[sailaway21]

The normally reliable Windy has lost it on this one; perhaps the wafting opiate of Obamaism is effecting even normally sensible minds.

There are absolutely only two criteria in picking a Veep. The first is in picking one that will help get you elected. The second is to provide an acceptable replacement should the president expire. Lieberman fails on both accounts. He's not going to help J-Mac get elected because his presence, regardless of what Bill Kristol says, is going to just muddy the waters in terms of what a Republican presidency means. Republicans already dubious about J-Mac's credentials will have the final stick in the eye that compels them to stay home. (And let's remember that, absent the challenge of Mike Huckabee, the primary season might have looked very much different as might have the nominee.) The only Democrats who are Joe Lieberman fans are those living in Connecticut. Let's not forget that the Democratic party has already said, in no uncertain terms, that it can do without the services of it's former vice-presidential candidate. Dems aren't crossing the line to vote for McCain based upon "Joe-mentum".

And where does this silly idea come from that somehow the President and the Vice-President work as a team? OK, Bush and Cheney are unusually tight-exceptionally so. Find another example. By the end of the Clinton era, he and Gore were barely speaking and Clinton did little to help get Gore elected. Reagan relied on GHW Bush for virtually nothing. If Dan Quayle had had any influence at all in the GHW Bush presidency there probably would not have been a tax hike and a second term would have been more likely.

You don't run for the presidency based upon the strength of your running mates ideas. Believe one thing; these guys who run for president have a real good idea that they know the issues and that their position is the sole correct position. These are not men and women racked with self doubt.

John Nance Garner said, "the vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss". There are valid reasons for viewing things otherwise but rest assured that none of the candidates view things otherwise.

The other glaring deficiency in Windy's latest thoughts is that heretofore we've lacked the ability at consensus and, if we just had John and Joe on the same team we could get real change and leadership. I'm sorry but that's just sophomoric hogwash on the level of Mr. Smith goes to Washington. These people fully understand their opposing party's positions and refuse to compromise if there is the slightest chance that their position will prevail. Compromise itself is largely an acknowledgment of the inability to reach a truly good policy or decision on an issue, and usually results in the sort of half-baked goofiness of policy and law as referred to above by the Bzeer. How do you expect the Dem's for instance to compromise on social security when most of them were elected on the basis of keeping it just like it is? There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

This populist thinking is the same type of thinking that decries the two party system. It ignores the reality that there is little room for more than two opinions on each subject and is oblivious to the fact that the way real change gets accomplished in DC is by electing a president with an over-whelming mandate based upon his stump issues. Believe it or not but the last eight years is exactly what you get when you have compromise and bipartisanship, and you probably never even knew it was going on, did you? Well believe me once again, federal spending didn't get to where it is now by these guys in Congress fighting over every penny-there's been plenty enough back scratching going on to saitiate the most neglected political dog.

You've got two lousy choices in this election. One is assured to raise taxes and expand the role of government. The other is assured to continue the ineffectual meanderings of government, since circa 1988, but hopefully also at least assuring that blowing your ass up by an Islamist wack-job isn't on the agenda. Neither of those come even close to the grand vision Windy sees possible.

I'll refrain from responding extensively on the also normally sensible Chuck's expositions on the glories of the moderates positions. Chuck himself doesn't hold a single moderate position. He is only moderate in terms of the fact that the sum total of his positions does not tally with the platform of either party. But that is hardly the same as saying he has a moderate position on abortion, or taxation, or foreign policy. The moderate position on Osama bin Laden is one of taking him or leaving him as he is. That's not a position you're going to find that "moderates" will flock around. You can be either for pursuit of bin Laden or ignoring bin Laden-either one will attract voters. But you cannot be so moderate as to say that uncaptured is as good as captured, and expect to receive votes.

That's why populism always fails in the long run in America, yet we must keep fighting it back decade after decade. People vote for the candidate who has positions the majority of which they approve of. To the extent that a voter is able to subsume his other interests to those he shares with the candidate of his first choice, he is a moderate voter. The non-moderate voters are those who reflexively agree with one party or another on everything. The candidate trying to divine the "moderate" position is doomed to failure and most likely defeat. (Think Bill Clinton and GHW Bush here. Name one single thing they did that history will regard them exceedingly well for.) Populism sucks and it's basically a dishonest shell game to achieve only one goal; election. It is certainly not about adult forms of governance.