Why are running mates running from Obama?

By Brian Kirwin | July 15, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized |

Now this is change. Usually about this time, Democrat after Democrat is lining up and puffing up angling to run alongside the Presidential nominee. Barack Obama is the media darling, and let’s face it, the only two-term President to coattail the White House in his party since FDR was Ronald Reagan.

But prominent Democrats are running away from Barack Obama like I’ve never seen before. Sen. Jack Reed, Mark Warner, Sen. Webb, Gov. Strickland, and Gov. Rendell have all said no. Even Sen. Biden gave a hedging “not interested”

What do they know that we don’t?

Comments

8 Responses to “Why are running mates running from Obama?”

Jeremy Hinton on July 15th, 2008 8:28 am

Maybe because they know our country’s headed for a perfect storm of liabilities (fiscal and military), recession and demographics that would be difficult for any political leader to weather with a career intact, and why jockey for the number two slot in that environment? Honestly, no matter who wins the Oval Office, i would be surprised to see them serve two terms.
ragnar on July 15th, 2008 9:50 am

What do they know - that they weren’t going to be picked. As soon as they are off the list, and everyone you mentioned is off the list, you can expect these politicians to act like any other politician - and to make themselves look as good as possible.

It’s amusing how you try to turn normal political happenings into something more.

PS - JH also makes a good point, who would want to be VP, or even President now?

Bush is leaving a wrecked economy, a crushing debt, few jobs created (5,000,000 v. Clinton’s 22,000,000), (and 1 out of every 6 manufacturing jobs having left the US since he took office), out of control energy costs, two conflicts which he has failed to conclude, a politicized Justice Department, etc, etc… Seriously, who would want to be the respondible adult to clean up after this party is over?
J.R. on July 15th, 2008 10:08 am

Ragnar,
You’re smarter to know that the president has very little to do with the economy…I really hate that form of bluster to blame the success or failure of an economy on the president…any president. But, I know the ignorant have done it for years, so whatever.

You’re also incredibly blind (or intellectually dishonest) for a military veteran and student of international relations. Do you honestly believe conflict in the Middle East could have ended after six years? Seriously…the military has done almost everything it can in Afghanistan and Iraq…short of more troops. And I’m not sure that really would be the best strategy, given the asymmetry of the enemy.

A politicized Justice Department? What…lawyers have different opinions?

Please. Take your rose-colored glasses and partisan hat off and think.

Where I will meet you half-way is that, yes, there are economic issues that require action: but, you know that it’s congress that works on fiscal policy (and the effects are time-late), the federal reserve sets monetary policy (and they have done all they can to mitigate inflation), and the president namely deals with trade policy (what do you want him to do, cut-off trade with China?).

As for national defense…the United States contributes nearly 25% of the budget of the United Nations. Its defense budget is more than almost all the G-8 countries…combined. To think that foreign conflict is not a U.S. responsibility is naive. But when you look at the fact that gangs still run rampant in the U.S., despite a police force in each locality, you have to wonder how effective a large military presence will be at finding and “bringing to justice” an elusive, asymmetric foe, such as al Quaeda.

Oh, forget it. I’m wasting my time.
ragnar on July 15th, 2008 11:58 am

Jim -

1. President and economy - Bush directed the energy policy (remember all that bluster in 2000 w/ who he/ Cheney were meeting with?) which has directly led to our economic woes.
a. The tax cuts which have caused our debt to balloon and our currency to be devauled
b. The war in Iraq - which is NOT being paid for by this Administration, but rather is being paid for by borrowing money from the PRC - which as weakend and devauled our currency.
c. Leadership, where is it?

2. The mistakes made in the invasion of Iraq are directly attirbutable to Mr. Bush and his civilian appointees:
a. Not enough troops
b. Disbanding the Iraqi Army
c. Politicizing the reconstruction of Iraq by using policitical children rather than the experts
d. Not providing the proper equipment for the miltiary
e. Refusing to recognize an insurgency on the ground due to policitcal reasons at home
f. Forcing the Iraqi’s to move up their national election in 2003 - when they were telling Bush that they were not ready - in order to create a political issue for the campaign.
g. Taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan by invading Iraq
h. Enriching political friends of the GOP (Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater) at the expense of over-all national policy
i. Utilizing mercenaries in Iraq - which indescriminately kill and injure Iraqi citizens at the expense of the military’s mission in Iraq

3. Justice Department Politicization - the DOJ IG has found evidence that individuals were hired for CAREER CIVIL SERVICE positions on the basis of REPUBLICAN PARTY membership/ support. This has NEVER happened before.

4. Politically based prosecutions - see the prosecutions in MN and LA for examples. This should offend you and every American when policiticans are prosecuted on the eve of elections in order to sway the vote

Any other questions, or am I wasting my time?
Duck on July 15th, 2008 1:12 pm

One comment here. The way Civil Service exams work in NYS is they are prejudiced toward big government mindsets. Those that score well on these biased tests are generally-no surprise–big gov’t. liberals.

I don’t know if this is true for the federal gov’t. or not, but if it is, I could see why a Republican administration would try to get some similar minded people working for it.

Not saying it is right. I just wanted to point out there might be a built-in inequity.
ragnar on July 15th, 2008 4:21 pm

Duck - there aren’t federal government “tests” for civil service, Attorneys are hired on their merits (experience/ litigation background/ articles written/ law school) the issue the DOJ IG discovered is that the GOP political appointees were hiring individuals for career (non-political positions) who were identified as being Republicans. Which is a violation of federal civil service law - and good government ideals.
Duck on July 15th, 2008 6:34 pm

Ragnar,
Thanx for the info.

Still, maybe it’s just that I don’t trust politicians–of either party–too much, but I find it hard to believe there isn’t an unofficial test. Those who appoint the lawyers at the Justice Dept. don’t know the political leanings of their appointees and take that into consideration.

But that’s just me, and I feel a little sorry for Tricky Dick. He got caught doing illegal things which he may have done to ensure he didn’t have another election stolen from him.
Britt Howard on July 16th, 2008 5:58 am

“What do they know - that they weren’t going to be picked.”
Honestly - Ragnar is on target there. Webb came off a bit too “pissy”. I think he felt personally hurt by not being picked.

Maybe there was some political litmus testing. Maybe that is bad. You’ll NEVER convince me the Democrats don’t do the same. How did the State Department get so “left wing” anyway? This issue is not going to be productive for the Dems.

“a. The tax cuts which have caused our debt to balloon and our currency to be devauled” –Wow!

You believe that? Tax cuts? Really, that’s a load of crap. Ragnar your right about the debt and currency devaluation but, that is due to the massive spending(not even counting spending in Iraq). Dems have the alleged fiscal conservative Republican party nailed on this. Too bad they like runaway spending themselves. Gridlock from a Republican House and Senate was the ONLY thing that kept Clinton in check. Gridlock is good.