GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I’ve been having fun just posting random thoughts lately, but I figured I should actually be serious for a few minutes.
When it comes to John McCain’s selection of his VP nominee, I have been doing some thinking, and have come to some conclusions. Personally, I would like to see Bobby Jindal as his VP, for no other reasons than the fact that he’s brilliant, conservative, and he brings some youthful excitement to the ticket. He’s also succeeded at taking over one of the most politically radioactive jobs in the country and has maintained his support. However, there are some concerns about him that I understand that make many uneasy, and would not be upset if McCain went in another direction.
Putting aside my own personal preferences, I think John McCain should seriously consider Rudy Giuliani for his running mate. Mark Twain once said, “There are lies, and there are statistics,” and that’s basically how I feel about the VP polls that we are seeing, which are really nothing more than name recognition points, at this juncture. The plus to having Rudy on the ticket is that he would not only add needed traction in states such as Pennsylvania, but also because he balances McCain’s weaknesses possibly better than any other. One of Giuliani’s strengths during the primary was on economic policy, exactly where McCain has had some problems with groups like the CFG. The problem with picking Rudy would be the fact that while McCain should do well among social conservatives, they don’t exactly trust him yet. I don’t know how well they would respond to a McCain/Giuliani ticket.
Mitt Romney would also balance the ticket quite well. While he still seems to invoke the passions of many of those who didn’t support him during the primary, I think he would bring the ability to raise money that McCain has been lacking. Romney is not without his weaknesses, and there are a lot of folks who don’t trust him, but he’s not an unknown quantity and McCain is strong in areas where Romney has had trouble in the past, such as gun control and his past position on abortion. Plus, Romney would balance McCain’s weaknesses with his strength in economic areas and his support among social conservatives.
There are other candidates who I think would fit well with McCain. Tim Pawlenty seems to be a candidate who many on the right would feel comfortable with, Rob Portman has an impressive resume, and there are probably others who I’ve forgotten to mention.
Personally, I am open, but not yet sold on the idea of Sarah Palin, which seems to be the latest trend in political circles. I think she could be a solid pick, but I don’t support ideas that seem like a gimmick to win votes, and please note that I’m not trying to belittle her or her resume in that regard. I just have yet to make up my mind about her. I have serious reservations about picking a woman, if it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and pick off disgruntled Clinton supporters. If that is the case for all the excitement surrounding the idea of her as a possible VP pick, then it is not much better than the other infamous gimmick that has been floated around the internet, the idea of Joe Lieberman as McCain’s running mate.
People can usually see through gimmicks, and the idea of picking Lieberman is nothing more than a gimmick to win votes, much like the democrats floating around the idea of picking Chuck Hagel. Neither brings anything to their ticket except the votes of those who can’t see it for the joke that it is. Palin, on the other hand, may turn out to be a great choice, but I don’t support the idea of picking a woman (or a man, for that matter) that would be nothing more than a blatant attempt to win votes when there are better candidates available. I’m not saying that Palin is not the best candidate, but I would like to see how the idea sells and what she brings to the table besides her gender before I decide. I could vote for a McCain/Palin ticket. On the other hand, I see no benefit of adding Lieberman to the ticket and would not support it. If it’s a certain former governor from AR, then I’d probably end up with a Bob Barr bumper sticker on my car.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
can any libertarian leaning people here explain to me the appeal of bob barr? he didn’t represent any of the libertarian / ron paul causes when he was in office. he advanced the war on drugs, voted for the iraq war, fought for the defense of marriage and patriot acts, and opposes medical marijuana. how does he represent the libertarian party?
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
While he still seems to invoke the passions of many of those who didn’t support him during the primary, I think he would bring the ability to raise money that McCain has been lacking. Romney is not without his weaknesses, and there are a lot of folks who don’t trust him, but he’s not an unknown quantity and McCain is strong in areas where Romney has had trouble in the past, such as gun control and his past position on abortion. Plus, Romney would balance McCain’s weaknesses with his strength in economic areas and his support among social conservatives.
As an unabashed Giuliani advocate, I think I should point out that his fundraising during the primaries was about the same strength as Romney’s, and he actually came out ahead of him in contributions in 2007 if you exclude Romney’s own bank account from the calculations.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
joe c,
There isn’t any appeal. I don’t want to be given that option.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Many would find a McCain/Giuliani ticket to be offensive and it would depress turnout. McCain needs someone who is a solid economic and social conservative to balance out his weaknesses. Giuliani would be a disaster. Romney would be better, but still troublesome. I don’t think he should pick any of the former GOP primary candidates.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I agree with EricB. Giuliani would be a disaster for the GOP. The more he campaigned in the primaries, the more people disliked him. That is why he lost - it wasn’t because of his defective strategy or positions on social issues. The reality is people didn’t like him. That isn’t a good quality to have.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Since this article is about cutting some slack on the weaknesses of Guilani and Romney to focus on their strengths, I will answer as such:
Guiliani has a lot of strengths that people like. Unfortunately one of the main issues, is a MAIN issue so a majority of the right will scream wildly over being pro-choice. If it is Obama, it is irrelevant as the right would come around. Rudy had some good ideas that people would warm up to in regards to economics and security.
Romney has some strong complimentary strengths to John and has a squeaky clean image along with offsetting John as the Washington outsider. His weakness of pandering will easily be overcome if Obama is the nominee as the 5 months ahead would really show how much experience these two combined have. John’s experience in Washington, on national security, etc. and Mitt experience in the business world, cutting costs, turning things around, etc. It is easy to point to Mitt’s accomplishments in life.
As the title suggests, there are a lot worse options. Would they make the best options? That is for another thread.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Unfortunately, Rudy would turn off SoCons (and I say that as a big-time Giuliani supporter), and Mitt turns off the moderates who McCain is courting. Plus, neither haas much chance at giving the ticket a more edgy, change oriented flavor…which is, among other things, why I’m backing Palin. And no, I don’t back her as a gimmick, she’s a tremendous leader.
You are right that McCain could do much worse than Giuliani and Romeney, but I think he could also do much better with a Palin or a Jindal.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I like Jindal as well. He would be a great pick.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Jindal is too young, and would thus be almost impossible to sell, despite the fact that he has more experience then Palin. I have reservations about both Rudy and Romney, but either would be better then Huck or Lieberman. And everytime I’m near to sold on Palin, I see something that makes me hesitate. I saw that interview with Glenn Beck yesterday (it’s on youtube) and she was talking about energy policy and drilling and the like, issues that she ought to be able to expound upon with great depth, and I kept thinking to myself “terribly nice lady, but wholly lacking in anything approaching gravitas”. The prospect of Palin as VP excites me at times, and horrifies at other times, and I’m going to continue to do some soul-searching before I come to a definitive conclusion on her.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
OK, here’s a question: what’s the better strategy - to announce first or let BHO announce first?
If Mac announces first - let’s say that it’s Palin or Whitman - then BHO counters with HRC, McCain looks foolish. If BHO goes first, and announces HRC, then there’s no point in trying to tap a woman - she’ll pale in comparison. If BHO goes first and announces someone other than HRC, then there will be a temptation by Mac to pick a woman. If Mac goes first and picks a Pawlenty type, than BHO has an open choice to make.
So in this game of prisoner’s dilemma, what should McCain do?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Matthew,
I saw the same interview on Beck, and kind of came away with the same impression.
PalinforVP,
I just need to be sold on her. I didn’t doubt that you liked her for any gimmicky reason. I believed you. I’m just trying to feel her out.
To everyone,
I personally would like it if he went away from the other candidates as well. However, I think there are a lot of choices worse than either.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
David,
Good question. McCain should forget BHO and concentrate on what they feel is best for his campaign. BHO isn’t going to pick Hillary, and it would come across as a sellout to her supporters who are mad.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If McCain’s going to pick Palin he should do so at least 1-2 weeks before Obama chooses his running mate; she’ll look like a token pick if he waits til Obama’s chosen.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
For what it is worth, Intrade are betting on Clinton & Romney for VP:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/03/gamblers-bet-on-clinton-and-romney-for-vp/
Most people vote for the person at the top of the ticket. John McCain is the man now.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#10 David wrote “If Mac announces first - let’s say that it’s Palin or Whitman - then BHO counters with HRC, McCain looks foolish. If BHO goes first, and announces HRC, then there’s no point in trying to tap a woman - she’ll pale in comparison.”
You forgot to add that many of the MALE VP contenders will pale in comparison too. rolly eye.
And I was just beginning to think that the Republican party had evolved into more than just an “old boys club”.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
#15 - if it’s HRC, Mac will really have to roll the dice on his pick - someone VERY out-of-the box. The Whitman or Fred Smith option becomes more viable.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Nice dodge, #16.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I have been of the opinion for some time now that no matter who won the Republican nomination, their pick for VP should have been Sarah Palin. The fact of the matter is, even if she weren’t a woman, she’d still be a lot more exciting than a Pawlenty or a Crist. And the fact that she’s a woman (a not-too-bad-looking one at that, and one whose pro-life convictions go beyond political posturing we’ve seen of late) makes her even more exciting than she would be as a man. Republicans shouldn’t have to be *afraid* to pick a woman who’s qualified just because it’s seen as the realm of the Democrats to nominate women.
Jindal would be great, but it would be a huge insult to Louisiana to leave office so soon, when they need a good governor so badly. He should certainly run in 2012 if McCain loses; and if McCain wins, he (McCain) should serve only one term - then Palin (assuming she’s VP) could run for POTUS and Jindal could be *her* running mate in 2012.
Romney is a terrible choice. I hated the thought of Giuliani being President, but I think he would be an asset as VP. Maybe he would even be able to prove himself to sceptics like me that he’s worthy of the highest office in the land.
Finally, in response to joe c. at the top, I actually intend on voting for Barr/Root this go around, mostly because I’m from a solidly Republican state so I know it won’t injure McCain in the long run. Barr hasn’t been terribly un-Libertarian throughout his political career, and I feel he’s sufficiently explained and compensated for his poor decisions as a Congressman. It’s my hope that a significant turnout for Barr will show Republicans that the Libertarian wing of their party turns out votes and means business. Because even though I still think of myself as Republican, I certainly don’t intend to continue to support the GOP for much longer if its future lies squarely in the hands of “compassionate” neo-conservatives.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“to pick a woman who’s qualified just because…”
Is Palin really the most qualified candidate?
More than any other issue, McCain will need someone who brings economic credibility to the ticket - do you really think that is something Palin does? Is this beauty-queen-turned-mayor-turned-half-turned-governor really someone who Americans could instantly see as President?
Here’s an idea - screw “excitement” as a primary factor in picking the Veep. How about we start picking based on competence and experience?
If Palin was the most qualified pick, or the best fit for what McCain needed in a Veep, I might be open to her. But she is neither of those things.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Its probably too early for Palin…given how much Obama will be exposed as the university socialist he is,there may be no need to take the risk of going “edgy” with Palin..Romney or Rudy will do just fine…just expose what Obama is…the guy with the Michel Foucault reader in his pocket
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
#19 “Here’s an idea - screw “excitement” as a primary factor in picking the Veep. How about we start picking based on competence and experience?”
It’s the old which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg argument. An economic guru of a VP won’t be able to advise McCain unless they get elected.
How can McCain argue “change” when he’s got the “same old same old” on the ticket? Actions speak louder than words.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Whitman or Fiorina
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I think most of you are fussing too much over experience. Experience may be the most important criteria to all you political junkies, but it’s not to the general public. It’s LOOKS and LIKEABILITY.
“Winning an election is all about selling your brand, say marketing researchers. And that brand better look good”
http://www.livescience.com/history/080201-candidates-marketing.html
#22. Sarah Palin beats out Whitman and Fiorina in looks and likeability hands down.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Great, so lets just pick the most likable beauty queen to run the country.
You are picking a person to run the most powerful country in the world, you aren’t selling clothes or cars.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
For me its:
1. Rudy
————
TIE Romney
TIE Condi — if she comes out strongly for prolife.
TIE Sarah Palin.
Rudy has given a promise to Socons on what he would do with judges so I think after a couple of months Socons would rationalize that Rudy would be acceptable. Remember, in the Primary, Socons look for purity not practibility. In the general they will look at Obama and compare him against McCain and Rudy and would support the GOP ticket.
In my opinion Rudy is the best choice. Romney and others are good second choices but I think it would require some more work and courage from team McCain to work under some additional burdens.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
So that Rombots don’t bash me. Let me rate them on executive ability:
Rudy/Romney — Once in a generation type of executive ability. I think they are both outstanding. If I could be silly and compare them to a juggler, I think both of them could juggle 10 or more balls in the air at once. I think their ability to multitask and accomplish goals are legendary. Romney excelled in bott business strategy AND OPERATIONS at the same time. That’s insane no one does that in the business and succeeds. Whereas, Rudy excelled in New York, a monstrous organization, without even blinking an eye. He was none to micromanage everything and still succeed.
Condi — I have no idea about her executive ability but I imagine she would be the equalivent of an above average governor. She would do well but she could be overwhelmed by doing multiple roles at once. She strikes as someone more comfortable governing with thoughtfullness and intelligence not someone who had to make quick decisions. If I compared her to a juggler I would think she would be able to juggle 5 balls at once. Not fantastic but sill pretty good.
Sarah Palin — I think she is very much an unknown. On paper she looks good but I don’t it is that hard to be the governor of Alaska. I think she just has average executive ability. She is probably a 3 ball juggler.
Note: I think McCain is a 3 baller by the way.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Post#25 is right, it is definitely Rudy. John McCain will win through his own merit , regardless of who he picks for his ruuning mate. But Rudy will surely help him tremendously
since both men have the same values , philosophies, priorities, and both are comfortable
with each other. The big plus with Rudy is name recognition which Palin is lacking, as well
as the experience and muscle to take over the presidency at a moment’s notice if he has to.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
David B raises an important point — that if McCain announces his VP pick second (which he likely will, since his convention is second), then he can callibrate his pick in reaction to Obama’s.
This is one of the reasons why McCain should have a fairly good sized short list (and, for the record why Rudy and Romney should be on it). If Obama goes the “sop to the feminist route” and picks Hillary, Romney would make more sense. If Obama goes the populist route with Webb, Zell Miller would be a great counterpunch. If Obama goes the “VP hatchet man” route and picks Biden, then Rudy would be an outstanding choice. If Obama goes the safe route with Bayah, then perhaps Pawltney or Ridge starts to make more sense.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
The VP doesn’t do shit except campaign for a few months, then sit around for four years, hoping the President doesn’t die (or that he does, depending on their ambitions). For that, Sarah Palin is the most qualified. And if McCain did die in office, she wouldn’t be any less qualified or able than someone like Chester Arthur or like Gerald Ford. Arthur was tapped as VP simply to appease those in the Republican Party who opposed Garfield’s nomination; he was disliked upon taking office after Garfield’s assassination; he ended up being rather well respected as President. Ford, of course, was never even nominated or elected - just picked because of his ethics. He governed not too badly as President after Nixon. Palin would be just as well off as either of them in the event she had to take over, which I don’t foresee happening.
So I stand by my assertion that Palin outranks everyone else because she’s competent, has low negatives and high positives, and she doesn’t come across as some policy wonk devoid of personality like almost everyone else. In other words, she might make people *excited* to vote for McCain in a year when excitement is *all* that, thus far, has mattered to voters and Republicans have exhibited a serious lack of it. Everyone talks about how McCain needs someone who’s going to magically make up for everything that McCain lacks and have a ton of experience and be brilliant, yada yada. The problem is that George Bush picked a VP based on “competence and experience”, and I hope we can all agree that *that* didn’t turn out too well. This is one of those years when competence and experience don’t get votes… ask Hillary Clinton.
Unrelated to Palin, however, I have to say that I’m on the side of those who think McCain should announce before Obama who his VP will be. Obama has completely dominated the rhetoric and campaign structure this election cycle. Even McCain’s speech tonight was filled with stylistic flairs borrowed from Obama (cf. “Leadership we can believe in” with “Change we can believe in”). McCain really needs to assert himself and his own candidacy as more than a reaction to Obama’s candidacy. If McCain picks his VP after Obama, then all we’ll hear about for a week is a million rationalizations of how whoever he picked was chosen in response to Obama’s choice. McCain needs define his candidacy himself, and he can’t do that if he’s constantly a step behind Obama.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
#24 Two words: Arnold Schwarzenegger
June 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
The picture is pretty clear, by now. It is Obama definitely in the enemy camp. i predict
that the dream team ( Obama- Clinton ) wil not happen, because Obama will realize to his
horror that if it does happen, it will be a threesome presidency i. e. Obama- Clinton-Clint
Clinton presidency. He will then pack his bags and run away from Hillary. McCain should
then woo the disgruntled Hillary voters, Independents ( Rudy voter bloc ) Reagan Dems,
and moderate Pepublicans. Again, I say that a woman ( Palin ) cannot be predicted in an
emergency or dire circumstances, when an istant decision has to be made. is she experienced
enough to handle a gargantuan task as the US presidency?
June 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
#31 Glo, are you saying that all women “cannot be predicted in an emergency or dire circumstances, when an instant decision has to be made”?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
HeartMeRoar #32, I say that the US presidency is a gargantuan task even for a man, and
and a woman is unpredictable in enormous dire situations, definitely, an unsually
exceptional woman like Margaret Thatcher maybe can handle it, but not most, sadly,
for most women. So, please note I did not say, all women.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
After watching both McCain’s and Obama’s speeches on TV Tuesday night, McCain no less than NEEDS to run Alaska Gov Sarah Palin as his VP mate.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Wow, 33. You are pretty bass ackwards in your understanding of women, huh? Women are thoroughly capable and competent decision makers, even in dire situations. Have you ever seen a woman whose child was in danger?
June 6th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I am not backwards in my understanding of women as post # 33 , Seth says. Incidentally,
I am in exactly in the profession , where i took care of countless children in danger
and I have seen firsthand, mothers froze!