« Previous | Main | Next »

Daily Roundtable: McCain Shops for No. 2

Share

April 03, 2008 12:19 PM

McCain started talking veepstakes, saying he has a list of about 20 possible running mates. The GOP nominee-to-be also said he hopes to pick early and have his choice settled prior to the Republican convention in early September.

You can read Bret Hovell's report by clicking here.
And watch McCain's remarks by clicking here.

Who do you think McCain will pick as his VP? And who do you think McCain should pick? What combination presents the strongest ticket for the GOP? What should McCain's strategy be in selecting his running mate? Talk about it in today's Daily Roundtable discussion.

If you'd like to join the discussion about George's reporting on Hillary Clinton saying Obama "can't win," click here.

April 3, 2008 in Daily Roundtable | Permalink | User Comments (49)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hanoi Jane (Jane Fonda) just endorsed Barack Obama.

I would consider this a negative endorsement for Obama.

McCain, be careful, don't get near Hanoi Jane sitting in a military tank.

Pictures from the 60's (Vietnam war) says it all.

Posted by: mary | Apr 3, 2008 1:20:12 PM

I hope McCain picks Romney as his VP>

He needs someone strong on the Economic Frant.

Posted by: stella | Apr 3, 2008 1:22:03 PM

YOu heard it hear first, if the Dems pass on Hillary, I think John McCain might choose a female VP. Condi Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sarah Palin (Gov of Alaska), Christine Todd Whitman, among other possiblities. To go after Hillary's core base. Not a bad move. IMHO

Posted by: An opinion | Apr 3, 2008 1:48:22 PM

An Opinion,
You may be right but I doubt it. The Rs are not going to mess with what has been their legacy formula, two white guys over the last 44 elections.

A Condi Rice VP would be interesting, though, as a way of fracturing the black vote.

McCain already looks strong on national security. He needs someone that is strong on the economy with conservative credentials, who will also appeal to the Christian conservatives. I don't think that is Romney because he's a Mormon, although I'm sure he's still on the list. On the other hand, Mormonism is a very mainstream religion, especially when compared to Obama's hate-spewing pastor.

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Apr 3, 2008 1:59:33 PM

Very Interesting post on a Woman as McCain's VP choce.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, United States Senator from Texas Cosponsered the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2008; which falls in line with the beliefs of McCain being a war veteran.

But how would she be as a strong VP for the Economy issues that McCain is weak on?

Posted by: stella | Apr 3, 2008 2:06:22 PM

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, took office on Dec. 4,2006. As the 11th governor of Alaska,she is the first woman to hold that office.

Since taking office her top priorities have been: Resource development,education, and workforce development.

Under her leadership Alaska invested $1 Billion in the state's education fund and implemented the Senior BenefitsProgram that provides support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrasatructure, and the Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for ALaska.

Prior to her election as governor, Oalin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla,

During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment drawing in new industry.

She certainly could be a plus: a attractive woman and a woman governor whom seemed to have be a great asset to her state.

Posted by: stella | Apr 3, 2008 3:07:21 PM

I am not convinced a woman is the right pick if Hillary is the nominee. I don't think it works like that. I f Obama is the nominee then a woman might be a clever pick. Though most of the names I have heard have been white middle aged men, Pawlenty, Sanford etc. I think that might be the route McCain goes eventually. However if Clinton is the nominee maybe you might see someone to show a bit of diversity in the GOP. ABCnews was speculation on Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana the other week. One thing I think in the current 3am climate though is picking someone who is or at least appears ready to be President. Hence I wouldn't expect anything to out of left field.

Posted by: markymark | Apr 4, 2008 7:18:38 AM

GEORGE S on THIS WEEK keeps asking:Will President Bush attend opening ceremonies...." As George well knows advance time table for POYUS is not announced for SECURITY reason.
Obviously George S. does not care about the security of President Bush. A NEW LOW for ABC

Posted by: Paul Noland | Apr 13, 2008 10:59:25 AM

George on today's THIS WEEK, were you awake? Stephen Hadley stated around five times that China has a human rights problem with Nepal!!!! It's Tibet!! Why did you let him get away with it?

Posted by: Mike | Apr 13, 2008 12:37:00 PM

Why is the only Black person running for Presodent being question about his American Flag Pin ? McCain nor Hillary Clinton wears one at all yet the only one attacked is O'Bama. Does race how anything to this,? I think so.

Posted by: William L. Antonio | Apr 19, 2008 7:09:13 PM

I hope George shows his impartiality by asking John McCain about the new book, "The Real McCain", which documents McCain calling his wife a "c..t" (the vulgar word for vagina) in public. This crass and hateful behavior is more defining than the wearing of a lapel pin.

Posted by: Albert | Apr 19, 2008 9:45:30 PM

Really, George?

Your statement to McCain that his biggest obstacle might be his age?

Having embraced the Bush Iraq policy, and most if not all of Bush's failed economic policies, I can't believe that anyone would think his age in an obstacle in this race.

Posted by: Joseph | Apr 20, 2008 10:43:23 AM

George,

Just finished watching your "interview" with John McCain. It doesn't surprise me at all that you didn't asked him all those "tough questions". For example, concerning Sen. Coburn: Why didn't you ask him about coburn's comment about doctors who perform abortions? Why didn't you ask him about voting to cut VA benefits? Why didn't you press him for the truth about tax cuts? Why didn't you question him about his continued support of a war that is bankrupting this country? Why didn't you report the AP published fact check concerning Ayers (sp.)? Concerning his spending cuts: No amount of cutting Medicare to people like Buffett and others is going to make up for that kind of deficit spending. And some of this so-called "porkbarrel spending" McCain wants to cut is needed back here in the real world. OH, I get it. Time was running out and you "had to move on to another topic." You have definitely given us an idea of what the media will do to Obama. But you know what I think? I think the American people have awakened from their long, costly nap. It is hitting their pocketbooks and no matter what you and the others in the corporate media say to twist the truth, I think (as has been shown so far)they have turned people like you off. All I can say is FINALLY!! FINALLY!!

Posted by: Emily | Apr 20, 2008 11:41:09 AM

George,

Just finished watching your "interview" with John McCain. It doesn't surprise me at all that you didn't asked him all those "tough questions". For example, concerning Sen. Coburn: Why didn't you ask him about coburn's comment about doctors who perform abortions? Why didn't you ask him about voting to cut VA benefits? Why didn't you press him for the truth about tax cuts? Why didn't you question him about his continued support of a war that is bankrupting this country? Why didn't you report the AP published fact check concerning Ayers (sp.)? Concerning his spending cuts: No amount of cutting Medicare to people like Buffett and others is going to make up for that kind of deficit spending. And some of this so-called "porkbarrel spending" McCain wants to cut is needed back here in the real world. OH, I get it. Time was running out and you "had to move on to another topic." You have definitely given us an idea of what the media will do to Obama. But you know what I think? I think the American people have awakened from their long, costly nap. It is hitting their pocketbooks and no matter what you and the others in the corporate media say to twist the truth, I think (as has been shown so far)they have turned people like you off. All I can say is FINALLY!! FINALLY!!

Posted by: Emily | Apr 20, 2008 11:41:16 AM

I noticed niether George or McCain were wearing "Flag Pins" (nor the others around the Round Table). Are you/they all not patriotic? By George' question in the debate, one could only draw that conclusion...

Posted by: bt | Apr 20, 2008 1:53:41 PM

In Iraq, virtually all political factions control a Militia. How will an election that bars some factions be valid?
Also, to have an Iraqi government not influenced by Iran we need to start over. McCain is in left field on Iraq, remember he was part of the chorus that said Iraq would be easy.

Posted by: Erik Hansen | Apr 20, 2008 1:54:06 PM

I'm an independent and am NOT a supporter of Barrack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) yet I am one of the millions who believe you did an horrific job moderating the debate.

And yet you chose 3 ABC News employees for the round-table this week, none of whom were (for obvious, if differing reasons) willing or able to offer any criticism of it.

You all but admitted it was one of the major news stories this week by addressing it at the round table, but didn't have the sense to put up an opposing point of view?

All of your guests as well as the hosted stated or intimated that Barrack Obama supporters were the ones complaining about the format when that is utterly untrue. Just this morning on Meet the Press, even Ed Rendell, Clinton's most vociferous supporters, agreed that the first hour of the debate was pointless fluff.

I am not one of those cynics who believe it was an effort to help Hillary in polls and who would complain about the "appearance of impropriety" having George Stepenopholous moderate. I've watched his show enough to know that is an unfair attack.

I AM however, one of those cynics who thinks it was about ratings. And that, I think, bothers me even more. The commercialization of this debate - whether in the form of sensationalism or in the form of disruptive advertising - was its most alarming feature.

I only hope it shines a spotlight on the problem with Television News - particularly taken in tandem with the diminishing circulation and corporate control of paper news. Like most, I gather much of my news from the internet, but clearly that medium has a lot of maturing to do before people learn how to use it as a responsible non-partisan outlet for current truthful information.

So back to this morning's show... Why no dissenting point on the round table? Who made the booking decisions? Was the idea of actually debating ABC's handling of the debate considered verboten by corporate or did G.S. simply not have the courage (or arguments) to defend himself against the genuine non-Obamamaniacal criticisms?

Not because I think he actually should have asked them, but if George thought it was fair ground and really important to voters, he should asked McCain the following (for consistency's sake):

1. Why did he not ask McCain why he was NOT wearing a flag pin??

2. If George Steph. thinks these symbolic issues are really worth discussing, why didn't he push McCain a little harder on Hagee and ask why he wasn't holding himself to the same standard he set for Obama just a few minutes before?

3. "Who's more loves America more, Mr. McCain, you or Rev. Hagee?"

3. Why didn't he ask McCain about his wife's tax records not being released?

4. Why did he spend 2/3 to 3/4 of his time asking him about substantive issues like taxes, Iran and Iraq?

5. Why did he begin with the substance and only ask about that symbolic stuff at the end?


Shame on ABC for not even having the courage to either apologize and move on (in which case, the McCain interview would have been just fine). In the alternative, they could have defended themselves and dealt with McCain as I described for the sake of consistency.

And since they chose not to do either of these and still have no guest that would criticize ABC's coverage, then they should have recused themselves from talking about it at all.

By characterizing and marginalizing criticism as a reaction from "Obama supporters" and dealing with it as they have, is insulting frustrated viewers of every political persuasion.

Posted by: Andrew | Apr 20, 2008 4:45:02 PM

WHAT A LOAD OF BUSHSHIT!!!
i'LL CUT SPENDING, WHERE manchu jonny whereALL HE SAYS IS HE'LL CUT SPENDING AND STAY IN GEO THE DUMBERS WAR TILL WE ARE ALL TOTALLY BROKE AND PAYING $6GALLON FOR GAS. WAKE UP ALL REPUBLICANS ARE GREEDY EVIL BASTARDS

Posted by: ZOMBYWULF | Apr 20, 2008 7:20:54 PM

That round table on Sunday was a JOKE

Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2008 10:55:36 AM

When will someone call McCain on his claim that 100 million Americans have investments and will be hurt by sunsetting the tax breaks on capital gains. Most of those Americans invest in equities via IRA's or other retirement benefits and the capital gains on the investments are taxsheltered and the capital gains tax is irrelevant.

Posted by: Kevin Wick | Apr 21, 2008 4:27:11 PM

Post a comment