publicans are both business run parties. The "issues" you bring up are smoke and mirrors. Non-issues (to them) that will either be ignored when either candidate is in power, or solutions put in place that placate a few while generating extreme amounts of wealth for the business sector. The word is always more powerful than the deed. These politicians will call legislation one thing, while it in reality it has the exact opposite effect.