RedState, in a post titled "Rumor of the Day":

I hear that Ken Blackwell, the former Secretary of State of Ohio, is seriously considering throwing his hat into the ring for RNC Chairman against Michael Steele.

Blackwell is active in the NRA, the National Taxpayers Union, and also is a big Club for Growth fan.

Some of the people I talked to this morning said that Blackwell, like Steele, is a fresh face for the GOP, but unlike Steele conservatives tell me they know where Blackwell stands on issues.

Now all we need is J.C. Watts to throw his hat in the ring if we're just out looking for an African-American to go up against Obama instead of looking for the most qualified guy. Republicans should not be engaged in this level of "me-too-ism" that most people find disingenuous anyway.

Hmmm. Hadn't heard that one. As one of the 36.65% percent of Ohioans who voted for Blackwell in 2006, my feelings are pretty clear. I like the guy and would vote for him again. It is true that people know where Blackwell stands. Steele people are a little less sure about.

Quite honestly, I really don't think either one is right for the job. Fact is that Blackwell got blown out in 2006. Yeah, it was a bad year in Ohio to be a Republican – especially to be running to replace Bob Taft. But it wasn't 36.65% bad. I don't see that as an image you want as your party chairman – someone who got blown out in his last election.

WSJ: “What John McCain did for her was to give her the capacity to sort of leapfrog over the process and get right to the center stage,” he said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. “By naming her [his running mate] he was able to put her in a position where she did have to go through the bruising process of the primaries. Many of us had been out there for 15 months … she walks into the hot spotlight and she’s a blank slate nobody knows so Republicans are fired up……Huckabee’s comments on Palin, a possible rival for the 2012 Republican nomination, suggest some jealously. “She didn’t have to go through any the debates, she didn’t have to go through the primaries, she didn’t have to have people pick her or pick someone else against her.

Sarah Palin had it easy? What a jackass. Apparently he stopped paying attention to the campaign once his dead end efforts to draw things out and kneecap Mitt Romney were done.

Interesting that Huckabee found the time to go after Palin; I thought his spare time was reserved for hating on Romney and now Fred Thompson. Didn't Huckabee gain a TV show and national recognition after his long shot bid and winning Iowa? Why is he always complaining about some other candidate. Things worked out very well for him considering he came from virtually nowhere. I am starting to think he just wants attention so he gets higher ratings and land more attractive / lucrative speaking gigs. Hey, Huckster: Maybe if you had governed like a Republican you would gotten more primary votes.

Knowing what I know now, part of me wishes now that Huckabee would have been the nominee. That way he could have been the one to take the national beatdown and then he could have exited the stage. Well he wouldn't have gone away, but at least he wouldn't have ever been given serious consideration anymore. Actually, I don't wish that he was our nominee…..that would have been a one way ticket to an insane asylum for yours truly.

We as Republicans are all searching for answers now and for a way back. Personally, I am still unsure about what needs to be done, but I am certain about one person I don't want anywhere near the 2012 / 2016 / 2020 / 2024 / whenever ticket. Throwing these flames around like Huckabee likes to do isn't helping anyone, most of all him. He would be lucky to be picked by someone like Sarah Palin to be her VP. If Huckabee wants to really do something constructive for the party, taking on Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas for her Senate seat in 2010 would be a good start.

Raise your hand if you know who the current chairman of the Republican National Committee is.

Okay, I am guessing not most of you. I know it is Mike Duncan, but I literally have no idea what he looks like. Contrast that to 2004 where RNC Chair Ed Gillespie was everywhere and definitely a visible presence. Duncan reportedly wants to keep his job, but that will not happen. When you are the chairman of a party that takes a beating, you go, whether it was your fault or not. That is just how it works. Now that we our of power on both ends of the Hill, whoever ends up being the chairman will be the public leader of the party.

Three prominent names are floating around out there: Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, and now Fred Thompson. There is even a site trying to draft the just defeated John Sununu into running for the post. Jim Nussle has also shown interest in addition to a few other less known names. All have their own positives and negatives.

On a personal level, I like Michael Steele. But would he will be seen as nothing but an attempt to imitate Lord Obama? The media and the left will do their best to Palin him, though that would probably happen to anyone just based on the fact they were heading the Republican Party. He is a great speaker and could be a valuable tool. He is also more of a moderate, and we have that whole party infighting / searching for answers thing going on right now. The person on the front lines is going to have to speak out against Obama, and Steele might not be the right guy for the job.

Thompson was one of the few Republicans who was relentless in going after Obama after he secured his nomination. This role may not be the best fit for him though; after all we saw his "lack of fire" during his brief presidential run. He might make a good second in command, someone tasked with coming up with ideas and the best way to get them out, i.e. "General Chairman." As far as Gingrich goes, everyone already knows about him and has an opinion. He says if enough people want him to run, he will.

Having a great speaker and a good face for the party is all nice. But the key will be organization. That is one reason Ed Gillespie was so successful. Whoever it ends up being, whether it is a name mentioned here or nor, they have a huge mess on their hands. It very well could be no one mentioned above, but those are the most prominent names out there. The next chairman will be decided by 168 RNC committeemen and women at the winter meeting in January.

Part I of many. Too many.

Just like Democrats said John Kerry was their most electable candidate in 2004, many Republicans were going around saying the same about John McCain this time (myself included). For the record, not that it matters now, but Kerry was probably the most electable candidate the Democrats had in 2004. They didn't have many great choices, also similar to the dilemma the GOP faced in this primary season. I never backed McCain until he won the nomination, but I went along with the most "electable" stuff.

I thought it would be a good idea to see how the other major players in the Republican primary might have fared, given the same external events. No offense to Jim Gilmore (nice showing in your Senate race) or Tommy Thompson, but you don't count.

Mitt Romney: As you know, I backed Romney in the primaries and voted for him. He would have been destroyed. People always say, "well with Wall Street in crisis, people would have looked to him as a leader." Maybe. I don't buy it. The Democrats would have created this image of him as a greedy CEO who shared responsibility for the meltdown. Unfortunately, it would have likely worked. Plus, when you step back and consider that America elected an untested novice who wants to raise taxes in these times (Democrats, feel free now to admit the 95% thing is a lie – you won), Romney's past economic successes and turnarounds would have been for naught. Now, if the economy stays in shambles for the next couple years, we might have a different story. Romney stayed afloat by spending his own money at a rapid pace, and it still wasn't enough, even in a Republican primary. Hard to see how he could have competed in the 2008 general.

Rudy Giuliani: The early favorite. He was the perfect nominee to go up against Hillary – not Obama. Rudy was going to run on his post 9/11 successes, which were great, but people wanted to put that in the past. His strategy of going all in in Florida was clearly flawed. No argument can be made that he would have done better. If a lot of conservatives didn't vote for McCain when faced with the decision of him or a socialist radical, it is impossible to think Guiliani would have done any better. Obama against Rudy would have been a slaughter.

Fred Thompson: I don't think there is a case that can be made for Thompson. He showed flashes of brilliance as a candidate, but they were few and far between. Probably would have given a great convention speech and debate performances, but that might been about it.

Mike Huckabee: Actually, I think a plausible argument could be made that Huckabee would have done better than McCain, my personal disdain of him aside. When you look at the voting breakdown and see the number of conservatives that didn't vote for McCain…..maybe. The problem is that Huckabee had problems on different conservative issues. A lot of people really liked his personality, and as we just found, rhetoric and hope were two things people were really looking for in 2008. He couldn't have done better than Obama there, but he certainly could have improved around the margins.

That is not my argument. I am just saying it can be made for him. If Mike Huckabee really wants to help the Republican Party, he will run against Blanche Lincoln for her Senate seat in Arkansas in two years. But then again, if I had a job being a commentator for Fox News, I would keep it.

Conclusion: Nothing was settled. It would be still hard to argue with conviction that any of the above would have run significantly better than Senator McCain if at all. It just wasn't going to be our year when you look back on it now.

Next look back: VP picks.

While I am still formulating a lot of the post election themes in my mind (and there are many), one thing sticks out right away.

Politics is cyclical. Four years ago, we reelected a shaky GOP incumbent president. We added a couple House seats. We had 55 Republican Senators. Gone, gone, and really gone. The Republican Party ran Washington and was on top of the world. It couldn't be more different as we sit here today.

Look back to the stunning pickups of 2002 that led to the retake over of the Senate. The key group that was the key and helped win back control and where they are now: Sununu in New Hampshire (lost Tuesday), Allard in Colorado (retired, seat lost), Dole in North Carolina (lost Tuesday), and Talent in Missouri (lost in the special election two years ago). Only Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the least probable winner of them all, still stands, and that is still in some question. And he only still hangs around because of who ran against him. We challenged Mary Landrieu hard in 2002 and she skated this time. Freshman Mark Pryor in Arkansas wasn't even challenged. When you look at the yearly breakdown of Senate classes, prospects for gains look dubious at best until 2012. The House is different; where a lot of the losses have occurred can be gained back quickly with the right message. A ray of light is that if you are a Republican House incumbent and you survived 2006 and 2008, you are not going to lose barring a self-inflicted wound. The weak seats have been flushed out.

One major problem the Republicans face (among many) is geography. In 2000, 2004, and 2008, they tried to thread the needle on the Electoral Map. It wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. In 2000 and 2004 they found a way. In 2008, not that it mattered, but it wouldn't have worked. The Southwest is slipping away, though Tuesday's margins make a bad situation look worse than it is. Conservatives are extinct in New England, save for Judd Gregg in New Hampshire. The Upper Midwest has been a dead zone. A hard push is going to have to made into these areas, specifically Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. We have won in these two regions previously and will have to figure out how to do so again. The same coalition can't be relied on forever. Democrats tried in 2004 and it didn't work. Republicans tried in 2008 with worse results. However, one stupid argument that needs debunking is that that Obama was so smart to have played in "red states" while McCain only was on defense for the most part. Of course that happened; if President-elect Government only tried to win "blue states" he couldn't have won the election. Conversely, yes, McCain was defending states that Bush won in 2004. It will be the opposite in 2012. Obama will be defending the places he won. Republicans must also take advantage of the reapportionment of electoral votes after the 2010 Census.

The point is exactly 16 years ago yesterday, Republicans found themselves in the exact same position they do today. November 5, 1992 George H.W. Bush lost and the GOP was completely out of power. How fast the comeback is depends on what the next steps are. If proper steps are taken, we will be back sooner rather than later. If not, it could be awhile. Nothing lasts forever. Both sides know that. Republicans lost this election fair and square and we need to look at ourselves as to the reasons why. There is nowhere to go but up. And the sooner the better.

"Hi, I am John McCain. I am running on the same ticket as Sarah Palin."

That might as well be how Senator McCain opens up Thursday Night.

Powerful, spectacular speech. Just the right note was hit. Attacked with a scalpel. Went right after Obama's biggest weakness – what has this guy done exactly to be elected President of the United States?

Tonight was a great sign she is ready to play at this level. There are more tests to come, but this one was met and exceeded. Even if there had been Obama level expectations tonight, she would have met them. Has a speech by a Vice Presidential nominee ever been so anticipated as Palin's? Not in my time or that of most of you. Kyle last week was fond of using the term "knocked it out of the park," in reference to Obama's speech. Building on that, Obama hit a solo shot in the 3rd inning to give his team an early lead. Palin hit a three run homer in the 8th inning to tie the game.

She had every right to come out and swing after the last few days. And swing at Obama she did. Just for good measure, she went after Biden and the media as well. It was her saying that she can take what the other side is going to dish out. She didn't sit there and play the victim. She won't run from this fight.

Negatives: Really looking for stuff here – She pointed too much at the beginning and was clearly nervous, but who wouldn't be. The conclusion seemed a bit disjointed and she stepped on applause lines a few times. A tad too much biography. I know the pre-speech video was cut because things were running long; that would have been nice to see. Nothing major.

The choice of her was a gamble, as I have said – though that is clearly obvious. It might work, it might not. But if McCain comes up short, it won't be because of September 3, 2008. I liked it, the base liked it, McCain had to like it (relieved and vindicated), the arena liked it, the talk shows will like it tomorrow. What matters in the end will be whether the swing voters embraced the speech. The response over the next week will be fascinating to watch. I don't see how anyone that isn't already 100% mind made up for Obama could say that she didn't do a superb job making a case for McCain and one against Obama.

Quickly on the others: Romney – all right. Wasn't his best, certainly not at CPAC levels. Huckabee – you know my feelings on him, but well done here. I loathe when I have to praise him, but tonight he is deserving. Giuliani – went on a tad too long, wasn't a real fan of some of his facial expressions, but got the points home. I almost wondered if he would upstage Palin. He did not.

Senator McCain has one tough act to follow. Here is betting he comes through. Big time as Dick Cheney would say.

Sorry Joe Biden, I didn't take Amtrak. Do you ride that or something? Think I heard something about that. One of our readers got married and I attended the out of state festivities. That is how much I really care about all the people who visit this site. Anyhow, in my absence, two things happened.

1. Obama did get his poll bump. It was to be expected. We will know where this race really stands by the end of next week. Once the convention bounces are gone and the Labor Day polling is out things will clear up. I expect Obama to be up around 3-4 points at that time. That is still better position than McCain could have dreamed about being in headed into the debates. If he can keep it to a small deficit like that, he can win. And likely will.

2. Not surprised at all at the disgusting levels of attacks on Palin and her family. I think we all knew it was coming – but the intensity and hatred even caught me off guard. Yet I am scum because I want to know why community organizer Barack Obama is good friends with a guy who thinks it is fine to bomb the United States Capitol. That is off limits and dishonorable to talk about. Same with Reverend Wright. Makes perfect sense. It is shameful that Palin has to go through this – it is why so many qualified people on both sides of the political spectrum don't ever want to run for office. Prepare to have your life destroyed. And not only your own, but that of your family.

There have been more questions about Palin and her family from this deranged media than we have seen directed towards Obama about his family and friends since he announced his run. I would describe it as appalling and revolting. Democrats and their media companions are so obviously scared of Palin it couldn't be more transparent. These tactics will backfire……………

*Hey remember all those media members and Democrats saying John Edwards didn't have enough experience in 2004? Me either. Great new ad from McCain comparing the experience of Palin to that of the most liberal United States Senator, Barack Obama. Democrats, John McCain has the experience the ticket needs. He didn't need to go with a Joe Amtrak Biden type pick to make up for his shortcomings.

*Looks like we are doing that live blog thing tonight. Good times. If Palin gives a great speech tonight, well, Democrats are going to be nervous. And that will explain why the attacks get more vicious.

*Biggest difference so far between the conventions: Democrats parade people up there who whine and complain about how America is so terrible and how they just can't make it in this cruel world. This week has been the opposite so far.

*That Fred Thompson guy should have run for President.

See you tonight. She is going to bring the roof down at "The House That Norm Built." It is an exciting night for Republicans, even if she isn't a frequent Amtrak user.

Don't see how this Hurricane Gustav can be helpful to the GOP. No matter what the reaction of the Bush Administration is, Katrina will be brought up again and again and again – at the time the spotlight should be on McCain and Palin for their big week. It does appear like all levels of government (including Nagin) have prepared for a disaster much better than back in 2005 (not difficult to do). Some people are saying this event is actually a fortunate turn of events for Republicans, taking attention away from Bush and Cheney. Maybe, but with the media on board with Team Obama that seems unlikely. (FYI, my opinion is that Bush does not deserve this treatment, all the talk of "he shouldn't show up at the convention" – not from his own party).

The convention can't just be postponed; this thing has been two years in the making and many attendees and media members are already there ready to go. Canceling the GOP Convention would be a sign of weakness. Last night about 85 people here asked me what I thought about Palin (you may remember her, the "more of the same" pick, according to Lord Obama). Not one person asked about Obama's Thursday speech. Everyone is still buzzing about the VP pick and is interested in watching her speech – and the hurricane can only distract from that. People actually want to watch the Republican National Convention now – I barely even did before the Palin pick.

Of course, people fleeing right now are not concerned any about the politics of this. Lets hope that the storm turns out to be a bust when all is said and done. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler disagrees with me, but most people do not. I picked the wrong time to go on a mini-vacation. I haven't looked at a poll in two days….it has been nice.

I like it. McCain-Palin 08.

Principled conservative, solid reformer. GOP screaming they are not going to cede the West with an Arizona/Alaska ticket. Attacks on her inexperience will only highlight Obama's. Drilling back to the forefront (position change on ANWR for McCain?)……….

Wow. (New poll question in sidebar.)

Huge gamble, huge upside. Obviously the McCain one-term pledge is not going to happen (edit: the more I think about this, it could still happen, by him still saying he just serves one term and her saying she goes back to Alaska after said term). It appears to me that Team McCain is trying to goad Obama into saying Palin is inexperienced. It then raises the same comparisons between the experience of McCain against Obama. The natural areas to attack Palin on are the same areas where Obama is weak so it works in that sense. McCain made the decision to double down on reform – and energy. Obama voted for "The Bridge to Nowhere." Palin killed it. Alaska is our most oil rich state. Obama claims to have been a reformer. Reformed what? Palin has led reform in Alaska, has run on it, and her popularity there shows the success. Don't forget, she smashed an incumbent GOP governor (Frank Murkowski) in the 2006 GOP primary.

The Palin pick has energized the GOP base. There can be no disagreement on that. She has to much to prove, but her speech just now in Dayton went well. She will be a hit on the trail. Lets be honest, the GOP enthusiasm was not at a level where winning was probable. It shot up today. This generates more buzz – way more – than the text message ploy. She is likable, far more so than Biden, and that goes a long way.

Democrats will try and tie her to Ted Stevens. She denounced Stevens awhile back. She fights against corruption.

Like a political consultant just told me on the phone: "It is like taking DeMario Williams over Reggie Bush with the first pick in the NFL Draft." Risky. McCain has always liked to take chances. This is clearly his biggest political gamble to date.

Bad Timing Alert: Due to a long standing commitment, I will be mostly away until around Tuesday of next week, as I have a trip planned to an undiclosed location. I will have sporadic internet access and will hopefully be able to chime in. The more and more I think about the Palin pick, I like it. A lot. – Ben, 9:50 PM Friday

Last Updates: Other than Romney, there was only one other potential GOP VP pick I went in-depth about – Sarah Palin. She got her own post here on May 30. Most of what I wrote then still holds true.

You have to believe there were 5 real choices for McCain. The Lieberman trial ballon got shot down. Quickly. McCain knew he couldn't do it. Pawlenty, though I think a good guy and a good governor, just didn't bring anything to the ticket. He wasn't even going to bring Minnesota. Same with Ridge, probably wasn't going to flip Pennsylvania. Would have upset the base. I am guessing Romney was the pick until A) Obama chose Biden and B) the number of homes issue came up. It couldn't work based on that alone, and the footage of Romney in debates against McCain undercuts the argument of what Biden said about Obama. That left Palin. She had the most upside. Though if the election is close and we lose because we just lost Nevada and/or Colorado, Romney will look in retrospect like the guy that should have been picked.

Wanted to add more links to what others have said, but I am literally out the door. Nix Guy, Columbuser, Bizzy Blog.

Mitt Romney, at least according to Mike Huckabee. You know who shouldn't be giving interviews about who would make a good vice presidential selection? Mike Huckabee.

From The Politico:

For the second consecutive day, Mike Huckabee made public statements suggesting John McCain ought not pick Mitt Romney as his running mate.

“I think there are better choices for Sen. McCain that have the approval of value voters,” Huckabee said today on Fox News. Yesterday, he told CBS that many Republicans are "not necessarily comfortable" with Romney because of his changed positions….

…..Romney supporters, while anxiously awaiting word of McCain's veep decision, have sought to only look forward, offering public support of the GOP nominee and avoiding reprising their Iowa caucus battle. Privately, though, Romney's loyalists continue to loathe Huckabee at levels that approach the earlier disdain between Obama and Clinton camps.

Why not just say "Romney would not be the best pick, but you know who would be the best? Me!" I can just see Huckabee out on the stump with his million variations of the "I am from Hope, Arkansas and my hope is better than their change" joke. Wow, that would really be helpful.

You may remember back during the primaries Huckabee teaming up with McCain and bashing Romney on an hourly basis. I think Huckabee is jealous of Romney. He wishes he had his money and what everyone considers his better looks. He was jealous that he lost some of the primaries to him. Jealous he lost to Romney in delegates won even after Mitt dropped out and the Huckster kept on going. Huckabee secretly wishes he was Mitt Romney, minus his Mormonism which he detests. I think he should seek professional help for this problem.

Most Republicans don't really want someone like Mike Huckabee who is pro tax hikes, pro illegal immigration (already one on the ticket), pro pardoning murders, pro having Clinton-like ethical problems, and is in favor of a bigger, nanny state government on the ticket. I'd rather just take Joe Lieberman. Huckabee did everything he could to sink Romney in his quest to be McCain's running mate. Now he wants his payoff.

I will lead a revolt if Huckabee is McCain's running mate. I can not think of another prominent Republican politician I would rather McCain not pick over Huckabee.

I've thought about McCain's VP situation for some time now. I was a huge supporter of Mitt Romney in the primary but was never sure he was the right pick for the VP slot. Well, I am off the fence after going back and forth. He should be McCain's pick. The theory is out there that VPs really don't matter (example). Most of the time they don't. And for Obama, unless HRC is the pick (tremendous potential to help or hurt), it won't matter at all. I don't think that is the case for Senator McCain. It matters a great deal. He needs to shore up his soft support and holdouts.

This is going to be to the dismay of some;Tom at Bizzy Blog is one example. Tom makes some valid points in his anti-Romney post series; I certainly won't deny that. It is purely anecdotal, but there have been many times when I have been wearing my Romney shirt at some random place and some random person comes up to me to tell me they want him for VP. Conversations have been had in strange places that have the same results…"I want Mitt." I strongly feel there are more people out there like that than think like Tom, who so strongly opposes Romney that he says his addition to the ticket will make him rethink about voting for McCain. I've been wrong before, but I don't think I am this time.

Reports are out there that with Romney on the ticket, McCain not only jumps into a tie in Michigan with Obama, he takes a statistically significant lead. Could be bogus, but I buy it. And if it is true, it's a game changer. I also am confident that Romney would be a plus in Nevada (especially) and Colorado, two states which will be huge this time around. It could tip the race. Could he hurt elsewhere? Maybe. But I think he brings more than McCain / (insert some random generic conservative here). If Romney can help win 2 of those 3 states, he did his job. I don't really see Romney as VP turning off people that are considering McCain but are still fence sitters. He would appeal to a broad coalition of swing state voters. Romney isn't afraid to throw an attack, something McCain is getting better at, but clearly tries to stay away from if he can. Chris Cillizza called him a "smiling assassin." Negative attacks work despite most people claiming to loathe them. No one does it better than Mitt.

It's all about winning at the end of the day. If McCain campaign polling (and you know they are doing a ton of it) shows Romney doesn't help, they shouldn't do it. I just don't believe that is the case. If Lieberman polls better than any other candidate, they should go with him. Romney is a gamble. There are ready made commercials of him and McCain attacking each other in the primary. However, if the two of them present a united front, and are open about their past differences and say they are putting country first, I think it sells.

When to do it? Next week or right after the DNC Convention. Do it next week and put Romney in Michigan 3-4 days a week. 2-3 days a week should be in spent in Colorado and Nevada. Other days he can go to New Hampshire or wherever.

I am heartened by our standing right now in the polls. Would it be better to be up than down? For damn sure. Is it over? Not a chance. This is the time Kerry was up in 2004 before Bush started pulling ahead in the poll average. I firmly believe that undecideds are going to go towards McCain much more than Obama. In my opinion, the majority of people who have decided to vote Democratic have already made up their mind to do so. What else would you be waiting for? Again, IMO, most of the so-called "undecideds" are weak Republicans or Independents just waiting for something from McCain to bring them in. I really think that. I could be way out in left field. But I might be right. And I think that many of the people who are telling pollsters they are undecideds are leaning McCain – and many of those voters backed Romney, and if he is the pick, it will start to show in the overall horse race numbers.

So that is my advice to McCain and his team. I know they were waiting.

"With strong support from women, blacks and younger voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the apparent Democratic presidential contender, leads Arizona Sen. John McCain, expected to be the Republican candidate, among likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. "

OHIO: Obama 48% – McCain 42%
FLORIDA: Obama 47% – McCain 43%
PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 52% – McCain 40%

Ben has told me in previous posts that I live in a fantasy land where Clinton Democrats end up supporting Obama. It has only been 11 days since Senator Clinton dropped out of the race and already Obama's numbers are moving, which is a sign of our party coming together. The numbers in Ohio and Florida are especially encouraging and expand the battleground states. Now, I realize this is only one poll, but I believe over the next couple of weeks we'll have several polls showing similar numbers. I think mid July is when Republicans are going to really start to panic over the candidate they have nominated.

Back in the news today was the potential one term pledge by Senator John McCain. Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:

When he formally announced his presidential candidacy last year, Sen. John McCain was inches away from making an unprecedented pledge: if he were elected, he would serve only one term as president….. the idea to serve one term had long been discussed among top advisers, and McCain was on board. A one-term pledge was set to be the central thread of his presidential campaign, and Mark Salter, McCain's chief speech writer, crafted an announcement speech around it. But less than a day before he was set to speak in New Hampshire on April 25, McCain ordered his aides to excise the paragraphs describing the pledge.

This would be gutsy. Very gutsy. It is going all in. There are some good aspects to this potential pledge. McCain comes off as a politician who wants to serve his country above all else. He states he wants to finish off the success of the surge in Iraq. He would add some other big ideas to his speeches on the trail; taxes, cutting spending and entitlements, judges, etc. This strategy also would mean that more skeptical Democrats (bitter people leaning Clinton) would be willing to vote for him, knowing things start fresh in 2012. Conservative holdouts also would fall under that thinking. "Well, he isn't my first choice, but we can use these four years to rebuild the movement while avoiding Carter's second term." They can vote for McCain knowing that four years of McCain is better than four years of Obama. Effective. It makes Obama look like some ambitious politician while McCain is trying to save the country with his service.

There are three major negatives I can see: First, and obviously, McCain starts off as a lame duck, so there really isn't much incentive for Congress to work with him (though too much obstruction could hurt them in 2010). The minute he is sworn in, speculation starts about 2012. For quite some time now, Democrats have been stalling on all sorts of federal nominations by the Bush Administration, hoping to run out the clock and put in their own people. No reason they wouldn't just employ the same tactics. Secondly, it brings up the age factor. I for one have never seen the big deal here, but maybe some people do. It could be interpreted as "I am only healthy enough for one term." Lastly, I sense that voters like the idea that they can "fire" who they elected. If McCain won't be running in 2012, then he really isn't accountable again. This would rub some folks the wrong way. That is probably my biggest concern.

If McCain starts to trail Obama by 5-10 points in the polls on a consistent basis this summer, this is something he is going to look hard at. McCain badly wants to be the 44th President. If he thinks this will help him get there, I don't think he will back out of making the pledge a second time. The chattering class and know it alls think that it is going to take a miracle to win this election for McCain (after all, he is running against a god). If they are right, something like this totally changes the dynamics of the race. Nearing the end of two very long and polarizing administrations, people might see this as a breath of fresh air. But it is something he has to do before (if) he falls too far behind, because doing it then makes him look desperate.

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review suggested this back in October 2007.

Recently I listed a number of people who were possible candidates to be John McCain's running mate. One name I did mention was Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I didn't have a whole to say about her except a mention in passing. Now we hear from the Weekly Standard via Wizbang that the man heading up McCain's search (no, it isn't Dick Cheney) is in Alaska. He probably isn't there on vacation. Palin is currently a hot topic in the blogosphere, see here, here, and here for some examples. From the Standard:

There's only one reason the person heading McCain's search would be there – to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position.

This comes on the heels of McCain's Memorial Day weekend barbecue attended by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former White House budget director Rob Portman, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. Supposedly that was in informal affair, not a vetting session, but it appears that the VP selection game is very much afoot.

Sarah Palin is a Christian conservative and a budget-cutting fiscal hawk. She is also against "pork barrel" projects, much like McCain. She recently vetoed $269 million in spending, something I sure haven't seen out of Washington in a long, long time. Palin ran in the GOP primary in 2006 against the incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski. Murkowski was always a popular senator there but found troubles when he relocated to Juneau. Palin ran against the corrupt Republican hierarchy of Alaska’s power structure – and won. The Alaskan establishment hates her and the people of her state love her. Her approval ratings at home are consistently in the 80's and higher. Her appeal, unlike that of others who are being talked about, is all about who she is and what she has done in Alaska – not about where she is from.

I think this would be a real gamble – but with a real upside potential. But with any risk, it could backfire. There is no question that McCain is going to try and paint Obama as inexperienced, and rightly so I would add. Adding Palin to the ticket undercuts that argument in my eyes. Palin’s been governor for two years – less time than Obama has used his Senate seat as a springboard for his current activities. I view her as a "swing for the fences" type pick; a pick you make when you feel you are down or maybe close to even in the polls and need something that adds a real spark (kind of like how Mondull picked Ferraro in 1984). We will know quite a bit about where McCain really thinks he stands vs. Obama headed into the election based on this selection. This would be a blatant signal (chosing Palin) to disgruntled to Hillary supporters and no one knows how it would be recieved. Some speculate it may force Obama into taking a woman as well…..

Now, if she could just get rid of Ted Stevens we would be on to something. If the pick is Palin, I would advise McCain to break from tradition and do it ASAP. It forces Obama's hand and if he picks a female it makes him look like he is copying. If he chooses first, say Clinton or Sebelius from Kansas, then some of the appeal is already gone and critics will say we did it just because they did it. As of late, McCain has been able to control the general election campaign, and this would continue it. But McCain typically doesn't take advice from people like me (conservatives). Again, I will not be profiling potential Democrat picks because they will like whoever it is just because Obama picks them and says he/she is the best choice.

When I wrote about Cheney above, I just realized I have not seen him in the news in weeks. I can't remember the last time I saw him anywhere.

Have a good weekend. Liberals included.

The conservative moment is more or less dead. But it is dead from only a leadership aspect. People like me are waiting for someone to step up and take the mantle. The problem is that in 1980 Reagan was waiting to do just that; there is no one on the horizon right now for us that is filling that role. John McCain, though I am certainly voting for him (provided his running mate is not Mike Huckabee), does not qualify. George W. Bush was not a movement leader.

In the long run an Obama win would be a good thing for Republicans. In the short term, a loss in November would be a bad thing, and put Republicans out of power in the House, Senate, and the White House. That is a recipe for disaster; the "Rubber Stamp" in Congress times 100. At the same time, you can only shake your head at some of decisions by Republicans even though they are in the minority in Congress right now. McCain probably wouldn't help matters, though on some things like spending he would be a welcome change (not to be confused with Obama style change). Do you sacrifice the present (in this case November) for future gains? I am in the school that says win now and worry later. I think that Jimmy Carter 2.0 would be comparably far worse than any conservative damage McCain would do.

If we lose to Obama, then the whole party will have to rebuilt, because we are total failures. There is no way he should win, but he may. If the most radical of leftist is preferable to the Republican brand then there are very serious problems. Some would argue we need to do the rebuilding now. A total party shake up. New House leadership, new Senate leadership, new people in all leadership roles. After what I have seen the last few weeks, it might not be a bad idea. Show people that the status quo is not good enough. There is a growing hostility born of utter frustration in the ranks. The Dems that are winning are posing as conservatives. They are acting more conservative than the Republicans in Washington!!! Yet Washington Republicans keep fumbling along, with voting for the bloated farm bill as the latest example. People are frustrated. I read it and hear it each and every day. I know McCain is going to try and win with the center, but he still needs the right. If he actually has conservative ideals he wants to accomplish as president, it will be tough working with a 55 seat deficit in the House and a close to filibuster proof Senate. That seems to be where we are headed unless the decision makers in Washington wake up. Do they have such short memories that they forgot about 2006?

The decision to not vote or cast a protest vote in November does not occur in make believe land. If McCain does not win, that means his opponent did. And his opponent will probably have a lot less to like policy wise than McCain could have offered. McCain is counting on that as his victory strategy; people like me sucking it up and voting for him. It is risky. The Dems have a reservoir of grand plans they are waiting to shove down our throats given the chance. It would be much easier, however, to be excited about voting if the rank and file conservatives were given something.

(Yes, I know I promised you Obama wouldn't win in the fall. I am just a worrier by nature.)

Needless to say, I wish Barr would not run. Of course, it is his right to do so, I just wish he wouldn't. I am not going to be a Democrat and say things like "Nader cost us the election in 2000." Gore was never entitled to those votes that Nader took from him, just like McCain is not entitled to any votes that may go to Barr or anyone else. Third parties are allowed to field candidates to give additional choices to voters who are not happy with the current selection in front of them. Obviously some Republicans are in this boat. If McCain had not upset conservatives so often the last few years, this might not be happening. Or maybe it would, I can't get inside the head of Barr. (Note: Not talked about enough is the effect that Nader had on the 2000 Senate elections, where Democrats won some very tight races. High on that list is the Maria Cantwell / Slade Gorton race).

Brief background on Barr: Worked for the CIA from 1970-1978. In 1986 he was appointed by President Reagan to be an attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. In 1992 Barr ran for a US Senate seat but lost to eventual winner Paul Coverdell (also a Republican) by less than 2,000 votes in a run-off. In 1994, he was one of the Republicans swept into power with the Contract of America class. Prior to the 2002 elections, the Georgia legislature combined his district with that of a neighboring one which was that of John Linder, also a Republican. One Republican had to lose, and it was Barr, and he lost by a lot. During his time in Congress, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. However, Barr's criticism of the Bush Administration's policies on civil liberties after the September 11 attacks started to gain him attention. Now he is an ACLU member who wants to repeal the Patriot Act. Makes sense, right? I wouldn't vote for him based on both parts of that sentence. That leads us to today.

Barr still has to win the nomination of his party. He must hope he finds a better fate than Alan Keyes did when he ran for the Constitution Party nomination last month and got trounced.

We will see what happens here, but I think (and hope) that his effect will be minimal. With the stakes so high, and Republicans remembering what happened to Al Gore in 2000, I bet many conservatives will think long and hard before voting for Barr, regardless of their feelings towards McCain. And could Bob Barr's entrance to the race actually hurt Obama / Clinton just as much as McCain? It would be an outlet for the McCain protest vote – instead of just voting for the other party. Something to think about. Kyle is certianly wrong about one thing when he says "Barr may become a real contender." That is not going to happen, despite the wishes of the two of them. Spoiler? Maybe. Real contender? Zero.

Note: I will not be doing this for Obama's possible selections. First, it seems clear he should go with Jim Webb or Wesley Clark. Second, his people will roundly praise whoever the pick is just because he is Obama's pick. He could pick Robert Byrd and his followers would say it was a great selection to balance the ticket.

In no particular order at all:

Tom Ridge – Former Governor of Pennsylvania and the first Director of Homeland Security. Popular in Pennsylvania, a big plus. The biggest drawback is that Ridge is pro choice. The fact that a VP nominee is pro-choice doesn't phase me at all. If Ridge could make PA a toss-up, you almost have to go with him to pin down the Democrats and their resources in the state.

Condoleeza Rice – Secretary of State and National Security Advisor for President Bush. McCain won't take her due to ties to the war. Smart and impressive woman.

Tim Pawlenty – Governor of Minnesota. On everyone's short list. I am not sure why he stands out other than being a governor from a swing state. I do wonder if last summer's bridge collapse would hurt Pawlenty if he was the running mate. It shouldn't, but Democrats would certainly try. Undetermined if he could help bring Minnesota to the Republican column, but Pawlenty must be a tough candidate – he was one of the few targeted Republicans that survived the 2006 thrashing.

Charlie Crist – Governor of Florida. Gave a huge endorsement to McCain right before the Florida primary that might put him over the top in the state, thus basically getting him the nomination. From a critical swing state. Only been in office for two years, which could be a negative.

Bob Taft – Just seeing if you are paying attention.

Jeb Bush – Former Governor of Florida. Would be an obvious pick if he had a different last name; McCain is already hearing the talk of serving out George W. Bush's third term. History would be different today if Jeb had won his race for governor in 1994 against Lawton Chiles. He would probably be president right now.

Rudy Giuliani – Former Mayor of New York. The biggest name of them all; seems to be on good terms with McCain and at times seemed to be aligned with him during the debates against the other candidates. Socially liberal, which could present problems for McCain.

John Kasich & Rob Portman – Former US House Reps; Portman was also the Trade Rep for the Bush Administration. I would highly doubt either one will be the selection, Kasich especially.

Don Carcieri – Governor of Rhode Island. Popular Republican in a very Democratic state. Rhode Island being so small could be something that works against Carcieri. He started his career as a high school math teacher and later became a successful banker and businessman – a good story.

Mitt Romney – Former Governor of Massachusetts. McCain's chief rival in the GOP primary. Would help McCain raise money and is popular with many of primary voters whose first choice was not the Arizona Senator. There might be some bad blood still between the two that would keep Romney off the ticket. Will bring up the Mormon question again. He could shore up McCain's self admitted weakness on the economy.

Joe Lieberman – Connecticut Senator. McCain's favorite Democrat, the Democrats' least favorite independent. If McCain feels the need for a unity ticket, he would probably go with Joementum. Lieberman is with McCain on Iraq, but on most things is just a run of the mill liberal. I would not be in favor of this pick, and I suspect many Republicans feel the same. Lieberman would probably subtract more votes from the McCain ticket than he'd add.

Fred Thompson – Former Tennessee Senator. McCain should already win Tennessee with or without Thompson. Proved not to be a very good campaigner during his brief run for the White House. Also, McCain, probably won't go with another older white senator. Senator McCain needs someone more vibrant.

Bobby Jindal – Governor of Louisiana. Just elected in 2007, Jindal is a rising star in the party. Probably seen as too young and inexperienced (falsely) by most. Louisiana needs him right now anyways.

Mark Sanford – Governor of South Carolina. Did not endorse McCain in the South Carolina primary, which probably hurts him. McCain obviously going to win SC anyways. Still has to be considered one of the frontrunners.

Sarah Palin – Governor of Alaska. Gov. Palin is pregnant and will deliver her fifth child in May. Could be a good story. Won't add already solid Republican Alaska to the McCain column.

Jodi Rell - Governor of Connecticut. Cleaned up the John Rowland mess. Very conservative for a New England Republican. She is however, old, which is probably not what McCain is looking for.

Haley Barbor – Governor of Mississippi. Good speaker, solid conservative, can raise money. Widely praised for his performance after Hurricane Katrina. Former RNC Chairman. Does have ties to the lobbying industry. Mississippi already voting Republican.

John Thune – South Dakota Senator. Republican star, famous for knocking off Tom Daschle in 2004. Lost a close, possibly tainted elected in 2002 against Tim Johnson. Fresh face and very popular. His home state already going to vote for Republican.

Alex Arshinkoff – Hang in there, almost done.

Richard Burr – North Carolina Senator. I haven't seen him listed anywhere, but I like Burr and think he would be a good pick.

John Huntsman – Governor of Utah. I keep seeing this name floating around. I don't get it. Utah is going to go for McCain with like 70% of the vote. If your going to go with a Mormon and let the media drag it around, wouldn't you just go with Romney?

Mike Huckabee – Former Governor of Arkansas. Saved the worst for last. I would revolt if it was Huckabee. I don't think it will be.

And after all that, it will probably be some dark horse candidate not listed. My choices would be, in order of preference, Romney, Ridge, Thune, Carcieri. Your thoughts? Anyone I left off the list that should have been included?

UPDATE: Frequent commenter Chuck handles the possible Dem VP list.

Now that most liberal senator currently serving has secured the Dukakis / McGovern coalition in order to wrap up loose ends on his side, what does McCain have to do to win over Republican holdouts and Democrats who are skeptical of Obama? I could also include "independents" in the category McCain needs, but at heart I think everyone is on one side or the other. They just don't want to admit it and enjoying being courted by both sides. Well, I will tell you what McCain needs to do. He needs to go out and talk about and fight for conservative principles. Principles in some respects the Bush Administration lost along the way. He needs to show the contrast between his own policies and those of the socialist from Illinois.

Some people are talking about a new "Contract with America." I am not in favor of recycling old plays, but something similar is needed in 2008 – just not with the same name. Here are some issues McCain should feel free to discuss on the trail:

Taxes & Spending: Everyone hates to be taxed; even Howard Metzenbaum. Obama will raise taxes on everything and everyone. The deficit didn't rise because of the Bush tax cuts – it rose because of out of control spending by the GOP majority, enabled by the lack of ink in the veto pen in the Oval Office. McCain needs to get his message of cutting spending, cutting earmarks, and cutting taxes across to people. He must present a clear economic-growth plan for everyone to see. Day after day after day he has to remind people about what will be the clear differences between him and Obama here.

Judges: McCain voted for both Roberts and Alito; he also fought for Robert Bork back in the day. This is a strong suit for him. It is necessary to keep reminding people about this. Republican voters need to see that he has backed conservative judges, as many of them remember his Gang of 14 nonsense. I sure do. Nothing can quite stir up our base like talking about "activist judges." Obama will surely appoint his fair share of them if he gets the chance. Reminds me of my nightmares in 2004 of Kerry standing in the Rose Garden announcing Alan Dershowitz would replace Chief Justice Rehnquist. Remind people of the close balance of the Supreme Court. The next president will get an appointment to the High Court or two. Or three. Obama making those decisions makes me shake while typing.

Energy Plan: I have seen nothing but complaining from Democrats on this topic, yet they never are able to offer any worthwhile solutions. Block this, against that, can't do this, etc. McCain needs to lay out what it is he plans to do. What does he propose other than the gas tax holiday? That isn't going to cut it. I know he can't say to drill in ANWR; he voted against it.

Border Security: This is a tough one for McCain, since his name is all over "McCain-Kennedy." He just has to suck it up and admit he was wrong before and say that nothing else gets done before securing the border. Yes, this will expose him to a flip flopping charge. I am well aware, and so is he. But it is really the only option. This is the biggest reason that the conservatives who are saying they won't vote for him are pointing to. Does he want free (for them) government health care for illegal immigrants? Obama does.

Free Trade: "The last time we had a protectionist president was Herbert Hoover [in office from 1929 to 1933] and look how that worked out," says Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr McCain. "We think we can win this debate in a general election." I don't know what Obama (or Hillary) really thinks about trade. Obama has gone way left on the economy and trade to try and appeal to blue collar workers he is having trouble with. Trade isn't a one way street – sometimes Democrats don't seem to comprehend that.

Iraq & National Security: McCain needs to reframe the issue away from Bush and explain the consequences of failure there and around the world. Remind people that Obama wants to talk directly to Iran. Pretty simple.

Social Issues: He can hammer away here. Guns, gay marriage, partial-birth abortion. It should be a field day. Obama does not share values with the average American. Obama supporters will consider these issues "distractions." Anything that hurts their candidate is a "distraction." It doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Get Tough: McCain isn't going to be able to keep up this charade of being above the fray. That isn't how it works. Negative ads work. He is going to have to be willing to go after Obama if he really wants this, which I can only assume he does. No more telling state parties what ads they should or should not run. The left isn't going to reciprocate. McCain has to hit back and not stand around and say something like "I am not going to reach down to that level." They hate being out of the White House and will come after you, Senator McCain. Be ready to fight.

McCain needs to hit on these issues and paint the contrast between him and Obama. If McCain makes his case the way he needs to and we still lose, well then Republicans were never going to win this time around. But that is not what I believe. I believe McCain can win if he has a good game plan. The contrast between McCain and Obama couldn't be wider. Now he just has to go out and make people realize it.

Oh, and take Mitt Romney as your VP. Also, it is too much to ask spell check programs to start understanding that "McCain" and "Obama" are not spelling errors?

So McCain is now a "blatant opportunist" for using his military record and images in a commercial. While the Democrats continue to go after each other, McCain is starting to draw the contrast between himself and the other two senators in the race. I think McCain actually believes he is doing the right thing when he votes the way he does (Iraq included) even though I disagree with many of his past votes on a variety of other issues, such as immigration and campaign finance reform. He wouldn't have voted the way he has on certain things in the past if he was such an opportunist, Mr. Chairman – because it made many Republicans detest him (like me, here are two examples). But back to the issue at hand, if I remember correctly, which I do, McCain was one of those who stood up when John Forbes Kerry (sorry, I know we aren't supposed to mention middle names anymore) was being attacked on his military record in 2004. I will be waiting for Kerry to return the favor here. The thinking of Dean and people like him must be: "Republicans who served are warmongers, murderers, and blatant opportunists, and Republicans who didn't serve in the military are "chickenhawks.'" That is what Dean's latest outburst tells me that he thinks.

I don't think the attack is out of bounds – when you are a candidate for president, nothing is really off limits to me. You are running for the most powerful job on Earth; everything is fair game. I do, however, think that Dean's remarks are dumb and will backfire. If this is what Dean wants to do, go for it. I just thought even he had more political skill than this. Dean isn't going to win a battle against Senator McCain. I would actually say the attacks are "in bounds;" they hit at one of his major selling points. Like I said, the ad is directed at both Clinton and Obama – but more so Obama by saying he isn't ready to lead the country, which he isn't.

Footnote: Love the "I'm John McCain and I approved this message" at the end of the commercial. McCain- Feingold, baby!!

Here is the McCain commercial to which Dean was responding to:

Speaking to reporters at a Downtown hotel, McCain said, "We have to campaign hard here."

Well no kidding. That was sure some "straight talk." If the election comes down to Ohio again like it did in 2004, McCain could be in trouble. Can any Republican win the Buckeye State in 2008? Is McCain the only one that can? Probably. I'll say it again; I don't know what Republican could possibly sit this one out. I've been no fan of McCain over the last few years, but what is someone like me supposed to do? If Republicans lose Ohio, can they offset it elsewhere? If so, where? It is a risky proposition. Losing Ohio would be one thing, but the Republicans have to make the Democrats fight to take it away and use resources here. A similar thing happened in Pennsylvania in 2004 – Republicans knew they probably couldn't win there, but were able to keep Kerry tied down there and make him earn it when he could have been elsewhere.

A lot of this depends on whether or not you think Ohio is going blue or 2006 was just a cyclical change and a repudiation of Taft. Some states are moving. Florida is moving right. Virginia is moving left. The demographics don't really show Ohio fundamentally changing. But will 2006 still be in people's mind as they head to the polls?

Also – did Summit County mail out their absentee ballots yet? I would think they have, but a couple of people I know requested one and haven't heard anything yet.