The Candidates
The process has begun… But is Mitt in the running? It is not clear at this point:
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Wednesday he has begun the process of finding a vice presidential running mate and wants someone who shares his views and can take his place.
ADVERTISEMENTSpeaking to reporters on his campaign plane, the expected Republican nominee said he had seen news reports that a defeated rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, had expressed interest in the job, but he offered no comment one way or the other on whether Romney would be a candidate.
“I got that impression watching the interview last night,” McCain said of Romney’s interest in the No. 2 slot on the Republican ticket in November’s election.
Romney told Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes” on Tuesday that “any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included.”
Romney endorsed McCain in February after the Arizona senator defeated him in an often caustic campaign battle. McCain will face either Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York or Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in November.
McCain said he was just beginning to put together a search team to vet potential candidates and seek background checks on them. He joked that he has had “at least 100 volunteers to lead” the search for a No. 2.
No decision was expected any time soon. Presidential nominees often wait until just before their party’s nominating convention in late summer to announce their running mate.
McCain said he and advisers have begun discussing “what was the process that was used in other campaigns, what process should we go through.”
He said his prime criteria is someone “who can take your place, shares your principles, your values and your vision and your priorities.”
The shortlist is reportedly Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Charlie Crist, Gov. Mark Sanford, former Congressmen Rob Portman and John Kasich, and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well for me most of you know who i think would be the best pick for McCain, and that is Tim Pawlenty. Gove Pawlenty can fit well among conservatives but also has a Maverick streak which appeals to Independents as well. He has a great family background and comes from an average middle class family and had to work to get where he is today, he really has a great life story and he has Governed Minnesota well. I think all the names on the short list are good, including the Gov of my state of Florida Gov Crist, but i would get tired of all the “is he gay” reports about Charlie Crist which would bog McCain down. I dont think that Crist is gay but just having people talking about it would be a distraction IMO.
My Short List For McCain:
1. Pawlenty
2. Romney
3. Crist
4. Sanford
McCain/Pawlenty 08′
March 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
That’s actually a pretty good list. I’m not very familiar with Portman but have heard Bob Novak mention him. John Kasich is a name I haven’t heard in awhile. He would reinforce McCain’s image as a deficit hawk.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Anyone but Crist. He has been the worst Governor in the last 20 years. I don’t want him anywhere close to the Presidency
March 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
My first choice would be Colin Powell. But I think that Frank Keating and Mike Pence should get some consideration as well.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Crist would be a huge mistake. Ridge isn’t a great idea, but he’s not awful. I like the rest of the list. I agree with Bryan, that Pawlenty is the best choice, but I’d be very happy with Sanford, Kasich, or Portman. I’m not much of a fan of Powell. He’s too moderate, and far, far, too old to be a reasonable pick for a 71 year old man. Keating and Pence would both be interesting and potentially helpful picks. Keating’s a “good Catholic” (read: pro-life and not divorced) and could probably swing some working class white Catholics in Pennsylvania. Plus, he’d likely help us in the west. Pence is a reformer, with some charisma.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I still promote my list. 5 Southerners and Rudy (add Sonny Perdue of Georgia)
March 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Gov. Mark Sanford(good choice)
John Kasich(good choice)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty(moderate and ineffective)
Gov. Charlie Crist(moderate to liberal)
Rob Portman(pathetic trade rep)
Tom Ridge(pathetic cabinent flunky)
March 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Where did you get the reported shortlist, Kavon?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Kavon, where did that short list come from?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
You beat me to it, Zach.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
No Chris Cox, huh?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Who is Chris Cox? I’ve heard the name before but I don’t know a thing about him
March 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Jonathan - good thought on Perdue of Georgia - he used to be a democrat, so he’d get along quite will with McCain
March 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
McCain “said his prime criteria is someone ‘who can take your place, shares your principles, your values and your vision and your priorities.’” McCain is a staunch war hawk who is not a defense conservative (he’s not in favor of closing our boundary and let illegal immigrants stay here WITH NO QUESTION ASKED). As such, according to him with his past attacks, Romney does not have the backbone for the war. The social issues also do not matter to him as much as it is for Romney. I do not need to touch on McCain’s “principles”, but they both do not share the same principles. Based on just those three critieria, Romney is, unfortunately, out.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Keating would be awful. Boring, 60+ year-old governor of a safe state almost ten years ago, and reminds voters of the Keating Five scandal. Absolutely dreadful ticket that would be!
March 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
(please note my changes
)
Alex Says:
March 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Gov. Mark Sanford(good choice)
John Kasich(good choice)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty(moderate and ineffective)
Gov. Charlie Crist(moderate to liberal AND A CLOSET CASE…FAHGETABOUTHIM)
Rob Portman(pathetic trade rep)
Tom Ridge(pathetic cabinent flunky)
March 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
What about Rudy, to add some spark and power to the team??
March 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
What a sucky list. Pawlenty and Sanford are the only ones on there who aren’t risible as potential presidents.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Damarcus, I forgot about that Keating 5 scandal. Frank Keating said something I didn’t like several years ago, but I don’t even remember what it was now. It was something too conservative for me though actually, not something too moderate. I’m not very familiar with Pence even though I’ve heard of him. Colin Powell would not be the politician I most agree with on issues since he supports affirmative action and everything, but he is wildly popular with the public. I question whether he would be equally popular if he were a caucasian military general. I found out something I didn’t like about Crist recently. He’s kind of liberal on right to die stuff. Speaking of that, Dr. Death is running for Congress this year I just heard.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
No one has mentioned McCain’s friend Lindsay Graham, does anyone think he’d be good?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Lindsay Graham would not be good.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Lots of conservatives are mad at Graham over the illegal immigration thing and the Gang of 14
March 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Oh, I forgot about the Gang of 14.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Some liberals are saying they’ll vote for McCain because they think he’ll be more likely to pick judges like Souter and O’Connor than judges like Alito and Roberts. I hope they’re wrong, but let them think that. Maybe that will trick them into voting for McCain.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I have it. Kay Bailey is the pick. She will pick up are the Angery Older Women vote that is upset because they are Feeling Hillary is getting bypass for a Man just like women in the workforce getting pass over for a Man who does not have the Creditnals but knows how to backslap and charm the interviewer (The Voters in this case). Come 2010 she can Resign to run for Governor and be Replace by either Bobby and Palin…..
March 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
12 “Who is Chris Cox”
Long time Congressman from Orange County, CA. Harvard JD/MBA. Was in the GOP House Leadership during the 90’s early 2000’s. Staunch supporter of originalist judges (read this op-ed from the WSJ if the issue matters to you–it’s pitch perfect). Strong economics and business background, and current Chairman of the SEC (for the last 3 years or so, IIRC). Still a young man, too, early 50’s I think. Will be around in 4 or 8 years for a Presidential run.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Paul, I never heard of resigning the VP position to run for Governor.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
26 I left out that Cox is also camera friendly. Another way to think of him is like Mitt Romney, except that Cox doesn’t have to have explain the “evolutions” in thinking that Mitt had to wrestle with.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
McCain will Choose The Governor of Utah before Romney. You get the Mormon turnout plus the Governor of the State that has by all accounts the best Econmany in America
March 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
This list goes from yawn to yuck. Romney is a definite yuck.
Mac needs to shake things up and make an exciting choice.
Chris Cox is the only one mentioned that would add any oomph to the ticket and perhaps make California competitive.
As an aside, what if Hillary is the nominee and takes Arkansas? Could we lose the election if Huckabee is not on the ticket?
March 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The only one on the shortlist I would veto is John Kasich. In the 1990s, he was a favorite of Beltway types due to his fiscal conservatism and inventiveness. But the guy does not play well on the airwaves. He comes across as whiny and dismissive. A few years ago, he tried to repackage himself as a culture warrior to gain some national attention, but he just ended up seeming even more whiny and dismissive. He’s basically a bean counter who looks good on paper but doesn’t translate well into real life.
I would be happy with Ridge, Sanford, Crist, or Pawlenty.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I do agree with Joe M.’s post. McCain stated that he has to like the person that would be his
running mate and Rudy and he has such great chemistry between them and not so with Romney.
Rudy Giuliani can step in at a moments notice and share John McCain’s
” values, philosophy, concerns and priorities” He can also help him compete in all 50 states.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
my list and reasons:
1. mitt romney: very strong on economics, strong with the party base, helps in the southwest and can deliver michigan. excellent organizer and fundraiser, solid debater, and presidential. seems to be the top pick of the bush insiders, talk radio, and the big conservative donors. delivers the base crowd without mccain having to change a single position. also shows unity while the democrats continue to bicker and fight.
2. mark sandord: the safest pick and the most idealogically close to mccain. great on spending and tough on defense. has been a very good governor. solid but not very exciting
3. bobby jindal: the closest thing to a republican ‘obama’. brilliant, young, conservative, and diverse. ends myth of GOP as nothing but ‘old white men’. downside is he would be even better down the line with more experience.
4. rudy giuliani: strong leader, strong on the economy, strong on terror, and strong in swing states and with reagan democrats and security minded dems. downside is he is still a tough sell for the evengelicals.
5. tom ridge: strong, solid choice, a war veteran, with a solid national security resume and was very popular in pennsylvania. like rudy, however, his pro-choice stance is a tough sell to the base.
now my bottom 5 and why they won’t get the job:
1. tim pawlenty: solid, but far from exciting. polls show he wouldn’t help nearly at all in minnesota. his global warming stance has alot of the base turned off. has a real ‘quayle-ness’ to him, i can’t put my finger on it but he does. aside from youth, he doesn’t add much. gov. of minnesota is not that impressive, considering the people of minnesota elect wrestlers and comedians to high office.
2. charlie crist: now i think crist would do a great job. 2 problems, 1; against obama florida is locked up and he will be just as effective as an endorser. obama’s poistions on israel and cuba along with not counting florida votes make it off the table for him. 2; the never ending rumors of his sexuality. it would be a distraction and hurt mccain with the base. its wrong but it exists.
3. kay bailey hutchinson: boring, dull, and pro-choice. texas is locked and clinton women have little in common with her. can you see the geraldine ferraro wing swinging to her? nope. a dull speaker, and dull debater.
4. jeb bush: if his name was jeb smith, he would not only be the best pick, but may infact be at the top of the ticket. the bush name is toxic to independents these days, outside of florida and texas jeb is useless to mccain.
5. rob portman & john kasich: who & who? exactly. the least two inspiring choices, dull, boring, and not believable as commanders in-chief. mccain picks up next to nothing with these two.
wild-cards:
1. david patraeus: brilliant military commander, 4 star general, phd from princeton, and the most politicaly savy military man since eisenhower. a few problems, 1) we have no idea what his social and economics positions are and 2) if he would not be better serving his country where he is right now. to abbandon the iraq mission for politics would be a bad omen in my own opinion.
2. condoleezza rice: brilliant, qualified, and extremely talented. again, like the general, her social and economic policies are unknown, and she is tied to bush’s iraq plan to the core. she may be bush’s closest ally not named cheney. she would be a bigger ground breaker then obama, if she wanted to be. however, she seems uninterested in politics and eager to get out of washington.
3. joe lieberman: with the democrats locked in bitter infighting, a mccain/lieberman ticket could invoke unity between the parties and be the post-partisan ticket. lieberman is , however extremely liberal on a number of social and economic issues, and that may be too much to take even with his foreign policy beliefs. with joe, mccain could lose a conservative for every democrat the ticket gains, but still a possibility.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
matt: You make a good argument for Romney, but I hope Mac’s disdain for the man overpowers these arguments. I can imagine Romney in 2016 running as the clone of Al Gore… although Al had more likeability.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
1) if he doesn’t go pro-life, he’s nuts
2) If I hadn’t been on here constantly for the last year, I would have had no idea who half of them are. Neither will the American voter.
3) Something is in the wind or Mitt would not have fired up his websites again in the last few days.
4) McCain won’t tip his hand until he is ready. So what he says to any reporter prior to that time is meaningless.
5) Mitt stressed last night there was no continuing enmity between the two, especially on his part.
6) Nobody has the qualities that Mitt does. And nobody brings as many toss-up states as Mitt, nor holds onto some that normally go to Republicans in the West as Mitt. I don’t think McCain will discard him as easily as most of you are doing.
Most of the commentary about all the no-names on here literally turns my stomach.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Some of these comments seem awfully odd to me. Kasich can be grating, but he can also be dynamic and down to earth; he lacks “polish” in precisely the sort of way that tends to attract blue collar voters. There’s a reason his show was called “heartland”.
matt,
And Tim Pawlenty far from exciting? It’s hard to know how people define exciting these days, but Pawlenty’s certainly far from dull. He’s extremely likable and widely considered just about the best retail politician in the business. He doesn’t send people into fainting fits, or into 3rd grade chants, and I suppose he’s not the one we’ve been waiting for, but he does alright on the “exciting” front. He’s an undeniably better speaker then all but one of the folks on your list (Romney) and he oozes genuineness. And the comparison to Dan Quayle is ludicrous. Tim Pawlenty is a brilliant, substantive heavyweight, who can only plausibly be discounted on this front if we automatically equate “niceness” with “lightweight”.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I do get what some of you are saying about Kasich. He rubs me the wrong way too, but I can’t put my finger on why.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Illinoisguy: You contradict yourself a little…
Many do not consider Mitt Romney to be pro-life. The YouTube conviction, Planned Parenthood fundraiser, $50 abortions in Mass, etc, etc, etc.
Random pro-life blog for which I have no affiliation: http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/01/mit-romney-is-not-pro-life.html
Perhaps Mitt could run for the Senate and get a little more public policy experience at being pro-life before we trust him with the heartbeats of the unborn or trust him to be a heartbeat away.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
37 Sounds awfully similar to what some of us say abuot John Mc, uh, guess we found our veep.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Matthew: I don’t know nearly as much about Pawlenty as you do. I don’t claim to. But, do we need someone who:
Treat global warming much as Al Gore does without more evidence that man is the cause?
Can not come even close to delivering his state for McCain in his own state in the caucus? Romney slaughtered him while Tim was working hard to promote McCain.
Can not show McCain running better in Minnesota if he is the running mate?
It just seems that this guy is not the superman you make him out to be. What are his stances on ‘life’ and ‘traditional marriage’? Those will be critical. McCain will not be elected if he has anyone who is not strong on life and traditional marriage.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Steve Forbes! For McCain this would add economic know how to his foreign policy strengths. If Forbes became president in the next 4 years, there are still alot of foreign policy republicans out there. Condi Rice, Patraeus, Powell, and of these could jump into the VP spot if needed. Not that this would happen.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Illinoisguy,
Again, you’re making arguments that are historically unsupportable. The vast majority of the time, Presidents choose running mate’s that are “no names”. Even if this turns your stomach. Dole did it in 96′. Gore did it in 2000′. Bush even plausibly did it in 2000 (not even 1/3 of the public can name the secretary of defense when he’s SecDef, never mind more then a decade later). In 1992 Clinton did it (Gore had an abortive campaign in 1988′, but no other name recognition). Bush did it in 88′. Dukakis did it in 88′. Mondale did it in 84′. Etc, etc, etc. It simply doesn’t matter if a VP is unknown prior to being selected. They get known quickly enough, and usually they’re given a serious honeymoon to define themselves positively before te knives come out.
Yes, Romney brings dedicated supporters with him. But, he also brings dedicated enemies. And this is not 1980. In that year, their were two factions; those that really liked Reagan and those that really liked Bush. Those that really liked Reagan weren’t going to abandon him because he chose Bush. And those that really liked Bush were more likely to vote for Reagan/Bush then Reagan/X. This time, there’s 4 or 5 factions. One of which really likes Romney. A couple of which really dislike him. And a couple that find him basically “acceptable”.
The McCainiacs, even if they really dislike Romney, won’t be less inclined to vote for a McCain/Romney ticket. But, maybe the Hucksters or Rudybots will. Certainly some will, and it’s absolutely plausible that this negative drag on the ticket will outweigh the positive benefit of decisively bringing the Romneybots onto the ticket. That’s why politicians often make the calculation that unknown quantities are better bets. Because when they get known, due to the nature of the position, they’re less likely to engender negative feedback and far more likely to engender either positive or neutral feedback. Unknown VP’s, unless they’re imbeciles, rarely hurt a ticket and can often help it. Known VP’s can do both, and oftentimes not in equal measure.
It’s a strategic tradeoff and I tend to favor the unknown route. Because people may not know Pawlenty, but I’m confident they’ll like him when they do, in the context of the VP role. But, I’m far less confident about Romney’s ability to alter public perceptions at this point.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Charles - I didn’t contradict myself at all. If we required someone to have been a lifetime member of prolife, we wouldn’t have gotten Reagan nor the first Bush. Mitt governed 100% prolife in the most liberal state in the union. What more proof would one need? McCain is on record having said he would not care to have Roe vs Wade reversed, and you seem to support him just fine.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Matthew - Other than on here when everyone was piling on Mitt, I don’t see much evidence that Rudy followers did not like Mitt. I distinctly remember when Rudy was way ahead in NH, Mitt was shown to be their 2nd choice. I realize that some of the Huckabee people wouldn’t be totally pleased with Mitt, but neither are they totally pleased with McCain if you’ve noticed. At least they will see someone more strongly socially conservative that their leaders have either supported or not ruled out on the ticket with McCain. I think you overstate the hatred, and understate the support (by a lot). After all these people are Christians, and are taught not to hate.
But thanks for the time you spend describing your thinking.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Charles….
I wish you wouldn’t use the arguments of the Democratic party (or maybe you are a Huck fan and copying him, who copied the DEM party) but the $50 abortion thing is ludicrous and damages your credibility. The courts imposed that aspect of the law, it was not drafted by Mitt.
You question Romney’s pro-life credibility because of a 1994 debate, where Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of being personall pro-life and with little regard of how Mitt acted when he was entrusted with power over the “heartbeats of the unborn.” Our nominee is someone who has spoken in support of pro-life causes and even voted for them, yet he has DONE nothing to promote the cause and was conisdered a hinderance in promoting pro-life causes by a very Pro-life, conservative Senator.
Please explain your despise for Romney cause at least the other GOP candidates had a reason. Romney was hated by Huck and McCain because he was winning. Most, if not all (Fred mabye excluded), ganged up on Romney because he was the no-namer who became the front-runner before any votes were cast.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
two people that have to be on that list:
1. Sarah Palin. A little inexperienced, but as Governor of Alaska, she has foreign policy experience dealing with Canada and Russia. She, along with Jindal, represents the future of the party.
2. Jon Huntsman. Everything that Romney has to offer, but even a fresher face.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
IllinoisGuy,
“Matthew: I don’t know nearly as much about Pawlenty as you do. I don’t claim to. But, do we need someone who:
Treat global warming much as Al Gore does without more evidence that man is the cause?”
Probably not, but given that our nominee already holds this position, and given that he’s the only one actually capable of affecting policy, it’s not much of a concern to me. If he held McCain’s “bad” positions down the line, that’d be more problematic. But, he’s strong on immigration, campaign finance reform, etc.
“Can not come even close to delivering his state for McCain in his own state in the caucus? Romney slaughtered him while Tim was working hard to promote McCain.”
McCain is abysmal in caucuses. He beat Mike Huckabee, in freaking Washington state, a place utterly devoid of evangelicals, by about 1% in their caucus. In the Washington Primary, he won by like 40%. There’s a world of difference between caucuses and primaries. And there’s an entire universe of difference between a caucus and a general election. If someone does unusually well in a caucus, I generally take this as an indication that they’ll do unusually poorly in the general election. Because, it suggests they’re the favorite of only movement types, and can’t win over swing demographics. Pawlenty’s failure to deliver Minnesota to McCain in a caucus is utterly meaningless.
“Can not show McCain running better in Minnesota if he is the running mate?”
First of all, the few polls we’ve seen of this nature are deeply problematic. For instance, if 45% of Minnesotans say Pawlenty would make them more likely to vote for McCain, and 45% say they’d make him less likely to vote for McCain, you could interpret this in the following way: “Pawlenty doesn’t help McCain run better in Minnesota”. But, you’d be unjustified in doing so. What if 20% of those who say it’d make them less likely to vote for McCain, vote Republican regardless of the running mate? What if the other 25% are liberal Democrats that hate Pawlenty simply because he’s a conservative that they know well? Well, now you’ve suddenly shifted from “Pawlenty doesn’t help McCain” to “Pawlenty helps McCain considerably”. So without more detail, we can’t judge whether Pawlenty would gain McCain more votes then he’d lose him.
It’s also problematic, because we have no means of comparison. For instance, there are certain sorts of polls that ALWAYS yield negative results. If you ask people “are you certain to vote for X, would consider voting for X, or certain to vote against X?” you ALWAYS find that considerably more people are “certain to vote against X”. Last time I checked, Barack Obama had 42-45% “certain to vote against” and only about 30% “certain to vote for”. It’s a function of the structure of the poll. I think there are good reasons to believe the “would X VP make you more or less likely to vote for Y” is that sort of poll. And I think if you asked Minnesotans would “Romney” or would “Huckabee” or would “Rudy” make you more or less likely to vote for McCain, you’d see about 15-20% more people checking the latter box. The fact that Pawlenty’s breaking even in these sorts of polls is, far from being bad news, something that augurs well for his strength as a VP.
“It just seems that this guy is not the superman you make him out to be. What are his stances on ‘life’ and ‘traditional marriage’? Those will be critical. McCain will not be elected if he has anyone who is not strong on life and traditional marriage.”
I’ve never said he’s a superman. I’ve said he’s a very likable two term governor, with working class roots, and policy-minded seriousness. That’s pretty significant. He’s very pro-life and signed a waiting period law as Governor. His official position says abortion should be banned except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother; in other words, boilerplate conservatism. He fought for the ballot iniative banning gay marriage in Minnesota, and met with success. He’s terrific on guns, signing two conceal and carry laws, and getting strong support from the NRA.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
palin is pregnant and won’t be running this time.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
IllinoisGuy,
Romney had low favorability ratings and that’s a fact. I distinctly remember a few polls, that showed him barely breaking 50% favorability among REPUBLICANS. So some groups sure didn’t like him,
March 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Its nice to see Chris Cox get more ink from bloggers.
He is better prepared than Pawlenty, more experienced than Sanford, and more reliably conservative than Romney. He’s qualified to be Treasury Secretary, Attorney General or DCI/NDI.
We really need to get a drumbeat going for this guy!
March 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#48. Palin is due in May. The pick usually comes in June or July. She is still in the running.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
On that note, let’s look at SurveyUSA polling. When asked, 59% say he wouldn’t make a good running mate for McCain. Only 22% think he would. When asked, 49% think he wouldn’t make a good running mate. Only 40% think he would. Obviously neither one appeals to South Carolinans. Yet, Jim Demint has approval ratings in the high 50’s and Mark Sanford has approval ratings in the high 60’s. Why the discrepancy? Because these sort of polls always yield negative results.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Forget about Romney as Veep. McCain isn’t intelligent enough to put him on the ticket. He also isn’t secure enough in his person to put together a ticket with that kind of stature gap. Giuliani or Pawlenty are about the best that can be hoped for. Aside from Romney, Sanford and Jeb Bush would be the best picks. During the course of the general campaign, people would figure out that Jeb and W. are not the same person….although it might take until late October for that to sink in. He needs somebody with executive experience. The nation needs it to, for that matter, but….too late.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Eh, I mean that 59% of South Carolinans say Jim Demint wouldn’t make a good running mate for McCain….and 49% think Mark Sanford wouldn’t make a good running mate.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
McCain Returns to New Hampshire
EXETER, N.H. (AP) — John McCain made a triumphant return to New Hampshire on Wednesday, thanking the state that launched him toward the Republican presidential nomination and telling voters he will need their support again to win in November.
“Can I give you a little straight talk?” the Arizona senator said, using his trademark expression at the end of one of his trademark town-hall meetings. “The state of New Hampshire will be a battleground state. I intend to be back and back and back.”
He also used the visit, little more a week after he officially won enough delegates to be the nominee, to publicly make peace with some of his primary rivals. He singled out Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.
“We are reuniting our party and we’ve got to re-energize it,” he told a crowd of several hundred.
Earlier in the day, McCain told reporters he had begun to flesh out his plans for conducting the search for a running mate, but he also declared the process too fresh to begin ruling in or out any candidate.
Of Romney, who on Tuesday said he would accept an offer, McCain told the town-hall audience: “He fought hard, he fought well. I believe that Governor Romney has earned a place in our Republican Party and I think he’s part of the future of our Republican Party.”
The senator called Giuliani “a genuine American hero” for his leadership following the 9/11 terrorist attack, and Huckabee and Thompson good and decent men.
McCain was accompanied by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, who also has been mentioned as possible running mate, as he was in 2000 when he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee.
Lieberman jabbed at Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have been jousting over experience by debating who is best equipped to answer a crisis call in the middle of the night.
Lieberman said of McCain: “He’s ready to be commander in chief not just at 3 a.m. — but at any a.m. or p.m., 24/7. This guy knows what it means to be a leader.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAde02vvWBelbUJpfyBXxi7SVUGAD8VC46502
March 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Matthew - Just as you asked us to be careful in interpreting polls, let me do the same: When there are about 10 candidates, and all of them obviously aiming at Mitt during the debates, and treating him as the front runner, isn’t it quite possible when people are polled on favorability that they sometimes lie, and treat a perceived front runner opponent unfairly by saying they have an unfavorable opinion of him, when it really means they are fighting like heck for their own guy? And can’t it just mean they are jealous their own guy is getting the stuffing beat out of them by this other guy? How can they like a guy beating up on their guy with logic, intelligence, positions, and always looking Presidential and acting accordingly?
March 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
In short, I’m skeptical of the favorable/unfavorable polls during the nomination process. You can be mad at a guy for kicking the cr__ out of your guy, and claim he’s unfavorable.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Sorry for the off-topic, but this is really funny:
http://www.avclub.com/content/node/75711
Who Does Rolling Stone Think Obama Is?
March 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Illinoisguy,
I think there’s something to the idea that Romney was hurt by being a focus of each campaign; but I think it’s considerably more likely that this caused supporters of other candidates to genuinely dislike Romney. I.e, because Romney stood in Rudy’s way continually, a certain percentage of Rudy’s supporters came to loathe Romney. This isn’t necessarily his fault, but it’s a real effect and one that seems likely to carry into the general election.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
In the end it doesn’t matter who McCain choose, they will lose in a landslide. John McCain is one of the worst candidate ever.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
>”they are jealous their own guy is getting the stuffing beat out of them by this other guy? How can they like a guy beating up on their guy with logic, intelligence, positions, and always looking Presidential and acting accordingly?”
Amazing that he lost, isn’t it?
March 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
it will depend on how the economy is doing . if its doing terrible, mccain will pick someone who came from a lower middle class background. if its doing better, and we just need someone to shore him up, it could be romney. but if things are going terrible, they are not going to nominate someone who has laid people off. it will be too much ammo for john edwards democrats. but if its obama, is there anyone mccain can pick so that its not two white men? jindal is too new, anyone else?
March 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
joe c…if the economy is doing bad, i think Romney would be atop. He made more jobs than he laid off.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Pawlenty would be a terrible pick - not as bad as Crist or Ridge, but still, what does he bring? He has no economic experience, would play poorly in a swing state like WV, would irritate the business community with his tree-hugging nonsense, and, as shown by the MN results, he has little pull for Conservatives - even within his own state. If he can’t get people in his own state to support his candidate, why do we have any reason to believe he would add anything electorally? At least Romney won in swing states like Michigan, Colrado, Nevada, and, yeah, Minnesota.
You might say that Pawlenty’s GW positions aren’t a concern, but they are. Pawlenty would be second in line for the Presidency and the clear favorite for the 2012 nomination. Do you really want our party to be taken over by the Global Warming Environmentalists?
As for VP, well, history IS on Mitt’s side. Nominees have long choosen former competitors from the primaries - Kerry did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Carter did it, Kennedy did it, and I’m sure there are others.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Its a two way street, there are some Rudy supporters who might not vote for McCain if Romney is the VP, but there are also Romney supporters who won’t vote for McCain UNLESS Romney is the VP, because if McCain loses, Romney is the favorite for 2012.
Which group is bigger? I’m not sure, but I would guess it would be the one that won’t support McCain without Romney on the ticket. Rudy supporters didn’t seem to hate Romeny that much, both candidates had the other as their supporters #2 pick in many places. Thompson supporters and Romney supporters are generally fine with each other, and I don’t see Huckabee supporters doing anything but voting Republican. The only people who seemed to have a real hate for Romney were McCain supporters, and I don’t see them being sour enough to actually oppose McCain because of his VP pick.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Could your guy have won if there was gang warfare against him? answer: NOPE!!
March 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
The fact that the current trade agreements require some lay off in some cases to save a company is actually good for McCain/Mitt, because Mitt has promised to, and has the know how to renegotiate those agreements to something that is favorable to American workers. And yes, Americans gained a whole lot more jobs than they lost with Bain intervention.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“Romney does not have the backbone for the war.”
You are getting that from McCain’s campaign rhetoric, I assume? Remember Bush I’s criticism of Reaganomics? That didn’t stop the two from ending up on a ticket together.
Romney made it pretty clear that he was not going to pull out before the job was done, and that all McCain can ask for from ANY VP.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
#68, I would trust Mitt bargaining with world leaders (under McCain’s general direction of course) more than I would trust anyone. They will not pull the wool over his eyes as they can do so easily to someone not trained in negotiation.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I believe some of Huckabee’s very staunch supporters wouldn’t vote with Mitt on the ticket, but those are also the same supporters who are waging a Huckabee write-in campaign and wouldn’t vote for McCain either.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
There is a small chance that Mitt could be VP. Mostly it’s hype by Mitt-heads who don’t get that McCain isn’t going to pick a movement conservative.
He’s going with a fellow maverick and the icon of talk radio, Mitt Romney, doesn’t qualify.
I think Crist has a better shot worts and all at being McCain’s pick. In this case I think McCain’s judgment to go with a fellow maverick is wise.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Crist has not chance, or at least if he gets it McCain loses millions of votes
March 12th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I might vote for McCain if Romney was VP… but I would NOT donate any money, would NOT make any calls, would NOT walk any precincts, and would NOT be enthused about Republican politics being dominated by phony “conservatives” for the next 4 to 16 years.
I believe that the media will make big on Mac’s age to the point that the VP will matter for the Republicans this time. Romney has a track record of turning people off, losing when outspending his opponents 10 to 1, and generally coming off as an ass.
Finally, aside from the Romenybots who try and brush aside $50 abortions as the big, bad Massachusetts court “made him” do it (without a veto or any kind of challenge… can you say “wuss”), pro-lifers are suspicious of Mac already (fetal stem cells)… Mitt “Planned Parenthood” Romney would just make things worse.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Will the party tolerate another moderate though? Conservatives already got left out in the cold with McCain, I would have to think setting up another moderate for 2012 would cause a major backlash.
Like it or not, McCain HAS to reconcile with Conservatives, and he has to give them something to get excited about. Positioning another moderate to be the leader of the party in four years ain’t going to cut it.
—
I also disagree that Romney for VP is only being pushed by Mitt-heads. Rove, Coulter, etc. could hardly have been described as “Mitt heads” during the primary. Yeah, Romney supporters are pushing their guy, but the big names who are pushing him are doing it in the name of party unity and the Conservative cause.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Charles,
I am just curious. Who was your candidate?
March 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Act,
There are many on Fox news who were obviously pushing for McCain and against Romney, who are surprisingly speaking well of Romney now that McCain got the nomination.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Are conservatives going to stay home if McCain picks Pawlenty?
Sure a few thousand might.
If McCain picks Romney, he probably loses a couple million independents who think McCain is a sell-out to the Bush-Romney wing of the party.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Charles, if Romney had a track record of “turning people off”, he would not have recieved more votes than any candidate except for the nominee.
And yes, he spent a lot of money, but he was up against one of the most well-known Senators, “America’s mayor”, and a popular actor. Romney was virtually unknown before this election - much of the money he spent was simply to get his name out there.
If you could put a dollar amount on Rudy’s 9/11-related TV appearances, or interviews with John McCain, it would almost certainly total into the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
As for the $50 dollar abortions, how do you propose he goes over the MASS SC? Ignore it? he has no power to veto a court decision, and the MASS legislature was 80% DEM, do you honestly think he could have gotten them to pass a new law? Besides, that would have violated the promise he made to the people not to change abortion law.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Pawlenty lacks the economic experience McCain needs on the ticket, plain and simple.
But my real problem is the tree-hugger nonsense that Pawlenty seems to be prone to. I don’t want the GOP taken over by global warming alarmists. I don’t want another Ecowacko as our nominee in 2012.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I am deeply suspicious of John McCain. I have watched him closely since the 2000 race. (That was long before my guy, Mitt Romney entered the race.) I have not liked what I have seen. The biggest, most glaring problem I have with him is his emotional instability and immaturity. We want a man with the emotional maturity of a six-year-old in the Oval Office?!?
I have to say if McCain picked Romney as his VP, it would go a long, long way in easing my fears over his temperament, his vindictiveness, and his just down-right petty meanness. It is common knowledge that McCain hates Romney. Why is not important. The fact of the matter is McCain has decided he doesn’t like Romney. If John McCain can prove that he can set aside his personal feelings for the greater good, I would feel a whole lot better putting him in the White House. If not, and he picks someone whom he is buddy-buddy with but doesn’t bring half the qualities of Mitt Romney to the ticket, then he will have confirmed all my fears about him in spades.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Mark,
IMO the reason others “hated” Romney was simply that he was stiff competition. There is video on youtube of McCain warmly endorsing Romney when Romney ran for Governor. In another situation, I expect McCain would have loved him.
On Brit Hume’s show today, they showed McCain being asked about Romney. McCain spoke very highly of Mitt and said there is no animosity between them. He also said Mitt will have a great future in the republican part. I was pleasantly suprised. I expect that when McCain is interviewed on Hannity and Combs tomorrow night, he will be asked about Mitt again.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
All I can say is, if people keep pushing Romney on McCain, Mr. Maverick is going to push back.
Now if people told McCain that he shouldn’t pick Romney, Mitt would be a shoe-in. (-;
March 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“www.act”: You are not being honest. Romney signed into law pro-abortion legislation: State subsidized abortions and Planned Parenthood as a permanent policy maker… all without a fight or veto (when he did veto other provisions of the same legislation). And, I am not a Massachusetts constitutional scholar, but I’m darn sure the Massachusetts Supreme Court did not “force” him to sign the legislation.
If Romney “promised” not to change Massachusetts pro-abortion laws, he is not pro-life. If Romney signed new pro-abortion laws, he is not pro-life. Therefore, Romney is NOT pro-life.
The fact that we are having this discussion is a BIG NEGATIVE for Romney. Argue for his honor if you must, but I have pictures of Romney at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.
Can you say floor fight?
March 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Is Ann Coulter backing Romney? If so, I can think of no better reason to support Sanford, Pawlenty, Dracula, Ridge, the Abominable Snowman, or anybody else.
Why should her opinion matter — hasn’t she already said she’s voting Democrat this year?
March 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
At least Mr. Pawlenty does not offend Social Conservatives. It will be more difficult for the GOP to win without the help of Social Conservatives. He may not be the best as far as the environment is concerned, but he is doing a good job as governor.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Pawlenty had the same score from CATO as Romney. There’s no big difference between Romney and Pawlenty on economic issues, except that Pawlenty has dealt with those issues longer as a Governor than Romney did.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
act-blog,
“Pawlenty would be a terrible pick - not as bad as Crist or Ridge, but still, what does he bring? He has no economic experience, would play poorly in a swing state like WV, would irritate the business community with his tree-hugging nonsense, and, as shown by the MN results, he has little pull for Conservatives - even within his own state.”
How do you define “economic experience”? Because it seems as though you have a tendency to dismiss anyone who wasn’t a businessman as “lacking economic experience”. In fact, I suspect you could point out any significant level of “economic experience” by your standards, in any president since Hoover (excepting W obviously). President’s don’t and have never needed the sort of economic experience you’re suggesting; it’s potentially useful, but it’s far from historically necessary. Pawlenty has managed a 20+ billion dollar budget, and a 50+ billion dollar economy for 6 years. That’s plenty of economic experience and well in line with historical precedent.
Also, there’s no reason to believe Pawlenty would play poorly in West Virginia, or significantly irritate the business community. I suspect you have little actual knowledge of Pawlenty. I’ve watched more then a dozen of his speeches, and he’s consistently agitating for lower taxes, and a better business climate. Yes, businesses don’t like excessive environmental regulation, but generally speaking the business community will find a very sympathetic ear in Pawlenty.
“If he can’t get people in his own state to support his candidate, why do we have any reason to believe he would add anything electorally? At least Romney won in swing states like Michigan, Colrado, Nevada, and, yeah, Minnesota.”
How many times do we have to point out that caucuses aren’t primaries and primaries aren’t the general election? Under your logic, we should be expecting Barack Obama to win Alabama in the general election, because McCain lost there, and Barack beat Hillary by double digits. At the least we should expect Barack to do better then Hillary. But, no rational analysis would lead us to these conclusions. Barack did well in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina because he had a very large segment, in Democratic primaries, of core support. He’d perform exceedingly poorly in those states in the general election, because he performs abysmally with the “swing demographics” in those states; in this case working class Southern Whites.
“You might say that Pawlenty’s GW positions aren’t a concern, but they are. Pawlenty would be second in line for the Presidency and the clear favorite for the 2012 nomination. Do you really want our party to be taken over by the Global Warming Environmentalists?”
Not especially no, but I can’t say that, ideally, I want someone who supported the assault weapons ban, and the brady bill, i.e someone from the “anti-gun” crowd, taking over the party either. Yet, I was happily supporting Romney. Because one issue rarely vetoes a candidate.
“As for VP, well, history IS on Mitt’s side. Nominees have long choosen former competitors from the primaries - Kerry did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Carter did it, Kennedy did it, and I’m sure there are others.”
Gore wasn’t Clinton’s opponent. He’d run 4 years earlier briefly. Mondale wasn’t Carter’s opponent either (or if he was, he had as much traction as Jim Gilmore this cycle). So you have 3 examples out of about…oh 24 total VP candidates in the last 50 years.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“All I can say is, if people keep pushing Romney on McCain, Mr. Maverick is going to push back. ”
BINGO!
If I’m John McCain and all these conservative hacks tried to torpedo me in the primary why in God’s name would I give them their way now?
It’s good to see some of the Rombots come out of the woodwork after a month of hibernation - but just because McCain spoke highly of Mitt on Hume’s show doesn’t mean he likes him or thinks he’s honest.
Let’s think back. The last Republicans that tried to ruin McCain that were successful (for a while) were George Bush and Karl Rove. How close were McCain and Bush in 2001, 2002 and 2003?
And now we’re magically supposed to believe that McCain is going to go with Romney because of some obscure feeling on the part of those who never liked McCain that Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Or at least since Bush’s numbers were above 40?
The idea that McCain is going to pick Romney - let alone pick Romney because of Malkin et al is sheer Rombot wet dreamery.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Mr. Pawlenty does better in OH, PA, WV, MN, WI and IA. I imagine that some of these will be swing states.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Doug,
Spot on. I understand that Romney has more experience dealing with budgets, cutting costs, “fixing” things. Very few people would deny this. But, on balance he’s no more economically conservative then Pawlenty. And Pawlenty’s 6 years in charge of a 234 billion dollar economy isn’t small potatoes in terms of experience.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I also think that the absolute rejection of Pawlenty due to his position on energy and environment is a categorical rejection of almost any conceivable Minnesota politician. It’s a state that leads the nation in “clean energy”, ethanol, E-85, etc. It’s hard for me to imagine any politician ascending to serious heights in Minnesota without supporting the AGW lobby. Norm Coleman, who’s a pretty strong conservative on most issues, is also quite entrenched with that crowd. There are similar issues at play in other upper-midwest states. It’s absolutely beautiful terrain up there, and just as a cultural tradition, folks take the environment pretty seriously. That doesn’t mean we need to agree with them, but we shouldn’t automatically dismiss them; instead we should try to persuade them to adopt more broadly acceptable solutions (read Gingrinch’s Contract with the Earth for instance).
March 12th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Adam,
Do you think a divided party can win against the Democrats?
March 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Charles,
Who was your candidate?
March 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
He won’t pick Mittens but wasn’t it awesome to see him back last night!
He is the man!
Romney 2012 - make Obama a one term President!
March 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I just think it’s funny that people are still arguing about Romney being pro-life.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Hatred can run so deeply when its rooted in bigotry.
If the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise I’m not talking to you.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Heath, when Romney runs in 2012 it will be after John McCain’s term if McCain announces he’s not running for a second term. Obama is not going to win this year, or ever.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I’m not so sure of that Clarence. I would hate for Obama to be President, but I would also hate to see McCain elected without a balanced ticket with a conservative on board. If they find out that they don’t need conservatives, where do they go? I would say a new party would be formed within a short time, and it takes more from the moderates than from the Democrats. So, I hope McCain doesn’t shoot himself in the foot. You can expect any group to have nowhere to go to vote for their views, and that’s what would be happening if Republicans shut out the conservatives.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Make that ‘can’t expect’
March 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Kavon,
Is your shortlist just a distillation of the names that have been floated in recent weeks, or do you have some kind of scoop here for us?
March 12th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
If that’s a McCain short list, I can once again see why McCain graduated 894th out of 899th in his class.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I vote for Romney.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I vote for Romney and will donate money, will make calls, will walk and campaign. The others I will just vote.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I wouldn’t expect McCain to choose Romney because a lot of people are urging him to. He will only pick Romney if it is in his best interest.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
104-It seems that Romney supporters have already decided that choosing Romney is in his best interest.
We just don’t know if that is true. The fact that he had such a fantastic spending advantage on top of his organizational advantage (one of his strengths according to his fans) and yet went nowhere in the primary makes me nervous. We know he has a group of very passionate fans. The size of this group is debated, but we know that it wasn’t enough to give him legs. The problem is, we also don’t know how many people think he is a phony who will take whichever political position that he determines is most politically convenient.
I’m guessing that a lot of people in the middle (who we need this year) fall into the latter group.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Here’s the deal about Romney. If you are the average American, to you the name Romney is synonymous with economic knowhow. The guy who is great with economics, Mr. Can-Do. Most of the time when there is commentary about Romney what you hear about is his economic prowess. Now that knowledge has become part of the collective consciousness. Pawlenty may be good at economics, but the name Pawlenty does not bring “great with the economy” to mind. The name Romney does immediately. People here are losing their jobs right and left. We just had another company in Terre Haute cut 150 jobs, not a temporary lay-off. If things don’t improve, this same company is going to lay off 150 to 200 more. This is happening with jobs all the time here now. We are paying almost $3.50 per gallon for gasoline. People are scared. I hear things like, “What are we going to do?” all the time. It hurt me to hear the secretary at school say she couldn’t afford to buy her medication because she had to buy gas to get to work. We are a commuter society. We have to drive to go to our jobs. Things are just going to get worse as it gets closer to the election. And the name Romney can help McCain win the presidency right there if for no other reason. McCain has wanted to be president for a long time. Do you actually think he is going to blow his one real shot at becoming president because he and Romney had problems during the campaigns? Not likely.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Well said Robin!!
March 13th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I don’t want Mitt associated with McCain. Please make my non-vote easier to live with, John.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:58 am
marK,
That’s a loaded question. It presumes that somehow a Romney pick will end GOP division. It will not.
Do you think the “conservative base” alone can win against a center/left fusion coalition? No way. It didn’t happen in 2006.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Bottom Line,
VP list is long and wide if selection is now. Wait till summer or fall convention and you only have one or two names. There are only 6 weeks from convention to election. Absolutely no time to introduce a VP to the rest of the country. So, the longer McCain takes, the shorter the list. By May 1, when the campaign is off and running, McCain will need a VP candidate with
1. National ( not state ) visibility.
2. An in place national organization
3. Funds plus fund- raising ability
4. Economic smarts ( for a domestic focused campaign with an economy in
the dumpster )
5. Sqeeky clean background ( after Spitzer et al )
You guys figure it out, but it ” ain’t” 95 % of the guys on your lists
March 13th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Craig:
You make a few good points, but I disagree with you that the economy is in the dumpster.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Wow, Mitt’s name is mentioned and the thread comes alive. Too bad McCain does not have the level of enthusiastic supporters that Mitt does.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Adam,
I am not disagreeing with you one bit. The GOP cannot win with just the conservatives. Do you think they can win without the conservatives?
March 13th, 2008 at 9:12 am
marK,
“Do you think they can win without the conservatives?”
No. But that’s not the same as saying that a “conservative” needs to be on the ticket. Eisenhower was pretty moderate. So was Nixon. Ford was too, and had the campaign in 1976 gone on another week or two he would have defeated Carter. George H. W. Bush was more moderate in 1988 than the Republican Party became in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
110 Craig
Mitt would be a good choice for McCain, but I doubt that’s where he’ll go. Do you see how Hillary is getting twisted up trying to reconcile her attacks on Obama (too inexperienced to be CIC), with the fact that she’s offered him the veep slot? McCain’s too smart to go there.
The national defense/CIC card is McCain’s only path to victory: he’s not winning this election on pocketbook issues. And if McCain’s argument (as Mitt put it nicely) is that “this country cannot afford to elect someone inexperienced in foreign policy and defense matters in a time of war,” anyone with a brain can figure out that he must also think the veep must be ready to step in with the same credentials. McCain can’t pick someone without foreign policy or national defense experience to be his veep or he’ll be undercutting his own campaign’s primary narrative.
This is why, though the prospect galls me, I think DaveG’s predictions are likely to be proven true, and Ridge will get the nod. Rice also will get consideration. Despite all the noise, I think Crist, T Paw and Sanford will be scratched for the same reason. Of the dark horses mentioned, Portman was an ambassador for trade which could be spun as foreign policy experience (although one year of experience is pretty thin–even if Portman has the President’s backing). Also Cox, who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, could be spun as having national security experience.
But I have to think Ridge and Rice are the heavies right now, and Ridge likely gets the nod as a proven vote getter in a swing state, a combat veteran, and a personality that probably meshes with McCain’s.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:36 am
115
Aaarggh! The no preview feature bites again.
That quote in 115 is not attributable to Mitt. I was going to mention the whole big dog/chihuahua quote from his Hannity interview the other night, but changed course midstream.
The quote I have there is just my paraphrase of McCain’s campaign narrative.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I like Romney….Do it John!
March 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am
So Adam, do you think insulting people who belong to wings of the party different from your own tends to increase or decrease party unity?
I am certainly not perfect in this regard. I have thrown my share of insults at those I’ve disagreed with. But it is time to start coalescing around our nominee. Bygones have to be bygones. Otherwise McCain is in serious trouble.
This is ultimately why I would like to see McCain choose Mitt. McCain has a reputation of not letting bygones be bygones. He has to deal with that, and the best way I can think of is asking his most bitter rival to share the ticket with him.
Like it or not, Mitt Romney would bring tremendous assets to the ticket. If McCain chooses someone equal to or greater than Romney (or perhaps marginally less talented) that he gets along with better, fine. I would feel it was a missed opportunity, but he has to call the shots not me. However, if McCain snubs the most talented man available for a decidedly lesser man just because he is buddy-buddies with him, that is a problem. I would question his wisdom, his maturity, and his judgment — things that I am already questioning now. That is not something you want to see in a man you are being asked to vote into the Oval Office.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:42 am
“So Adam, do you think insulting people who belong to wings of the party different from your own tends to increase or decrease party unity? ”
Insulting people who belong to different wings of the party? McCain doesn’t owe the “conservatives”. They fought against him and were defeated. They had two of their own in Bush and Cheney and now the moderates won fair and square. We supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and now it’s time to bite the bullet and support McCain…regardless of who he chooses as a running mate.
Somehow I don’t think the hard right-wing pundits that are pushing Romney would be pushing a moderate if an archconservative was victorious in the primaries.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
This is an election like none other we have seen before, we all know that. If McCain doesn’t choose a conservative to help pull the party together, the conservatives are going to make so much airtime noise that it could hurt McCain in the general. Also, if you listened to Romney on Hannity the other night he made it clear that he is going to be campaigning for McCain. He didn’t have to say that, he doesn’t have to do that. McCain and Romney have both made statements saying there is no animosity between them. These statements can be made to grow over time. As far as being asked about the differences between McCain and Romney during the primaries, Mr. Straight-Talk can tell it as he sees it and stick to it. I think people will accept, “I chose him as my running mate because he_________________,” (insert message) and pound his message home. Romney would pound right along with him. There are many good reasons McCain would choose Romney. He could formulize a statement any way he wants to. You know, Romney is smart. It was no accident, I assure you, that Romney referred to McCain as President McCain that other night on Hannity and Colmes. Romney’s money would be a huge help to McCain’s campaign. McCain can change his mind to whatever he wants, and if he sees enough people would back him on that, he might. These two guys could get along. They both seriously love America, and there is good common ground right there.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#120 Should be, “This message can be made to grow…”
March 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I still say that McCain’s “hate” of Romney had everything to do with Romney being a serious threat. Now that Romney is no longer a threat, McCain has no reason to hate him. Seeing McCain talk about Romney when asked (I believe I saw it on Brit Hume’s show yesterday), I couldn’t see any signs of animosity. Does that mean McCain will choose Romney? Not necessarily, but you never know.
Also, I know some will disagree with me, but I don’t believe the moderates won fair and square. McCain got a pass because of several social conservatives splitting the vote most of the way. Look at the exit poll numbers and you can see that it is true.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
>Somehow I don’t think the hard right-wing pundits that are pushing Romney would be pushing a moderate if an archconservative was victorious in the primaries.
Adam, you nailed it. Let’s say Romney won the nomination, how many people think Rush would be saying, “He really needs to pick a moderate to balance the ticket — personally, I’m for Olympia Snowe.”
March 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Bob, it is hard to say what would have happened. They might have been urging Romney to put McCain on the ticket to balance it.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Right.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
They’d have been crowing about how “McAmnesty” got what was coming to him.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I would prefer Mr. Romney over Mrs. Snowe. With all due respect to Maine, the idea of Mrs. Snowe is non-sence.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
OJ: That was a joke. I was suggesting that Rush wouldn’t have been pushing Romney to select a moderate.
I have a better idea, though. The normal practice throughout history (as Matt Miller pointed out to Act-Blog) has not been to select a defeated candidate for VP, but quite often an olive branch is extended by offering the VP slot to a prominent backer of the defeated candidate.
How about if McCain offers the job to Larry Craig?
March 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Adam,
Yes, conservative Republicans need to support a moderate Republican candidate for President otherwise we will have no GOP President next year. However, do you think gloating about it and rubbing their noses in it will make them more likely to do so?
March 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Who is gloating? McCain?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t implying me when you said earlier,
“So Adam, do you think insulting people who belong to wings of the party different from your own tends to increase or decrease party unity?”
I think you’re being hyper-sensitive here. I didn’t gloat and I never insulted. To the victor goes the spoils. It is what it is.
And one more thing,
Linda,
“Also, I know some will disagree with me, but I don’t believe the moderates won fair and square. McCain got a pass because of several social conservatives splitting the vote most of the way. Look at the exit poll numbers and you can see that it is true.”
Doesn’t make any difference. If Romney were our nominee now the only way that would have been possible would be for him to win FL, right? Even Rombots have to concede that. If Romney had won in FL, the only way he would have been able to do so would be to split the moderate vote for McCain and the moderate vote for Giuliani. So we can go back and forth with this ad nauseum. McCain still won - fair and square.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Adam,
Whadeva. The point is moot, neh? So, I say move forward, recognize that this election’s needs are different, and be ready for McCain to do what it takes to put himself into the office he wants. If his choice isn’t Mitt, then let’s hope he has had the brains to put a name on the ticket that is going to hold the power Mitt’s name would have. Otherwise, McCain’s last shot is gone.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
And the reign of the Dems begins.