Is a Romney/McCain ticket the Republicans' best bet?

"The vice president really only has two duties. One is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of a tied vote in the Senate. And the other is to inquire daily as to the health of the president."
– Senator John McCain

The Framers of the United States Constitution thought so little of the office of vice president that the document spends no more than one line describing its function. Certainly, there is some discussion as to how the vice president gets elected or impeached, or what is to be done if the poor forgotten fellow fails to show up for work, but it has been left to history to define the role.

Since John Adams became the first vice president in 1789, holders of the office have often found it to be a tedious waiting room to history. For voters, the candidates for vice president have rarely affected their party choices. That is, until this year.

With the Republicans set to nominate a man who would be the oldest first-term president America has ever seen (Senator John McCain), and the Democrats fixing to put forward the most inexperienced, unknown candidate since at least the 19th century (Senator Barack Obama), the office of the vice president will carry uncommon weight. To achieve electoral success, and for the good of the nation, both McCain and Obama must choose their running mates wisely.

Conventional wisdom holds that 1960 was the last election year in which a nominee for vice president made the difference, when Lyndon Johnson handed Texas, and the presidency, to John F. Kennedy. In 2008, McCain and Obama must consider candidates who may not only bring them a vote-rich state, but who will also offset their shortcomings.

Pundits have paired McCain with any number of potential running mates, from Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The most compelling candidate, however, is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

While it is unlikely that Romney could convince Massachusetts to vote Republican in the presidential election, he may help to sway another important state. George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was governor of Michigan and ran for president himself in 1968. The Romney brand remains strong in that state, evinced by Mitt’s convincing win there during the Republican primaries. Considering that Michigan has been inching toward voting Republican for the last couple of presidential cycles, Mitt could make the difference.

Founder of Bain Capital, saviour of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and a self-made gazillionaire, Romney also brings economic bona fides to the ticket. Moreover, as a former Governor, Romney adds executive experience to McCain’s lifetime as a legislator.

Even if he wins the general election, McCain may end up as a vulnerable, 76-year-old incumbent in 2012. Romney will be 65 in 2012 and, as runner-up to McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries, would be considered a favourite for the GOP nomination next time. By putting Romney on the ticket this year, Republicans would install a media-savvy, electable heir apparent, in case McCain falters in the next four years.

Obama, meanwhile, has his own bevy of suitors, from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to his unyielding opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. As in the 2004 presidential election, however, the road to the White House runs through Ohio.

Polls show a consistent but narrow lead for McCain over Obama in this pivotal state. If Obama were to add 66-year-old Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (pictured below) to his team, however, this deficit could quickly be erased. A former Methodist minister, psychologist and six-term Member of Congress, Strickland answers every persistent question voters have about Obama — from his lack of experience to his ecumenical connections.

An Obama-Strickland ticket is something for which the Republicans may have no answer. McCain-Romney, meanwhile, may just be the GOP’s best bet in what looks to be a Democratic year. In either case, voters will be looking past the top of the ticket.

Senator Obama, you're no Jack Kennedy

“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Lloyd Bentsen hurled these words at Dan Quayle in 1988, en route to winning the vice presidential debate but losing the November election. Today, the very same words are entirely applicable to the Democrats’ presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama. From foreign policy to tax reform to experience, Obama cannot hold a candle to the president with whom his followers often compare him, John F. Kennedy.

Take Cuba, for example. While Kennedy took a hard line against the Castro regime, understanding that despotism must be opposed, particularly in our own hemisphere, Obama has famously promised to negotiate eye-to-eye with that very same dictatorship.

This dichotomy between the two men can be extrapolated right round the globe. In his inaugural address, JFK pledged to “pay any price, bear any burden” to advance the cause of liberty. Obama, meanwhile, plans to pull American troops out of foreign commitments, regardless of the consequences, and promises to meet with enemy regimes and terror sponsors from Venezuela to Syria.

In defense of this position, Obama cites Kennedy’s 1961 meeting with Soviet Premier Krushchev in Vienna. That Obama believes this example strengthens his case evinces a lack of judgment and misunderstanding of history. By JFK’s own admission, the Vienna meeting was a disaster, leading to the construction of the Berlin Wall in the months that followed and the Cuban Missile Crisis the next year.

On the domestic front, Obama and Kennedy are worlds apart. A firm believer in free markets and international trade, JFK’s tax cuts were larger than those of any of his successors— including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Obama, meanwhile, has pledged massive tax hikes, threatens to renegotiate or pull out of NAFTA and reflexively opposes even the most benign free trade pacts.

In fact, a voter favouring low taxes, minimal government intervention and robust, responsible foreign policy would have been quite comfortable voting for Kennedy in 1960, rather than his Republican opponent, Richard Nixon (recall that, as president, it was Nixon, not JFK, who instituted wage and price controls, and created the Environmental Protection Agency). A voter with the same values today would have little in common with Obama.

The most convenient comparison between Obama and Kennedy is their relative youth, but even this is misleading. At 43, JFK was the youngest man ever elected president, and Obama will be 47 on Election Day. But the accomplishments of each man in their first four decades are wildly divergent. Before seeking the White House, JFK was a war hero, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and had served fourteen years in the Congress, having been twice elected to the Senate after three terms in the House. Obama, meanwhile, can boast three undistinguished years in the Senate, preceded by eight years in the Illinois State Legislature.

John F. Kennedy was a president who understood his country’s economic needs, as well as America’s unique responsibility to defend freedom around the world. Indeed, nearly a quarter-century before Reagan came to the Brandenburg Gate and called for Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” JFK stood on the same ground and pronounced his solidarity with oppressed people in immortal words: “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

Given his reluctance to employ America’s power in defense of liberty, or even to call tyranny by its name, could the world expect anything similar from a President Obama? And what of those who believe, in Lawrence Kudlow’s parlance, that a free market economy is the best path to prosperity? Does Obama’s high-tax, low-trade philosophy do any justice to Kennedy’s legacy?

Convenient as it may seem to equate Barack Obama with America’s 35th president, the fact remains that he is no Jack Kennedy.

Vladimir Putin is still the boss

Dmitry Medvedev was sworn in as Russia's new president this past week, in a stately event at the Kremlin that should make no one feel at ease. Medvedev, 42, is the hand-picked successor of former president (and former KGB colonel) Vladimir Putin.

Since assuming office from Boris Yeltsin at the dawn of this decade, Putin has presided over what the Financial Times quaintly calls, "a closely managed democracy." Put another way, Putin has crushed dissent, jailed businessmen and journalists and, prior to Medvedev's installation, altered the Russian political system such that he will retain power even as he shifts to the role of prime minister. When Putin's domestic heavy-handedness is combined with Russia's increasing international agitation -- including forays into North American airspace -- there is little reason to believe that danger died with the Soviet Union.

"The Russian Bear is back." So said General Rick Hillier, Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, to a gathering of North American business leaders earlier this year. Hillier advised that Canada has had to increase patrols of its northern region as Russia routinely transgresses territorial boundaries, both in the air and beneath the seas. In February, Russian bombers were intercepted by U. S. fighter jets after violating Japanese airspace and buzzing an American aircraft carrier in the Pacific. Such Russian flights over the Pacific have been routine since at least 2007. In 2005, Russia and China conducted their first-ever joint military exercises, activating thousands of troops on land, air and sea, presumably for the edification of Western powers.

American leaders have diverged in their opinions of Putin's Russia. President George W. Bush, early in his administration, famously claimed that he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a man with a good heart. One could argue, however, that for all their long looks, Bush has taken a hard line with Putin, negotiating to expand missile defence and NATO in eastern Europe, right up until this year. Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, meanwhile, has taken a harsher public stand on Putin: "I looked into his eyes and I saw three letters-- K-G-B."

At home, Putin has shown no hesitation to imprison people who oppose or criticize him, from Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky to chess champion Garry Kasparov, who was arrested in November, 2007, and denied access to lawyers and visitors. Arrests and crackdowns have been accompanied by a heavy dose of re-centralization. Before reverting to the role of prime minister, Putin arranged for the governors of Russia's 85 regions to report to him personally, rather than the Kremlin. It would seem that, through Medvedev, Putin's personal and punitive reign will go on.

It must be terrifically tempting, in such a society, to keep one's head down to stay out of trouble. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed in his seminal chronicle of the Soviet Terror, The Gulag Archipelago: "Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."

One of the graces of Russia's new repression is that many of its excesses remain public, for those who care to look. Among Solzhenistyn's laments as the Terror progressed was that, after a few well-known and public trials, the courts and tribunals became closed-door operations, while society trudged along in tragic ignorance. That is, until their turn came.

It is doubtful that Putin and Medvedev will lead Russia back down the sorry road of Soviet communism. But tyranny goes by many names and aggression advances under flags of convenience. As always, it is the duty of free people to keep a watchful eye.

Theo Caldwell: Israel's real friends are on the right

As the world watched former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, embrace terrorists from Hamas and lay a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat recently, it is worth considering which side of the ideological divide includes Israel's real friends.

For more than a generation, even before Republican president Richard Nixon prevented the Soviets from entering the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel's allies and defenders have most commonly been found on the right, among the ranks of conservatives and Christians.

On the left, meanwhile, it is received wisdom that Israel is an oppressor, and the country is often likened to the worst regimes in history.

Consider the title of Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and its implicit equivalence between Israel and segregated South Africa. It speaks volumes that the most frequent foreign visitor to Democrat Bill Clinton's White House was, in fact, Arafat. Whatever his other foreign policy shortcomings, Republican President George W. Bush declined to host or meet with the PLO terrorist even once.

The affinity of folks on the right for Israel ranges from religious to political to purely practical.

For Christian communities, Israel and the Jewish people are revered as a nation favoured by God, and out of which came the Messiah, Jesus. For conservatives, Israel stands as an isolated democratic state, surrounded by hostile regimes in a vital region, and its defence makes strategic sense. Finally, if none of these rationales appeals to a would-be Republican leader, the very fact that Israel's cause matters deeply to his voting base should be sufficient to secure his support.

In 2003, expanding upon Bush's treatment of Arafat, David Frum observed, "Why did Bush take the stance he did? Not -- as the European press insinuated -- because of the 'Jewish lobby' ... He would not need Jewish votes in 2004, and he certainly would not need Jewish political donations ... If Bush had a political worry, it was his own political base: conservatives, both religious and secular."

Of course, Bush and other conservatives have for years advocated the creation of a Palestinian state. This position is perfectly consistent with a staunch defence of Israel, and serves to advocate a practical, humane step toward peace in the Middle East. Corralled and contained by Israelis and fellow Arabs, the Palestinian people live in poverty and fall prey to indoctrination. A state of their own, founded and maintained on the condition of Israel's right to exist, would give these unfortunate folks a shot at a proper life and, one hopes, dispel much of the hatred and misinformation that spurs their young people to terrorism.

But the will and the means to make this happen has come more from conservatives and Republicans than from Democrats, international intellectuals or even the Palestinians' own leadership. While his people languished in poverty, Arafat presided over a personal fortune in the billions of dollars, the residue of which provides his widow, Suha, a lavish life to this day.

This is the same Suha Arafat who, during a panel discussion in Gaza in 1999, accused Israeli forces of daily and extensive use of poison gas against Palestinian women and children. Sharing the platform with Ms. Arafat when she made these remarks was then-first lady and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Ms. Clinton's reaction was to embrace and kiss Ms. Arafat right there on the stage.

Even when Israel takes upon itself hard tasks to the benefit of other free nations, such as destroying Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 or eliminating the Syrian-North Korean nuclear project this past September, elite opinion invariably lines up against the Jewish state. Jay Nordlinger of National Review aptly notes that when Mohamed El-Baradei, Egyptian Nobel Peace Prize winner and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, blasted Israel for the September strikes, he neglected to utter any criticism of Syria or North Korea.

Israel, like any nation, is imperfect, and its allies are not altruists above reproach. But 60 years in the most dangerous part of a dangerous world have shown Israel who its true friends are.

National Post: May 05, 2008, 12:13 PM by Marni Soupcoff

Theo Caldwell on Bill Clinton's talk in Toronto: He covered everything from Hillary to Himalayan glaciers

Last week, former U.S. president Bill Clinton spoke at an event hosted by Toronto’s Economic Club. Speculation swirled among the attendees as to what subjects the American statesman would touch upon: his legacy, the environment, poverty or, especially, his wife’s campaign for the presidency.

As it happened, all guesses were correct. From Hillary to the Himalayan glaciers to health care to the housing crisis, the 42nd American president opined on every conceivable topic. Bill Clinton is a man who is used to being listened to, and plainly believes that the mere force of his words is sufficient to square his personal opinions with reality. Making claim after claim, unsourced but emphatic, Clinton’s leitmotif was inequality, starting with income levels in the United States.

“Ninety per cent of the benefits of this decade — ninety — nine-zero — have gone to the top 10% of earners,” he informed his audience, declining to dilute the import of this message by citing evidence or defining his terms. If her campaign rhetoric is to be believed, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s fixation on income redistribution: One shudders to think what would be the practical upshot for taxpayers and free markets if another Clinton were in the White House.

“In America … there is a lot of pain,” he sighed, pausing to bite his lower lip for posterity. A hushed crowd dared to hope, “Would he continue with ‘and I feel it’?” Instead he went on, “… and outright anger.” These words were oddly reminiscent of Senator Barack Obama’s recent talk of “bitter” Americans and their frustrations. Perhaps showing the benefit of his political experience, however, the former president was careful to assign anger to the entire country, rather than single out the rural voters of a pivotal primary state, as Obama did.

Warming to his theme of inequality, Clinton continued, “A lot of people want to know what we can do to return to being a country of shared prosperity” — a hopeful sentiment echoing Hillary Clinton’s prescription for “shared prosperity.” To wit, she will raise the highest “shared prosperity” rate back to 40%, with marginal “shared prosperity” rates perhaps topping 70%. Moreover, if she has her way and the Estate Tax is made permanent, Americans will be compelled to “share” their prosperity even when they die. Such is the peril of happy words.

He named global warming as the greatest threat to the future, inspiring gratitude for the 22nd Amendment in this age of terrorism. He extolled the Kyoto Accord and bemoaned the environmental insouciance of the current administration.

“The U.S. takes the rap for pulling out of Kyoto after I left office and President Bush came in, and I do think it was a mistake,” Clinton tut-tutted, opting not to mention that the U.S. Senate unanimously rejected the treaty during his own presidency. Whatever Kyoto’s shortcomings, what comes of such a hijacked half-truth is wistfulness for the days when former presidents did not publicly lace into their successors.

For one hour, the left index finger of the former leader of the free world jabbed at what organizers described as an A-list audience of Toronto’s business and cultural elite. When the president’s point seemed to him particularly potent, the poking finger was replaced by a karate chop of justice to the podium. Through it all, the message was clear — the world is unfair, and was far better when he was in charge.

That is the way of things, because Bill Clinton says so.

Barack Obama--known by the company he keeps

If he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama's campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America.

Anomalous among Western leaders, the president of the United States serves as head of both state and government. Moreover, he is elected nominally by the voters, unlike in a parliamentary system whereby a leader attains power through the success of his party. As such, the president represents something very personal to Americans. He is, for four or more years, the personification of their country, embodying the aspirations and goodness of the land that they love. A president may disappoint after assuming office, but America is not in the habit of electing candidates who hold their country in contempt.

Not only have the comments of Obama's wife, Michelle (who has referred to America as "downright mean" and stated that she was not proud of her country until her husband started winning primaries) and his minister, Jeremiah Wright (whose hateful, anti-white, anti-American diatribes are available for sale in Obama's church, or for free on YouTube) revealed the tired, leftist scorn for America that Obama represents -- the Senator's own remarks have exposed this ugly, unelectable side.

Speaking to a fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama attempted to explain his persistent deficit in Pennsylvania primary polls by describing small-town Americans as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This is hard stuff, and patronizing, besides. Add to this Obama's characterizations of the "typical white person" (in the context of describing his grandmother, whom he had originally tossed under the campaign bus in order to create a false equivalence with Wright's racism), and one finds something far more damaging than a simple series of gaffes --it is a window into how the Senator sees his countrymen.

Obama's associations, even beyond Wright, speak to this unappealing point of view. William Ayers, a domestic terrorist of Weathermen infamy, enjoys a friendly relationship with the Obamas. As general-election voters will learn, Ayers bombed the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, and fondly recalls, "The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them." Ayers and his accomplices also bombed the U.S. Capitol, the State Department, as well as banks, police stations and courthouses.

In one's associations, as in other aspects of life, mistakes are made. But a hallmark of a leader is the willingness to make them right. For this, Obama has shown little talent or enthusiasm.

Obama has defended Wright by insisting that he merely represents the convention of "Black Liberation Theology," as though this were just some quaint offshoot of traditional Christianity. One need not pore over the tenets of Black Liberation Theology or its founder, James Hal Cone -- although a Google search of either would provide a world of clarity to the undecided voter -- to recognize that a would-be President who cannot utterly disassociate himself from such racist, anti-American rubbish lacks sufficient character and affinity for his country's ideals to be its leader.

The bumper-sticker slogan "dissent is patriotic" has for decades been employed to legitimize any insult to America, no matter how hateful or moronic. But Americans understand that their president's instinct ought to be to defend the nation against unfair invective, not embrace those who purvey it -- or, in the case of Ayers, seek to blow it up altogether.

With his demonstrable view of America, and considering his cohorts, Obama would be wise to make himself very comfortable in the Senate.

Mayor brings "Torontonian values" to China

Trip funded by city taxpayers

Mayor David Miller has defended his recent, taxpayer-funded jaunt to the People's Republic of China by insisting he will be bringing "Torontonian values" to the despotic regime.

As our city faces a number of imminent difficulties, including a potential transit strike, it is fair to ask whether our chief executive should be travelling abroad on our dime, assuming for himself foreign policy duties heretofore unrelated to municipal government. More important, one wonders just what "Torontonian values" Miller means to represent.

Off the top of my head, here are a few of my values for Toronto: I value being able to get to work. I would value my trash being picked up without it having to be gift-wrapped. I value a city in which kids of every economic background have places to play, free of charge, all four seasons of the year. Just how, exactly, does His Worship buggering off to China address any one of these?

Prosaic as such things may seem to a romantic soul like Miller, these are precisely the sort of issues we elect city leaders to address. Moreover, if these and other city-level concerns like crime, litter and taxes were well in hand, I doubt I or anyone would begrudge the mayor soaring over to Asia to show folks how it's done.

Instead, Torontonians face spiralling costs, deteriorating services, and funerals for teenage victims of violence on our streets. Through it all, our mayor always seems to have someplace else to be. He would rather skip town for a brow-furrowing session over solar power and windmills with Robert Redford than stick around and deal with the issues for which Torontonians elected and pay him.

Here is a simple value David Miller ought to understand -- do the job in front of you before setting off to save the world.

Miller has promised that among his espousal of "Torontonian values" will be some discussion of China's abysmal attitude toward human rights. Not for nothing, what leverage does the mayor of Toronto suppose he can bring to bear upon China's dictatorship? The sheer power of his personality? Having had some years to assess that power, Torontonians may advise Tibetans not to start ringing the bells of freedom just yet.

So far, the trip is going just as one might have predicted. According to Miller's April 14 press release, he has signed a suitably Soviet-sounding "Memorandum of Understanding" to forge a new "culture of partnership" with the mayor of Beijing. Knowing Miller as we Torontonians do, could any of us conceive of a more typically inane gesture for our mayor to undertake? The man continues to defy satire.

The gist of this agreement is that the cities will co-operate to enhance future prosperity (wisely shunning an earlier draft, wherein the mayors would quarrel in order to destroy prosperity of the past), including an exchange of senior staff between Toronto and Beijing. As the arrangement progresses, one wonders who will be schooling whom on the finer points of socialism and state control. If you think the City of Toronto has nothing to teach the Chinese communists about authoritarianism and overreach, try removing a dead tree from your private property or appealing your house taxes.

STICK TO THE BASICS

We don't ask Henry Kissinger to fix our potholes. We expect the mayor to tend to such matters. So the question remains -- what is Miller doing conducting diplomacy in China?

The mayoralty of Toronto may seem too small for a man of Miller's outsized ambitions. But the job is important to those of us who live here. If the basic needs of our splendid city are uninspiring to our current mayor, any number of right-thinking folks, with their priorities in line, would be happy to relieve him of the task in 2010.