A savvy and patriotic friend writes:
The late night phone call surprised its recipient, a former senator who was well into his retirement. After a largely successful career in Washington he had left elected office to make a little money in the private sector and to make up for the years of time away from his loved ones—before age got the better of him. At first he thought the caller was either joking or trying to set him up for some unfavorable press coverage which would further antagonize former colleagues and members of his party who had often found him too independent. But the caller wasn’t a clown or a front man for any journalist or news organization. Indeed the man on the other end of the phone was a respected business leader and former constituent who had long supported the ex-senator on most fronts. As the caller continued the ex-senator became increasingly intrigued with the gist of the proposal being presented. At the exact same time, in a coordinated fashion, the former governor from another party and from a state in another part of America was receiving a similar call. This too came from a trusted, albeit not always supportive, former constituent. The topic was the same and although the former governor was initially dismissive, the significance of the overture could not be ignored. Here was the pitch: Leading Americans, lots of them, were disgusted by the direction in which the election campaign was headed. So were a majority of voters. Donald Trump was headed to the GOP presidential nomination and seemed certain to surround himself with a cast of senior appointees that constituted a collection of the most discredited people in American politics. Manafort, Palin, Gingrich, etc., were poised to lead America at one of its most critical periods if Trump won. Moreover, the candidate himself appeared to lack even an elementary understanding of government, public policy or the Constitution. On the other side, Democrats were preparing to line up behind Hillary Clinton even as the FBI director had, on national TV, testified that the presumptive nominee had demonstrated extreme carelessness with matters of national security, even as the sitting attorney general who was charged with the job of determining Clinton’s criminal culpability was compromised by a meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before a final determination of the situation was being decided, and even as the team surrounding Clinton, as in so many past matters, had put personal and political expediency ahead of duty and honor. Stale, colorless and distrusted by the electorate, Clinton enters the convention phase of the campaign with little to recommend her candidacy beyond her gender and a ruthless, single-minded focus on winning the election. So, the callers were asking the former senator and governor to consider a proposition that might derail the seeming inevitability of a Clinton or Trump presidency, and potentially produce a result that would spare the country the leadership of either dreadful major party nominee. With over half the country expressing unhappiness with their options in the fall campaign, might these two able former public servants be willing to consider an independent bipartisan ticket which would bring together the disaffected voters in each party and an overwhelming majority of independents to create a winning ticket that could not only prevail in the election but also govern the nation in a productive fashion for four or hopefully eight years? The money would be available, and so would the media coverage. Each would more than hold their own in a debate and each could lead America no matter who ran as president and who as vice president. Both cared deeply about the nation’s fiscal health and had been strong advocates for tax and fiscal reform. Both shared a deep commitment to protecting American security and understood what it would take to win a war on terror and defend U.S. interests. On social issues one was pro-life, the other pro-choice, but neither was seen as intolerant of alternative views. While both might be called “moderates,” the term did not really apply to either. Each had demonstrated deeply held commitments to many of their party’s core principles. Most importantly, each was seen as a person of great intellect, character and integrity. Someone who would put the nation first above any personal considerations. Perhaps such a ticket could not win. Perhaps it would be impossible for these two retired politicians to convince themselves and their families to re-enter the arena. Perhaps they could not come together as a ticket and perhaps they could not agree on who should take which place on that ticket. But, each caller asked: Would you be willing to meet to consider such a possibility? After deep thought and reflection, Senator Joe Lieberman and Governor Mitch Daniels responded…
