GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
If the rumors about the short shortlist are true, and if McCain really has winnowed his choices for running mate down to Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, and John Thune, I’ll be more than happy to endorse Portman for Vice President of the United States. To be fair, I like the also-rans a lot better than the shortlist. Pawlenty is interesting. Crist, interesting. Ridge, Lieberman, Palin, Cantor, and even Huckabee are all more interesting than those who have reportedly made the finals. They’re interesting because of their quirks, because of who they piss off and why, and because each is unique for lots of different reasons.
But McCain has probably decided he wants a safe choice — someone who won’t rock the boat, as it were. Hence Romney, who has probably never tried to piss a single person off in his life but seems to do a very good job at generating emotion on this blog, as well as Portman and Thune, even tempered and mild mannered in typical Midwestern fashion.
If this is the shortlist, then in my opinion, Portman makes the most sense. He’s from Ohio, a battleground state that both candidates need to win. The fact that he’s from Ohio means that he will carry himself like a guy from Ohio, and guys from Ohio tend to be very similar to guys from Michigan and guys from Pennsylvania, meaning that Portman should be able to connect to folks in the Pittsburgh and Detroit suburbs just as easily as he connects to those in his own Ohio congressional district. As Matthew Miller and others have demonstrated before, John Edwards may not have helped Kerry win North Carolina in 2004, but the fact that he was culturally a North Carolinian seemed to net Kerry a few points in North Carolina and adjacent southern states. I don’t know about any of you, but I’ll take a veep who can net McCain a few thousand votes in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Portman’s also a down-the-line conservative, but his focus is on economics. This will help McCain for a number of reasons. First, economic conservatives are suspicious of McCain, and they’ll have a friend in Portman. Secondly, Independents fear that McCain doesn’t have the know-how to turn around the economy, and Portman brings that expertise to the ticket. Third, Portman’s congressional record and stint at OMB would reinforce McCain’s image as a deficit hawk. Bill Clinton showed in 1992 that a bad economy doesn’t mean folks want more government spending. Clinton won that year by promising to cut spending and close the deficit, arguing that what was needed was not more spending but a stronger economy that would produce jobs for Americans (isn’t it sad that the last fiscal conservative in the White House was a Democrat?). Perhaps McCain/Portman could articulate an economic message that would be distinctly conservative but would appeal to the majority of Americans.
Finally, neither of the other two candidates on the shortlist bring nearly as much to the ticket as Portman. John Thune is a well-respected fellow and by all accounts a decent human being. But putting him on the ticket is pretty much an admission that every other potential veep will hurt the ticket, and that he’s only there because McCain can’t run alone. Romney’s pros and cons have been debated before and will be debated again. Let’s just say that I don’t think Romney will ultimately help in Michigan, and while I do think he may marginally help in the west among LDS populations, and due to his pocketbook, I still remain wary of mixing maverick Brand McCain with generic Republican Brand Romney.
I could very well be wrong about Romney. And McCain could end up picking someone that’s not even on this list. But if this is the shortlist, McCain could do a lot worse than Rob Portman.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
What about the Bush connection problem?
June 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I dunno. Isn’t OMB generally considered sort of its own animal?
June 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Since so much is made of appearance these days Portman did not look so good this Sunday. His hair has gotten whiter and he was awfully pale.
To be part of Bush’s economic team is about the worst you can do (other than being part of the planners of the Iraq war). Portman will have to defend deficits, debt, falling dollar, war costs, etc. That’s too much baggage.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“Portman’s also a down-the-line conservative, but his focus is on economics”
…and he comes with built-in ties to the very administration people like you have been telling us to avoid.
—
” I still remain wary of mixing maverick Brand McCain with generic Republican Brand Romney.”
McCain has to add someone from the Reagan Conservative wing of the party - and Romney isn’t a Generic Republican, at least not any more than Portman. Romney is a Washington outsider, someone who could really give Obama a run for his money on the “change issue”.
—
In any case, and I’ve said this before - you can’t just run a “do no harm” candidate. The direction of the GOP for the next couple of decades very well could rest on who is McCain’s VP - because they will become the favorite for the 2012 nomiantion battle, and I think 2012, one way or the other, is going to go to the GOP.
We can’t have some weak, unexciting, so-so candidate setting the direction of the Republican party for the next thirty years.
…and I don’t think we can wait another eight years to find our direction.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
#2 You are probably thinking of CBO.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I am surprised Sanford is not getting more attention?
June 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
DaveG,
Your info parallels what I have been hearing too. I am hearing that Portman could be the one and it might be announced shortly.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
If McCain is looking for a safe pick..well he must be looking at the 1984 electoral map.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I just read Portman’s Wiki biography. Pretty well-rounded guy, said by Robert Novak to be Bush’s choice for McCain. He only served about a year as OMB director. On paper he appears to be just what McCain needs (except I repeat he looked a lot older this Sunday than last time I saw him.)
As with any candidate, he would need to be vetted thoroughly. He was in congress so there are a lot of votes to review. He also worked for a couple big law firms so their client lists will be scrutinized.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Portman? He’s fine on the issues. But it’s not going to solve the enthusiasm problem.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The McCain Veepwatch, Vol. 5: Rob Portman
Portman would be, for the most part, a Hippocratic Oath selection; but commensurate with the low risk, comes a small reward. He would be the appropriate competent yet uninspiring counter to an Obama/Bayh ticket.
In the vetting I’ve done so far, the only things I see that could pose a problem with independent and swing voters are his support for a federal marriage amendment, his support for banning gay adoptions, his support for mandating school prayer and denying federal aid to schools not allowing a set aside time for prayer in the classroom. On economic and defense-related matters, however, he’s solid, if not spectacular.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Dave,
You know I love you and all… But I find it quite perplexing that you disagree with me on Romney because he represents “Generic Republican” yet you would support the selection of someone from Bush Administration who are the folks that got us in this mess in the first place.
How can McCain runs as the “American Sarkozy” if he chooses a Bush Administration official as his Veep? He should just choose Condi Rice in that case, as she is a.) female, and b.) one of most qualified people on planet earth to be POTUS.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Rob Portman has a number of other appealing advantages besides residing in a pivotal swing State. Portman knows the economy like few others and Rob is a young man of 52 and could bring some youth and vitality to the ticket. He could also appeal to the youth vote and pull some of the 18 -36 yr. old demographic away from Obama. Portman is also a Methodist which compliments McCain’s Baptist faith tradition nicely in the Midwest and South.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I’m not big on Romney, but even he seems to have a dedicated base of support. How is Portman supposed to lift the spirits of the battered Republican rank-and-file?
June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Looks as if th NRA is about to get involved in this election. I knew the party base would get involved. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11452.html
June 30th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I agree with Ajay. Everyone stop and think for a minute. McCain is behind now and will be all summer. This is not 1984! I will tell you what happened in 1984. When Mondale picked Gerladine Ferraro for his VEEP in 1984, it took Reagan about a month and a hlaf to recover and relaign his campaing to beat Mondale, even though he won by a big margin. VEEPs don’t necessarily help but they can cause the race to be shaken up and make people rethink their decsion on the direction of the race and who they would consider voting for. If McCain wantas to shake up this race and cause a stir and get people to say “Hey, this is bold and and shocking and I may have to rethink this.” Condoleeza Rice would be a good pick. Forget being tied to the Bush Administration. Colin Powell would be an awesome choice. I would even go with Michael Bloomberg. Forget that he is pro-choice. Even with a supposedly conservative court now, Roe V Wade has not been overturned. He can help run the economy. McCain will pick the Supreme court justices.
But many of you shake your heads at this. I am telling you if McCain goes safe and puts a usual Republican on the ticket, it will be a yawning effect across the country. Meanwhile, Obama gets someone who will reassure people, and he gets the attention and the bump in the polls. McCain needs every advantage he can get.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Another encouraging attribute about Portman is that in Sen. McCains two-tiered selection lists, Portman overlaps the “Base Consolidator” and “Base Broadening” lists putting him in the small but highly desirable list of candidates for the campaign’s target.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
#1 and #2 — The Bush connection is the downside of a Portman VP selection. No matter how compelling a choice may otherwise be, if they have Bush connections that is all the MSM and the Dems will talk about. But, again, as I have opined before, this election is going to be more about the “style” and the tactics and the approach to politics than about a specific philosophical approach to particular issues. So, if Portman can somehow suffice in that realm
then maybe he can mitigate the Bush problem.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
#16, well you essentially just repeated what Rick Davis said last month. You are making sense.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
See, I think some Bush Administration officials are more equal than others
There’s a reason Condi Rice and Colin Powell have higher approval ratings than Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. There’s a reason every Democrat I talk to still seems to like Tom Ridge, despite the color wheel of terror.
Portman wasn’t with Bush very long, and his role was basically to support tight budgets. I don’t think that Bush’s failures will be attributed to him.
I only support Portman if the choices are the three that were mentioned in Politico today. I agree that there are better Bush Administration officials to choose from (Condi, Powell, Ridge) and there are lots of people to choose from who never worked for Bush. But basically if we’re talking Romney or Portman, I think that Portman is less toxic as someone who walked into a mess someone made for him, as opposed to Romney, who ran towards the mess that is today’s GOP, wrapped himself in it, and ran on being part of the mess.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Atleast put Colin Powell on the ticket. That would shake things up. He is well respected among independents, has been vetted, is a person who was a joint chiefs of staff chairman, has poliitcal experience, foreign policy experience, articlute, smart, a good speaker, and is in the mold of John McCain. It would help with Independents and would get those Democrats wo are scared of Obama and might jar loose a few people who support Obama into their senses as he flip flops on other issues to please the center and pisses off the far left.
Turn him loose and let him run as he always has been. I swear McCain has been sleep walking throught his campaign. Who gives a damn what Wesley Clark said. Who gives a damn about Bill Clinton and his talk with Obama. McCain needs to be defining Obama about taxes, healthcare, Iraq, Iran, and a whole host of issues.
I know this pisses people off when I say this, but the people who support the GOP (those who are left after the 2006 disaster) and conservatives in general have to come to grips with this reality. This is not 1984!!!!! The GOP is in the worst shape since 1964 and possibly since 1932. If they think they can win this election by playing it safe, they will get their a– handed to them in the fall. They havwe to redefine themselves and be the party of real change. If not, then expect the following introduction in the Capitol for the next eight years the last week in January….
“Madame Speaker, I present to you the President of the United States, Barack Obama.”
June 30th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
#12 - Kavon, while Romney has had no official connection to Bush, he ran a campaign that was straight from the Bush/Rove ‘00 and ‘04 play-books and was suspected by many, including me, of being the Bush/Rove-favored candidate in the 08 primary. So, if Mitt should be selected as VP, would he be the Mitt that got himself elected governor of Massachusetts or would he be the Mitt of 08 and would he satisfy the need in the GOP for a total break from the Bush/Rove “style” and approach to politics? I’m waiting to be convinced.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
One other thing, let Powell or Bllomberg run the economy. I want McCain to do three things: Balance the budget, appoint conservative judges and kill terrorists.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
YES! Let’s have the White House budget official that has given us massive deficits! I can see it now; MAC will be doubling-down and truly running for Bush’s Third Term as to the economy, which as we all know is a very important issue and something the Bush Admin hasn’t done a good job of maintaining. And how in the world is a congressman from Cincinnati going to deliver OH? If these are the three, then Thune. At least he slayed Daschle.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
#20, DaveG– “I think that Portman is less toxic as someone who walked into a mess someone made for him, as opposed to Romney, who ran towards the mess that is today’s GOP, wrapped himself in it, and ran on being part of the mess.”
YES!! A very good way to describe what Romney did in his race. That’s what I was saying, a little less eloquently in my response (#22) to Kavon’s comment.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
#22 - yes, he ran as a Conservative - and was not afraid to criticize Bush on a host of issues.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
McCain is so unpredictable and frustrating, and no one can seem to understand his logic for many decisions he makes, outside of foreign policy. All this VP speculation is looney (but fun). Clearly the reason why there is more McCain speculation in the media than Obama is because McCain’s team has no idea who he is thinking of. They have already confirmed he is working with people outside of the campaign on this selection, such as Trent Lott.
I would not be surprised if McCain went with either Gingrich or Scarborough (I am serious, look off the list).
June 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
#21 - Stephen: Philosophically and intellectually, the GOP is in the worst shape since 1932! While ‘64 was a wipe out, we at least reestablished some intellectual capital that paid dividends down the road.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I see no chance of Condi Rice being picked by McCain. She was opposed to the surge and supported a troop pullback in late 2006.
In fact, McCain’s website boasts an article by Fred Barnes that took a shot or two at the Secretary of State.
How Bush Decided On The Surge
June 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Rice and McCain are also not on the same page re: North Korea, and they were deeply at odds over Israel’s strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor last year, which McCain approved and Rice strongly opposed.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I don’t buy any of this. These are all red herrings.
McCain’s pick is going to be bold and get people talking. Think Petraeus, Rudy, Meg Whitman, Palin and (God Forbid) Powell.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Aboard his airplane in April, McCain said Rice needs to; “share the blame for the failed strategy in Iraq”. Oh yeah, she’ll be VP.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Add Lieberman and Rice to that list.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
McCain is a man of big gestures. And this is the year a VP pick has bigger meaning.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Jindal also makes the list for age/race reasons.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
# 28- Chris: I’ll give you that about 1964 had good ideas that paid dividends later. But Bush has tainted that conservatism with a huge budget deficit and could not get control of the border until public frustration got so big he had to do something about it. Also, if he was in the mold of Ronald Reagn, he would have done what Reagn did in his years in office. Clean house when he got re-elected. He should have fired Rumsfeld, done the surge 2 years earlier and we would have headed off the total fisaco that was 2005-2006. Reagan even softend his tone somewhat in his second term towards the Soviet Union. mainly because they got a leader he could work with. He spoke to Gorbachev, although he never stopped publicly denouncing communism (like when he said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”).
Bush should have started anew in Iraq and put a fresh new face on his agenda and his administration. The consrvative ideals that Reagan fought for I agree with. But Bush tarnished them with his bone-headed response to everything. he is just like Obama excpet on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Obama won’t change on Iraq inspite of the fact that things are going well there. Bush was not going to change inspite of the fact that things were going so bad. It took an election in which he and the whole failed GOP spectrum lost us Congress amd all the gains we had in 2004 to finally make a much needed change. Now we are paying the price as a movement for his lack of control of what was going on.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
We can only hope that #31 is correct b/c these lists are discouraging.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Metro, I thought you were a Romney guy? Anyway, Rice is not going to happen. I honestly believe the McCain family thinks Rumsfeld and Rice caused the unnecessary death of American soldiers over a failed policy. The McCain family takes this stuff SERIOUSLY AND PERSONALLY.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
On #31. I would think so. I mean the McCain camp most know what’s going on in the electorate, right? They’ve probably heard of intrade, look at poll numbers, know what Bush’s approval rating is, etc.
I think Palin would be a great choice electorally speaking. While she lacks some experience, can you imagine how all the moderate women will react if Obama and the media attack Palin for being inexperienced?
June 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
#39, You may be correct. Although a small and unscientific sample, look at some of the posts from the women on this site.
In addition to your post;
McCain has a serious image problem of being too much of a “tough guy”. He needs to take the tie off and go earth-tone.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&eurl=http://www.rightminded.net/2008/06/30/veep-dubiety-romney-portman-palan/
Do you guys remember this great moment in TV?
June 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Good point Ajay about Obama and the media attacking Palin. That would bring back memories of the way they treated Hillary and would reinforce Obama as a sexist and an elitist. Imagine if they try to say she is inexperienced. She can fire back by saying “I’ve got more executive experience than you!” The website http://www.nobamanetwork.com is filled with links to sites mainly sponsored by women who hate Obama, and I can just see the reaction they will have when one of their own is hit like Hillary was. The teory Dick Morris put forward is that Hillary would bring out 20 million new female voters who have never voted before. He also says as I agree, that McCain needs a “wow” candidate to make people rethink this race. She could appeal to those women and shake up the race.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
38. Yeah, I think he is really fond of him. Many times in the primaries it was very difficult to get Metro to talk about anything but Romney and how awesome he is.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
34. He is, and I have special gesture I would like to give to him.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
#39 I think McCain would be the one attacked for selecting someone inexperienced. I listened to Palin on that BobandMark show and she came across as somewhat immature and petty. Whoever these guys choose are not going to be compared just to each other but to Cheney. And Palin doesn’t measure up.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think most McCain VP selection only have downside.
McCain can pick a base pleaser but most independents would run away like cockroaches exposed to the light.
Likewise if McCain picks a moderate or a pro-choice He-Man candidate (as some on here suggest), many social conservatives will stay home. Most of them won’t even stay home out of anger. They’ll just not feel enthusiastic enough to vote.
I think we’ve only got 2 or 3 VP picks that have the potential to appeal to more voters than they disappoint.
The “pro-choice” (obviously the person growing inside the mother doesn’t get a say in that choice) options are all pitiful losers. Most of the base pleasers are either typical Republican politicians or not widely known.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Doug likes Sanford.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
New Rasmussen Poll just released showing Senator McCain with a 7 Point lead in Florida with very good internal favorable’s and very Bad internal favorable for Obama. Also Alabama was polled and McCain leads there by 16, i’m sure we’ll see these poll’s posted sometime tommorow morning though but just wanted to give you guys a heads up. Found the poll’s at pollster.com.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I get the impression DaveG has a wall with the names and pictures of politicians who don’t make him throw-up.
Each day he throws a dart at the wall and the politician he hits he supports for that day.
I suspect DaveG used this method for horse races and after the loads of money he made is trying to apply it elsewhere.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
#49, NEWSFLASH!
Just off the Politico web-site;
Pictures and Darts is the process McCain is using to select his VP. “Insiders worry that due to McCain’s war injuries (limited mobility of the arms), he may actually hit the picture of Lindsay Graham on his bedstand.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Even if Palin or Whitman or whoever brought out a fraction of that 20,000,000 new female voters, that would be mighty helpful.
As for age, Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence and has pretty much only been in the Virginia State House for a few years. Madison and Hamilton were in their early 30s and had similarly thin resumes. Sp for those who say Jindal or Palin or whoever is too young or inexperienced, think again.
As for Portman, he does nothing for me. I suspect he won’t do much for too many others. Romney has more things going for him than Portman.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I get the impression DaveG has a wall with the names and pictures of politicians who don’t make him throw-up.
LOL.
When I was younger, there were politicians that excited me.
The older I get, the more I settle for politicians who simply don’t cause me to throw my empty Coke can at the TV, inevitably missing and getting Coke stains all over the carpet.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I think it is important to remember that the massive expansion in the size of the US Government in the last 30 years, and the three wars we currently are in, the VP pick is more important than ever in history. The VP can no longer just attend funerals and make the tie breaking vote in the Senate.
Thank god for Dick Cheney. We was probably the only reason why Bush did not did not go all Jummy Carter on us.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The fact is that in my opinion i believe that Tim Pawlenty would be the best pick for McCain. Pawlenty stuck with McCain during the summer of 07 when people were calling McCain all but dead. Pawlenty does very well with working class hard working people and he is good on social and economic issues and is pretty clean personally so there would be no need to worry about that.
But i would have to concede the fact that Pawlenty is not very well known and that could hurt but Pawlenty and McCain are as compatable as it gets and they are very close friends. McCain has sent Pawlenty overseas to speak in other countries and Pawlenty has really good foreign Policy experience for being a Governor.
McCain/ Pawlenty 08′
June 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Kavon spits up drink all over keyboard and frantically searches for something to wipe in up with.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
21. “I know this pisses people off when I say this, but the people who support the GOP (those who are left after the 2006 disaster) and conservatives in general have to come to grips with this reality. This is not 1984!!!!! The GOP is in the worst shape since 1964 and possibly since 1932. If they think they can win this election by playing it safe, they will get their a– handed to them in the fall. They havwe to redefine themselves and be the party of real change. If not, then expect the following introduction in the Capitol for the next eight years the last week in January….
“Madame Speaker, I present to you the President of the United States, Barack Obama.”
Ding, Ding, Ding!
June 30th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Portman is a horrible waste of a VP choice. Yes let’s pick a guy who ties our candidate at the hip to the disastrous budgetary policies of the Bush administration just when we need to run as far away from him as possible. Absolutely brilliant. And for what? He has economic “expertise”. Yeah and? So do a dozen other potential picks. Romney. Fiorina. Whitman. Huntsman. Those are just off the top of my head. Oh, and he’s from Ohio. Again so what? He’s never run statewide. He represented one of the most GOP districts in the state, a district so red that Jean Schmidt has been able to hold it despite being a complete disaster. What’s his name ID statewide, 15% if that? Just a goofy choice that the beltway insiders want to throw around.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
HearMeRoar,
what are your thoughts?
June 30th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
#55 LOL, I read that item about the same time you posted that.
#46 Doug, who do you think those few names are who’d please the base and independents both?
June 30th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
So I am guessing MetroRepublican is not a Romney guy?
Did he work for Vermin Supreme or something? (Fill me in please)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNr_LZpMHqA
June 30th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
58. McCain has got to choose someone other than the “same old, same old”. The MSM is also portraying McCain as the walking dead (and sometimes he looks it too!). And will someone teach McCain how to use the internet? He always sounds so out of touch to anyone younger than 35 years old.
If I were McCain, I would rather lose by going bold than lose by going safe.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
#59, The only non-controversial VP picks I can reveal that fit that category are Palin and Pawlenty. I’ve got another VP pick but it’s a bit more controversial and less likely to occur.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Kristofer, I posted hundreds of comments here saying that Romney was an unelectable phony.
I was a Rudy guy.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
you miss a key element of portman: he was a longtime member of the bush administration, and will help underscore ‘bush 3′ attacks.
i think mitt brings more in terms of money, volunteers, organization, and he is introduced and vetted. we dont need a month of ‘who is portman?’ better to hit the ground running.
plus i havent seen portman out front as a surrogate. i think only the ones tested with the pundits are truly under consideration. its like mini tryouts to see who best stays on message. mitt is tens times the campaigner of anyone else on the list, although thune is very good as well.
portman is a cabinet secretary no doubt, just not vp.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I agree HearMeRoar. If you are going to go out, go out in style and go all out with everything you have. Sports is a good example of this. Those who play it safe and play not lose do just that…LOSE!!!!!! McCain, if you are listening and have a brain…forget Fred Barnes. He is just pissed off because there is not another Ronald Reagan around the corner coming to save the day. (Reagan is my favorite president, I should say, and I do think Fred Barnes is a good conservative, but he needs to shut the hell up and go after Obama and get off McCain’s back). He is pissed off because he did not get the ideological pure candidate.
McCain, Go get the VEEP candidate that is competent and will help us win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Fred wants another Reagan, then here is my advice to you, Fred…GO TO CALIFORNIA AND DIG HIM UP!!!!!!!
June 30th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
#63, Sorry dude, now I feel bad about sending that letter on your behalf to Al Jazeera.
(j/k)
I was not seriously engaged on this site until the end of May.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
#62 Doug, do we have to ask for your third choice???
July 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
#62 But Pawlenty fairly week on both counts. Agree with you on Palin. Curious about the controversial pick…
July 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Well, I think Pawlenty has upside but it’s limited. At worst he’ll do little harm among independents and he’ll only do a little good among the base.
He’s a low risk and low reward pick.
As far as the other pick, if I decide to write on that it will be in its own front page post.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am
Doug is a blog-tease.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:32 am
Everyone should relax. It won’t be announced soon. McCain loses control of parts of the media cycle if he does. It will be announced in mid-August at the absolute earliest.
I’m not sold on these three. Thune would be my pick of these three, but none of these would make any large chunks of people get off the couch on election day.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:43 am
Thune would get my vote too if it came down to these three.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
Metro,
The difficulty is that most VP’s really aren’t national figures, nor do they have national ties, and they’re not likely to excite anyone beyond their own merits. That’s why we keep hearing about Romney and Huckabee, even though they have massive drawbacks. Because they’ve spent 2 years building a national following, national infrastructure etc. The same would go for Rudy, potentially, but I get the sense that by the time the primaries started, most Rudy guys who weren’t in Florida had sorta of moved on. DaveG was a Rudy guy, but he spent the months before the primaries writing articles promoting McCain. I don’t think, outside of Florida and the Mid-Atlantic, Rudy has any national following to speak of. So you either choose Romney, Huckabee, or you choose someone who’s capable of building a national following through their own skills or their connections. This is part of the reason I’ve mostly settled on Pawlenty/Palin/Carcieri.
Palin is capable of building a national following, since she’s a woman, and really friendly. In a year where gimmicks are all the rage, one could see an awful lot of people getting excited about Palin. And she likely does nothing to frighten anyone off (though I suspect her abortion position is controversial). Carcieri is a business leader, which means he could fairly quickly bring to heel alot of the people who donate money, run the campaign infra-structure, the business community. And, despite his success, he comes across as a pretty regular guy.
Pawlenty has deep ties to evangelicals; his pastor heads the National Association of Evangelicals. That’s 45,000 churches. It’s no coincidence that David Brody over at the Brodyfile has been spending a significant amount of time on Pawlenty of late. First there’s the “The Perfect Evangelical Veep” article, and yesterday an interview with Pawlenty. I suspect there are an awful lot of evangelical leaders, waiting in the wings, ready to sing Pawlenty’s praises if he gets the nod. This doesn’t always trickle down to the rank and file, but Pawlenty’s a perfectly nice guy, with a record evangelicals will like, and who’s more then capable of charming people, when given the chance.
I don’t see anyone else equivalent to these three in this regard; capable of potentially mobilizing a significant segment of the coalition/electorate nationally in a few months time, without pissing anyone off. Jindal probably could (again, due to the novelty bit), but Jindal seems inoperative on the heels the ID bill; that needs at least a few years to simmer before he can escape a national backlash.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Portman ?
Another un-vetted ” who-he” candidate. What are we on…a suicide watch? Portman’s claim to fame is that he worked with Bush on the country’s economy? You have got to be kidding. McCain’s Doctor Strangelove game plan is to wait until September 1 and then pivot ( if that’s physically possible) his VP announcement between Thursday and Monday before the Minneapolis convention and start running for November. That gives him 60 days to introduce a VP candidate who will spend each and every day explaining what he did or did not do for George Bush’s economy….while gas goes to $ 5 / gallon/ . This is unbelievable.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Pork spending thune
July 1st, 2008 at 9:37 am
#11,
In the vetting I’ve done so far, the only things I see that could pose a problem with independent and swing voters are his support for a federal marriage amendment, his support for banning gay adoptions, his support for mandating school prayer and denying federal aid to schools not allowing a set aside time for prayer in the classroom. On economic and defense-related matters, however, he’s solid, if not spectacular.
Some people here are claiming that the selection of Portman would “do no harm”, but if these things are true, the pick could be disastrous. Why do conservative pundits keep promoting nutjobs like this? First Jindal, then Palin, now Portman? Please.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Good post!
One thing I would add is that an arugment can be made that both Romney and Portman help the ticket economics-wise but as you correctly point ut Portamn can relate to middle-class suburbanites in the industrial midwest in a way that the silver-spooned Romney cannot.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
#36 - Stephen: Oh yeah! That’s why I say that the GOP is intellectually and philosophically bankrupt and therefore in the worst shape since 1932.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dan
How exactly does Portman / Bush economics better relate to the middle-class suburbanites in the industrial midwest? Many are out of work and all pay the same for gas. Is Portman better able to explain the sorry policies ( of his and GW and the beltway crowd) that got them that way?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Doug, not fair. Let’s have that front page post.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Doug, lets go……….., we want to see it, and it better not be Buddy Roemer or Oliver North.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
If these are seriously McCain’s top choices, then he is truly insane and has
no place anywhere near the White House! But I really believe this is all hype –
McCain keeps insisting he doesn’t even have a short list; yet every week, we have
a new flavor from the short list that doesn’t exist. The deveopments are as follows:
Mid-May, as per US News (same exact source that recently touted Pawlenty), Huckabee was at the top; immediately thereafter little whispers saying he received a visitor in Arkansas telling him to remove himself from the
list (which is nonsense, it isn’t Huckabee’s place to remove himself - that is McCain’s job) and
the Washington Prowler announcing he wasn’t really a team player, etc. Then came the barbeque: Up from the
ashes rose Romney, Crist and the new star Jindal (with all of five months’ experience). At the
same time, McCain contributors leak that McCain is complaining Bush & Co is twisting his arm
for a Romney selection. For whatever reason, this is seen as positive for Romney, whose stock
begins to rise. Immediately following the barbeque, Jindal becomes the future Reagan
(and the Washington Prowler advises us that Romney pre and post primary is all the same).
And, of course, our boy Tim — always the front runner all along, suddenly tells a ridiculous
joke about his wife and his stock plunges. Jindal is lapping it all up. But wait — Jindal,
we discover, is an exorcist and not really a fiscal con at all (worst crime one can commit).
Down the pipe goes Bobby — and all of his five months’ experience.
Then suddenly, US News (after two separate reports in May confirming four different leaks about
Huckabee) claims Tim Pawlenty to be top of the liter (without a word to the nary about what
happened to all the Huck supporters). And at the same time, Bill Kristol decides the best
choice is Sarah Palin (who absolutely no one in the world — except for Ted — has ever heard of).
But she is the “woman” who will lure all of Clinton’s female supporters (you know, those feminists,
pro-choice ladies).
And this week’s roll drum: Romney is at the top of the heap along with two
picks that would make even Pawlenty seem exciting.
I don’t know about you but ——!!!!
July 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Kristol, in yesterday’s interview with Alexis Glick on Fox Business, backtracked away from his assertion on Fox News Sunday that McCain is going to put Palin on the ticket:
Bill told Alexis: “I’m not saying she’s the only good pick. I think there are several good picks…I think she deserves to be considered.”
July 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Portman? Who’s Portman. Romney is the only pick I can think of where McCain would get my attention. McCain really needs to show he can still reason.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:07 pm
voter is the George Carlin of Race42008.