I.              We must emphasize that which unites us as Americans, not that which allows us to get 50 percent plus one.

II.            We must understand that winning elections is not the prime directive.

III.           We must agree that integrity is not a commodity to be rolled out ever two, four, or six years.

IV.          We must agree not to be seduced by power and to avoid, both politically and personally, being considered an “élite”.

V.           We must articulate that government at all levels has lost its connection to the people, and that reform begins with articulating the role of government at the local, state, and national levels.

VI.          We cannot absolve people of the consequences of their own actions.

VII.         We must embrace ethics and compassion within the context of the separation of church and state.

VIII.       Government must never be an instrument of discrimination.

IX.          We must articulate policy as though we were in charge.

X.           We must listen to the people and make policy based on real needs of real people, not based on the conservative intelligentsia, talk radio hosts, or zealous donors

XI.          We must be able to demonstrate that our economic and national security interests are inextricably intertwined

XII.         Leaders lead, pop icons sell DVDs.

XIII.       A professional military must be listened to – and President Eisenhower was right.

XIV.      We must own up to the fact that Theodore Roosevelt was abandoned by the Republican Party, or truly own up to his progressive agenda.

XV.        Hypocrisy is hemlock to this Party.

XVI.      We must not be sexist, racist, or elitist.

XVII.     We cannot embrace any tactic of liberals or Democrats simply because they use them.

XVIII.    We must not react viscerally to economic downturns by enacting laws or regulations that inhibit sound economic growth.

XIX.      We must govern by principles, not polls.

This is where the ironies come in. Obama’s position on Iraq would seem to diverge from that of his new running mate. Obama’s message in Berlin and other international venues was intended to show he could lead on the world stage – in contrast to calling on someone for the position of Vice-President to “shore up” foreign policy credentials. The effort to create a Kennedy-esque aura about Obama and distinguish himself from the aging McCain would seem to compel a more dynamic running mate than a glib 65 year old from Delaware.  Then there is the pro-life/pro-choice linchpin issue for many voters. That, undoubtedly, will become even more an issue of focus as Obama’s record while a member of the Illinois Legislature is sharply contrasted to Senator Biden’s Catholic faith. Looks like gay marriage will remain atop the list as well.

It is easy to be cynical about this choice of a running mate. Biden is, in essence, being asked to be a symbol of Obama’s all-inclusiveness. Willing to run side by side with someone with whom he does not always agree is allegedly supposed to mean something. Well, it doesn’t. It means that with all his expertise in foreign policy matters Joe Biden will be neither Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee nor Secretary of State if Obama wins in November. His strength, in other words, will be uniquely marginalized as Vice-President.  

But the cynicism needn’t stop there. Soon, Senator McCain will have his opportunity to consign an ambitious politician to the role of the short end of the ticket. Speculation abounds, largely following time-tested guesses as to whether the deciding factor will be to shore up the candidate’s weaknesses within the party, in a particular battleground state, or with a particular general election constituency. Given McCain’s oft-expressed disregard for the position, the notion of appointing an also-ran from the primaries would be particularly troublesome.  Obama has ceded the “change” ground to McCain by his conventional choice of Biden and with his increasingly negative and anything but inclusive campaign style. McCain can also be accused of wading into the muck with his campaign, and even though we can chuckle at the rock-star parody ad, such messaging both demeans the campaign and wastes precious dollars.

The effective decimation of his opponents – whether or not through tag teaming with Mike Huckabee – leaves each of these also-rans, including Mitt Romney, damaged goods. Regardless of how many of us think Romney should have been the nominee, the fact is that his inner circle prevailed upon him to in effect turn his back on his laudable record in Massachusetts, leaving him fatally exposed to the “flip-flop” allegation.  If Republican operatives are salivating over the prospects of another run of “wafer-watching” as happened with John Kerry in 2004, just remember that there are many in the GOP that consider Romney a dangerous heretic. Faith baiting should be consigned to the same scrap heap as race baiting in electioneering, but then that isn’t likely to happen, is it?

If McCain wants to take the high ground, be the true agent of change in this campaign, and focus this election where it ought to be focused – on energy – then there is only one choice for VP: Governor Sarah Palin. The Alaska Governor would elevate the discourse of the campaign, bring true relevance to the position of Vice-President, and could, from experience, speak clearly and articulately about the goals, and the future, of this nation. Her nomination would position the Republican Party for the challenges ahead as well as breaking its ties to the failures – both on politically and ethically – of the past.

Hope she gets to see Sedona before too long.