Likely McCain VP Choices in 2000
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Deleted member 109224
If not for him having reelection, I'd say Joe Lieberman.
Ridge or Engler would be good. Maybe Pataki.
Ridge or Engler would be good. Maybe Pataki.
Governor Engler of Michigan is an obvious choice. Governs a swing state with a lot of electoral votes, appeals to the conventional Establishment-Conservative types who backed Bush in 2000 in OTL, satisfactory to religious conservatives, etc.
BTW, as I wrote about this subject a couple of years ago: "I have a suspicion that some people here are being over-influenced by the experience of 2008 to believe that McCain would have chosen a somewhat unconventional running mate in 2000. McCain did indeed seem to think "outside the box" in 2008--first considering Lieberman, then settling on Palin. But that was with Obama ahead in the polls and the economy in a bad way. Under those circumstances, it made sense to try something risky. In 2000, on the other hand, polls would probably have shown McCain leading Gore (as they showed Bush leading Gore before Gore's choice of Lieberman). So there would be more incentive to play it safe."
And no, it's not going to be Lieberman, who (despite his criticism of Clinton over Monicagate--which may actually have helped Clinton because it showed that you could condemn him but still oppose impeaching him) was still a fairly conventional Democrat in 2000 (which is one reason Gore chose him). As CQ's Politics in America 2002, p. 187 noted, despite his centrist reputation "Lieberman sticks to party positions most of the time. He is solidly in favor of abortion rights and gun control and consistently supported President Clinton on budget and tax issues. He has good relations with labor, gay rights advocates and environmentalists." https://www.google.com/search?biw=1......0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.3zq3jqVL2hU
BTW, as I wrote about this subject a couple of years ago: "I have a suspicion that some people here are being over-influenced by the experience of 2008 to believe that McCain would have chosen a somewhat unconventional running mate in 2000. McCain did indeed seem to think "outside the box" in 2008--first considering Lieberman, then settling on Palin. But that was with Obama ahead in the polls and the economy in a bad way. Under those circumstances, it made sense to try something risky. In 2000, on the other hand, polls would probably have shown McCain leading Gore (as they showed Bush leading Gore before Gore's choice of Lieberman). So there would be more incentive to play it safe."
And no, it's not going to be Lieberman, who (despite his criticism of Clinton over Monicagate--which may actually have helped Clinton because it showed that you could condemn him but still oppose impeaching him) was still a fairly conventional Democrat in 2000 (which is one reason Gore chose him). As CQ's Politics in America 2002, p. 187 noted, despite his centrist reputation "Lieberman sticks to party positions most of the time. He is solidly in favor of abortion rights and gun control and consistently supported President Clinton on budget and tax issues. He has good relations with labor, gay rights advocates and environmentalists." https://www.google.com/search?biw=1......0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.3zq3jqVL2hU
"On the issue of gay rights and gay marriages, Mr Lieberman said that gay people were "as much children of the same awesome God as any of the rest of us", and he had an open mind on the issue of gay unions because he had friends in gay or lesbian partnerships who had pointed out "elements of unfairness".
"Mr Cheney said: "We live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody... it's really no one else's business." He added, "I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can," and said he felt it was up to each state to decide how relationships were recognised."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/oct/07/uselections2000.usa
Cheney may have been more liberal than usual for Republicans on the subject but Lieberman was hardly a gay-basher by the standards of the time, even for a Democrat. Indeed, one of the criticisms conservatives made of Cheney's response was that it was indistinguishable from Liieberman's: "''While their views on the state of the military were in sharp contrast, the candidates' views on matrimony were remarkably similar,'' Kenneth L. Connor, the president of the Family Research Council, complained in a message posted last week on his group's Web site." https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/10/us/2000-campaign-republican-running-mate-cheney-s-marriage-remarks-irk.html And as the same article noted, "Gov. George W. Bush has said flatly that he opposes same-sex marriages. And in an interview today aboard his campaign plane, Mr. Cheney said he would defer to his running mate's views on the matter. ''The governor sets the policy for a Bush administration, and I'll be happy to support his policy,'' he said."
In short, once again, there is no possibility that the GOP would nominate Lieberman for VP in 2000. His stance on abortion alone would be enough to rule it out. (He even voted against the ban on "partial birth" abortions.)
Last edited:
You might have had some similar candidates that Bush had: John Danforth, Tom Ridge, Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, etc.
He could’ve also gone for others not on Bush’s radar:
- Pete Wilson (Governor of California who was fairly popular after his governorship)
- John Rowland (popular Governor of Connecticut; before his whole corruption indictment)
- Terry Branstad (four-term Governor of Iowa who could help with Rust Belt support)
- Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Senator from Colorado; former conservative Democrat that could help shore up votes from independents and Democrats; also a Native American on the ticket would be historic)
- Spencer Abraham (Michigan Senator)
- Rod Grams (Senator from Minnesota who could be like Terry Branstad)
I doubt any Former President would ever stand being elected into a lesser office.
He could pick the runner up candidates:
- George W. Bush, although makes the ticket South West heavy, it does cover the republican ticket.
- Former Asstant Secretary of State Alan Keyes, brings the conservative side, the African American as well as strong foreign diplomatic services.
I personally see him pulling a similar stint to 2008, picking some one he hasn't worked with who he believes will boost his appeal like:
- Speaker of the US House of representatives, Dennis Hastert. IOTL, he supported the George W. Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies, he holds a high office as well as a key swing state of Illinois.
- Governor of Connecticut, John G. Rowland, 43 years old, brings youth side to the Republicans.
- Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts of Italian Catholic.
- New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, brings the republican female vote.
- Ohio Governor, Robert "Bob" Taft brings the famous name to the ticket and another swing state.
- Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire
- Representative John Kasich of Ohio
Keyes would be an unlikely pick, as he'd never actually been elected to anything. A more plausible candidate with the same demographic appeal is J.C. Watts
Deleted member 16736
I think that McCain is going to have to pick a running mate who speaks to evangelicals - especially if he still makes his "agents of intolerance" remark. There are a lot of options in that category in the 2000s GOP, but the one that sticks out to me is Rick Santorum. Even though he seems like a laughing stock today, at the time Santorum was a conservative evangelical senator from Pennsylvania who won his office thanks to his blue-collar appeal. These are all voting blocks that McCain needs help in securing, even in 2000. Santorum also brings an elusive swing state into play and, as we saw IOTL 2012, he is a strong campaigner who can stay relentlessly on-message. Except for the fact that he's up for reelection that year (which may not matter since PA has a GOP governor at that point), McCain could do a lot worse.
Deleted member 109224
Harry Truman offered to be Eisenhower's VP in 1948, and he contemplated running for Senate after he was president as well.
But your point still stands mostly true.
GW Bush, not GHW Bush. In 2000 W’s highest office had been governor of Texas. And he may have been an interesting choice, assuming he is available.
The dumb shit who wanted to cover a boob on a fucking statue? Obviously McCain would be pandering to the religious right with a pick like that.
If by "traditional GOP base" you mean "the remaining Rockefeller Republicans", sure, but that's a slightly odd use of the term. Of course you may think that the GOP in 2000 would consent to have on the national ticket someone who was not only pro-choice but had vetoed a "partial birth" abortion ban. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman If so, I think you misjudge the GOP of 2000, for whom even McCain's relatively slight deviations from conservative positions (e.g., on campaign finance reform) made him somewhat suspect. True, in 2000, Republicans were still grudgingly willing to give moderates some positions--but note what kind: "Whitman, unpopular with conservatives because she supports abortion rights and gay rights, will be put in a role [the EPA] where she’ll have no effect on social policy." Source: ABCnews.com , Dec 23, 2000 http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Christie_Todd_Whitman_Abortion.htm That's a lot different from being one heartbeat away from the presidency...
I am really puzzled why in the face of decades of evidence to the contrary, many people here are convinced that the GOP after 1980 at the latest would be willing to nominate social liberals for president or even vice-president. (True, people with moderate backgrounds can be nominated but only if they can plausibly claim a "conversion" to social conservatism.)
This, if McCain the Maverick wins the 2000 nomination then he will have to pick somebody who is acceptable to the far right for his VP.