GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I’m already on record saying I believe Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will be John McCain’s choice to share the ticket — even if the notion doesn’t quicken the pulse of conservatives. I base this on Senator McCain’s penchant to reward loyalty (T-Paw has been nothing if not loyal) and the fact that many beltway establishment Republican types like Vin Weber, pollster Tony Fabrizio and fmr. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman seem to be grooming the Governor for the national stage.
The problem is that the GOP has a a dearth of talent in both our gubernatorial and congressional ranks. I couldn’t help but read this Redstate roundtable on possible veep choices and feel discouraged — much like those who participated in the discussion. The most likely choices all have significant electoral or ideological shortcomings. Meanwhile, two of the more exciting prospects, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, are long on vision but short on experience.
My reptilian brain stem has been working on finding someone who meets the following seemingly impossible criteria: 1) palatable (if not exciting) to conservatives; 2) satisfactory name recognition; 3) geographic advantages; 4) able to reaffirm McCain’s maverick creds; 5) able to assume the presidency should tragedy strike; 6) not necessarily currently in politics.
Allow me to offer the name of MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough.
Scarborough boasts a rock-solid lifetime ACU rating of 95. Even so, he does not shrink from criticizing Republicans when events warrant so he would help brandish the McCain maverick brand. He does not harken from, or have any association with, the unpopular Bush Administration or current congressional GOP leadership as he left the House to spend more time with his children in early 2001. His name recognition is not off the charts but would still probably exceed that of many of the other contenders. He is obviously telegenic and well-spoken. His 3 terms in Congress and his daily appearance on MSNBC have made him well-versed in all the major issues of the day. And he served Florida’s 1st congressional district, a McCain-leaning state but one we can not win without.
Have at it.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:45 am
McCain just lost my vote. One RINO is bad enough, but two?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am
How does a 95 ACU rating and a class of ‘94 revolutionary = RINO?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:13 am
RINO or not its reported on a gay chat site that Scarborough has something in common with Eddie Murphy and Ronaldo - with pics.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Weird. Michael Moore is convinced he had an inappropriate relationship with a deceased female staffer. I wish the Left would get their smear story straight (no pun intended).
May 9th, 2008 at 7:17 am
McCain needs to go with a well-known Conservative - someone known and trusted by the right wing of the party, and who is a good pick for 2012 or 2016.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:19 am
anything that re-enforces that “mavrick” label is toxic.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Got anyone in mind, Act? Heh.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Hey Gary, have you considered Roger Staubach, the former Dallas Cowboys quaterback, solid Republican and conservative, highly successful in business, politically astute but not a politician, well known, might have a lot of appeal to “Reagan Democrats.”
May 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Oh God, no.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I’m glad I had Herb Albert (Whipped Cream) playing in the background. It just magnified how silly this idea is.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Can anybody imagine scarborough as president or vice president? It seems crazy to me. I don’t think its a good idea.
His appeal would disappear as soon as he would be under pressure to be a certain way. His appeal comes from his detachment from the party. that would vanish when put on a ticket.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Scarborough does not “look” presidential. As George Will so memorably put it in 2000, he seems to lack a certain gravitas.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am
That post made me chuckle. You are right that no one seems to meet all the criteria for an ‘ideal’ Veep but choosing a TV personality (which is how most know Scarborough) would smell of desperation.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
He has a bad back which prevented him from running for the senate in 06.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
We need to just suck it up and pick Jindal like William Crystal suggested. I voted for the man twice for Governor and watched his debates…he’s a genius. He may be the smartest candidate we have, and he would appeal to a diverse crowd. I suppose I would reconsider if we had a charismatic hispanic person to pick.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I like it.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I think if you had a person that was ‘exicting to conservatives’ and had ’satisfactory name recognition’ and had ‘geographic advantages’ then he/she would be the nominee. If I could choose I would go with Tom Ridge or Colin Powell. But, I guess I am one of those goofy conservatives that think other issues (and winning) are more important then having a pro-life VP who will have so say at all who sits on the Supreme Court for the next 4-8 years.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
If a 3-term congressman has enough experience, then surely Jindal and Palin have enough experience. Jindal has a term and a half in congress, half a year as governor, plus oodles of experience in the executive branch. 3 terms as a Congressman is equivalent to about 2 years as Governor, from my perspective, so Palin’s no less experienced. Anyway, if we’re picking a Congressman with experience in the media, I’d far prefer John Kasich or Mike Pence.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Gary,
Anyway, I suspect you’re projecting a bit when you claim that Pawlenty doesn’t (or won’t) quicken the pulse of conservatives. Just look at the Congressional politics VP bracket polling I posted the other day. In the first round, Pawlenty beat Phil Gramm by 65 points. Only Sanford had a better first round, beating Demint by 69 points. After that, the biggest victory was a 51 point victory for Romney over Marsha Blackburn. Sure, Phil Gramm isn’t the most popular Republican, but he’s not widely disliked by any segment of the party. And economic conservatives like him quite a bit. He’s certainly as popular as Marsha Blackburn, or most of the other first round losers. In the second round, Pawlenty is beating Colin Powell by 9 points. Powell is a widely popular Republican figure. He managed to beat Petraeus (a hero to Republicans now) by 13 points in the first round. Sanford is similarly beating Romney by 9 points. Looking at the future brackets, it’s almost assured that Pawlenty will beat either Ridge or Hutchison, to advance to the semi-finals , where he’ll probably face Sanford. He may not triumph, but he surely won’t be blown away. In fact, it’s quite likely that, even among the more conservative online set that vote in these things, Pawlenty is one of the three most popular figures on that 32 name list. If that’s not sufficient to quicken some pulses, then perhaps Republicans just don’t want their pulses quickened this election cycle.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I think Obama-Sanford is a good ticket. I actually want something done in a big way on major issues and I think a bi-partisan ticket is a start.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Pablo,
Yeah, I know what you mean. I was really hoping we could got have gotten something like a Stalin/Taft ticket in 1952. That would have been a real uniter.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’ll never understand the idea that, by bringing together two people with entirely different ideas on every single issue, you’ll somehow be able to “get things done” or “reach a consensus”. If all you want is to “get things done”, and you don’t really care which things get done, or how they get done, isn’t it more logical to favor a person who is ideologically close to the largest number of people? I.e, if 80% of the senate is between 35-60 (where lower numbers are more liberal) on the ideological spectrum, wouldn’t you want someone around a 50 or so? Is it terribly logical to suppose a person who’s a 10 (Obama), or a 90, will be able to bring consensus? Does it become more logical if you artificially link a 10 and a 90 together, under the artifice of a “ticket”? This is the aspect of Obama’s campaign that I find most disturbing. Large numbers of otherwise sane people have forfeited their reason.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I don’t understand the fascination with a unity ticket. A president from one party and a VP from another will not cause everyone to suddenly get along and vote like one big happy family. If anything, the opposite will happen. The pres is still the guy (or gal) in charge, still pissing off the opposition as he has throughout history, while the VP will be seen as a traitor by that very same opposition. And what will happen when the VP is called upon to perform his only real function in government: break a tie in the Senate? Will he side with the president or his own party? Either way, he gives the political finger to one of the parties and in effect joins the other. In a two-party system, there cannot ever be a true unity ticket: One must be “pro” one side or “pro” the other. The only unity ticket in US history - Lincoln-Johnson in 1864 - took a Civil War to create it, and then it failed miserably once Lincoln was dead and the War was over. Obama-Sanford, McCain-Lieberman - they sound great on paper but they will never occur, let alone succeed.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Dems and Reps could work together right now if they wanted to. They don’t need a useless VP from a different party to push them in that direction.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Alex (#9) — Was that a “no” on Staubach? Do you not like him?
May 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I like the idea. Throughout the primaries Joe Scarborough has been fair to all candidates and has offered a lot of insight into the “behind the scenes” aspects of running for election that most everyday people wouldn’t know. He seems like a really smart guy who thinks things through from all aspects. Wouldn’t be a bad choice IMO.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
25 — I think he’d make an abysmal VP — and he’d be President should anything happen to McCain!
That’s frightening.
Scarborough’s OK, but he’s a bit of a maverick on some of the wrong things…
May 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Re Palin, Jindal and experience….experience seems to be overrated when it comes to Presidential elections of late…Bush and Obama had(have)very little.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Agreed SAS. I’m really starting to think Jindal and Palin are our best options (though Palin being a new mother concerns me). I pray McCain doesn’t go for the safe pick, because if he does, we’ll lose. Obama is already starting to see a bounce in the national polls, and, while he’s still winning the electoral college, he’s doing it by a hair. The second EITHER New Mexico or Nevada goes blue, we’ll have real problems (assuming he wins NH and Obama wins CO and Iowa).
May 9th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Scarborough would be a great pick. He is conservative and could easily out debate anyone on the political scene. Like Reagan, he gets paid by General Electric to be on TV. Like Reagan, he chose to defend conservative values when they came in conflict with a Republican president. Scarborough did the same thing in Congress (along with Steve Largent and Mark Sanford) and kept his party leaders in line when they tried to back down on their promises. This is a great idea.