Should Obama Pick A Republican As His VP?
Posted by Ashish on 05.12.2008
Interesting thoughts on whether Obama should pick Hagel...
I've been pushing the idea of Barack Obama picking Bill Richardson as his VP for a variety of reasons, the main one being because he could instantly solve Obama's problems with Hispanic voters and thus help in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and perhaps even Texas. But another interesting thought that was discussed on Hardball tonight is Republican Chuck Hagel.
Hagel is against the War in Iraq and has shown himself to be open to working with Democrats. With data confirming that a big chunk of Republicans are unhappy with George W. Bush, there probably isn't a single better way to go directly after that group, as well as Republican-leaning Independents, than by having a Republican runningmate. If he is interested in being on a ticket with Obama, it's something Obama should consider strongly for several reasons.
- He instantly gives Obama's unity message credibility. It's hard to argue with Obama when he talks about how he will bring Republicans and Democrats together when his own ticket is made up of a high ranking Democrat (himself) and a high ranking Republican (Hagel). Nothing says change like Democrats and Republicans together on the same ticket.
- Hagel has credibility with foreign policy issues and the War in Iraq, something that would give Obama's position of getting out of Iraq instant credibility.
- Hagel is very experienced and would thus help Obama in that department.
- Hagel would be the perfect person to send into the Republican areas of swing states. He could speak directly with Republicans, especially that 30%-35% of Republicans who don't approve of George W. Bush, and explain to them why an Obama Presidency would serve their interests.
I don't know if Hagel would deliver as many votes as Richardson would, but he may be a better pick when factoring in the overall picture, would be a safer pick in the sense that he is an experienced white male, and in an election where the potential to redraw the electoral map exists, having a Democrat and Republican on one ticket seems to have some real potential.
There are several potential problems -- the main one being that Hagel is pro-life -- but it's still something that is interesting to think about, especially when you have Joe Liebermann running around taking shots at Obama on McCain's behalf.
You are forgetting Hagel is one of McCain's buddies.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on May 12, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Hagel won't agree to it. It would be similar to Kerry wanting McCain in 2004.
It might help the Democrat, but the Republican would be reviled among their own ranks. It would effectively end any political career they had up to that point.
They will wind up being a window dressing VP with no real influence or power. And that`s if the ticket wins. If they lose, the hapless Republican end up a pariah with no prospects for anything after the election.
Chuck Hagel actually wields more power as a Senator than he would as VP under those circumstances, and keeps open any further (presidential) aspirations he may have. He`d be insane to throw that away.
Posted By: Gregory (Guest) on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Gregory, you are quite wrong. Hagal is not running for re-election and has said he will likely not run for any further office. So his power as a senator and the potential end to his political career aren't so serious concerns for him.
Besides, I really doubt whether being elected Vice President could end the political career of anyone more competent than Quayle.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 12:33 AM
If Obama chose a republican, he would get my vote. Imagine a country actually working together to make this country better. I've sat back and read some of the comments and I'm so sick of hearing Republicans are reasonable for this, Democrats are blah blah blah... You get my point. It isn't solving the problems this country faces. Only unity of our country can realize that dream. God Bless the USA and I'll pray for a better future.
Posted By: Dgnr8fox (Registered) on May 13, 2008 at 12:53 AM
My bad... I meant responsible not reasonable..... Commenting while intoxicated = mistakes
Posted By: Dgnr8fox (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Richardson is by far the best choice for VP.
Hagel has strong ties to ES&S - one of the three largest manufacturers/operators of electronic voting systems. Check out how he beat Ben Nelson for the senate in 1996.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Hagel is despised by most Republicans so Obama won't receive any Republican votes based on that.
Also, Bill Richardson is a nobody, sorry to say. Just because he's a hispanic does not mean that suddenly all hispanics will vote for Obama. George Bush had a hispanic in his cabinet and that didn't improve any numbers.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 11:22 AM
A Republican on the ticket with Obama? Can you say immediate assassination?
Posted By: John Wilkes Booth (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I don't know about that. Most people are embarassed to admit they are Democrats.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I meant someone assassinating Obama.
I mean if Republicans are willing to throw national elections to overtake the presidency you know they'll have no problems killing Obama to get one of their own in the office.
Posted By: John Wilkes Booth (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 01:21 PM
A hispanic VP insures Obama would never be assassinated. You'd only open up the borders.
Posted By: Dave Chappelle (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 03:41 PM
The majority of Americans that aren't hispanic do not want the borders wide open. Which means Obama will not win.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 03:42 PM
To borrow from Mr. Csonka, Chuck Hagel on the ticket = NO VOTES! Yes, it is true Hagel is a member of the Republican party, but his ideology does not mesh with that of most Republicans. The only people it might sway are the sheeple who buy into the empty platitudes of "unity."
Speaking of which, what's so great about unity anyway? I'm borrowing from Jonah Goldberg here, but let us not forget that the Mafia and lynch mobs have unity on their side as well. The iconic image of fascism is the fasces, the bundle of sticks, each of which is weak individually but the lot of which are unbreakable when banded together.
The point is that unity is only valuable when people are unified for a just cause. Even then, it is the rightness of the cause, not its popularity, that bestows value. Unity for unity's sake is at best worthless and at worst dangerous.
Besides, Barack Obama as the candidate of unity? The same guy who excoriated "those who would use religion as a wedge," yet wouldn't distance himself from one of the most divisive religious figures in America until he was the one being attacked? Please.
Posted By: Big Daddy Matty (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Didn't Hitler, Stalin, and many other despots call for unity too? Much good that brought, huh?
You cannot force everyone to accept everyone's way of life. I know liberals have no understanding of this but when they try to force their views on people, it actually drives more of a wedge between people.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 07:52 PM
"Didn't Hitler, Stalin, and many other despots call for unity too? Much good that
brought, huh?
You cannot force everyone to accept everyone's way of life. I know liberals
have no understanding of this but when they try to force their views on people,
it actually drives more of a wedge between people."
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 07:52 PM
Oh, beautiful! The age old "let's compare _______ to Hitler/Nazis" tactic! My favorite! That's how to have a real debate on the issues! This is why I LOVE reading all of your comments on this website!
Seriously though, no one is telling you that you have to accept lifestyles different from your own, but there's no reason why you as the majority should have the right to abuse minorities.
For example, gay marriage. The gov't can't force your church to recognize a gay married couple or have a gay marriage within its confines and the gov't can't force you to like them, but there's no good reason why the gov't should not afford a monogomous homosexual couple the same legal and tax status as a monogomous heterosexual couple.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on May 13, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Consider this wacky pick: Colin Powell.
Chairman of the JCOS and succesfully managed Gulf War I. Former Secretary of State. Extremely popular.
Not sure if the US could handle it... which is too bad. They guy shouldn't be disqualified because of his race. The only thing he lacks is a home town in a swing state.
Posted By: Daley (Guest) on May 14, 2008 at 07:49 PM
I think Bill Bradley would make an excellent VP for Obama.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on June 05, 2008 at 07:36 PM
STAY CURRENT