The Candidates
…I’m not the only one who’s think that Romney makes the most sense for Veep:
The prerequisites for John McCain’s running mate are clear: a Washington outsider with solid economic credentials who isn’t associated with President George W. Bush, can fill the vice-presidential attack-dog role, help win Western and Midwestern states and cut into Democrat Barack Obama’s fundraising advantage.
One candidate fits the bill: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
The challenge would be in overcoming the animus that set in between Romney and the presumptive Republican nominee during the party’s primaries.
Romney, 61, has “no shortage of strengths,” said Dan Schnur, who was McCain’s communications director in 2000.
During the primary, Romney proved he was capable of going on the attack, a skill that is required of vice presidential candidates. McCain felt the sting of that aggressive streak before the Jan. 15 Michigan primary, when Romney characterized his comments about the state’s job losses as a demonstration of “pessimism about Michigan’s future.”
On substance, Romney is strong in areas where Arizona Senator McCain is weak, in particular the economy.
For all of these reasons (and more) selecting Mitt would be a smart move.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
But Romney would turn off social conservatives.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I was as staunch an anti-Romney guy as any during the primaries, but even I’m coming around to thinking that Romney might be the best choice for VP. I’m not sold completely, but I think we could do a lot worse.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Correct wiseguy, it will turn off some, but as a social conservative (also economic and defense), Romney is the only choice I see out there.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Same with me. I didn’t like Romney. I still don’t really trust him. But I do believe that he presents the GOP with the best opportunity to hold the Mountain states. Mormons came out in droves to propel him to victory in NV. He definitely helps there. Probably likewise Romney can help in CO. If McCain holds those two he can really focus his efforts on OH and VA (Some Romney supporters claim that their guy puts MI into play. I’m skeptical of that though). Mormons know other Mormons and can network very effectively (from what I can gather). The lack of enthusiasm among Republicans is the single biggest advantage that the GOP has this year. Romney and his merry band of supporters can help to offset that by manning the phones, knocking on doors, etc.
And quite honestly if the Evangelicals want to pout over the idea of putting a Mormon, who shares their pro-life, anti-gay marriage and other so-con views and if those evangelicals will stay home simply because a Mormon is added to the ticket - even though the opposition is a radical leftist name Barack Hussein Obama that is cozy with terrorists and is shaky on preserving babies born alive after botched abortions then they can screw off and form their own party. Who do they think they are anyway? They’re not enthused and threatening to stay home because McCain isn’t carping about their issues enough - even though he nearly always votes their way on the issues they care about?
Falwell always thought he and his ilk were more important than they were anyway.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Romney will turn off independents. He’s an obvious phony, and non-ideological voters tend to value authenticity. He fails the “which candidate would you rather have a beer with” test, and miserably so.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
oops - lack of enthusiasm is the single biggest DISadvantage…
July 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Big S,
Romney is a phony. I always thought so. But put him next to Obama and he isn’t any worse.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
You’ve helped convince me that Romney would be a solid pick, Kavon, but I still believe Carly Fiorina is the best choice. Issues aside, Romney would be too predictable. Fiorina could shake the race up and really make a push for women voters without sabotaging any base or McCain’s status as an outsider. Experience is a nonpoint when Obama is the opponent and when John McCain is running at the top of the ticket (sort of like an inverse Dick Cheney selection) and it would force Obama to think carefully before attacking the most famous businesswoman in the world.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
You know what? I am throwing my lot in with the Rombots. They didn’t get their way by having their guy win. Some of them whined and moaned for a while and said that they weren’t enthusiasic about McCain. Fair enough. But the Mormons aren’t the ones that are constantly playing the “I’m going to stay home” card. The Evangelicals are.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Same as #2. I was in the anyone-but-Romney crowd but I think I would be okay with him now. The problem- He won’t boost McCain’s numbers nationally- just in a couple states- so I don’t think he would be the best choice.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Sorry Kavon, I can’t join the Romney-was-bad-then-but-ok-for-VP-now bandwagon. I don’t like him, I don’t trust him, and I don’t want him to be set up for another White House run in the future.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The focus of many activists on tactical things like phone banks and door knocking among the “base” are misguided. This year is very different from 2000 and 2004, and the Rove model will not work. This is an election in which Republicans will have to play electoral offense rather than simply defending the shrinking base. That involves reaching out to moderates, not exciting conservatives.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Big S,
I get that. But we can’t play offense this year. I would have been in 100 percent agreement with you. We’re going to expand the map. Bush screwed us over too royally.
How can we play offense? Where? Obama leads in every single blue state by double digits (with the exception of MI). Unless something dramatic happens, our only hope is to work the states that have a history of voting Republican. Like Ohio and Virginia and Colorado. If something dramatic happens and we are in a position to play offense then Romney isn’t going to hurt things.
I don’t like the way Romney ran his campaign. But strategically I’ve come around to thinking he is the best chance we have.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I can’t type today. I meant to say we’re NOT going to expand the map.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
#1 Wiseguy
Some day in the future, SoCons who refused Romney will wake up and realize that Romney is actually one of us. He will prove it by his actions. Regardless of what you think of his past, Romney IS a social conservative. I’m one myself and I fully support him, and I know many others who do as well.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Adam,
You make some good points and I don’t discount them, but Rob Portman also gets you much of what you described and he allows us to hold Ohio.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Here’s an idea for Team McCain:
Announce they are taking up Romney’s proposal for creating a COO position for the federal government. Announce that Romney is McCain’s nominee to be COO of the USA. Simultaneously announce a different and complimentary VP pick that secures other groups of supporters.
And run as a 3-man can-do team.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
There is a sizable chunk of the Republican base that has a problem with McCain AND Romney. McCain because he has crossed the aisle a few too many times, and seems unenthusiastic about some core issues, and Romney because he’s a convert-of-convenience with all the down-home charm of a used car salesman.
Would he help raise money? You bet. Who else could draw $5 million out of Utah in the primaries. Would he help in a few states? Probably. Would he be like ice water thrown on a good many Republicans and a drag on the ticket? Yes. And that is why he isn’t polling well as a VP.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Such an unprecedented move (the COO position) would give McCain a ton of attention as a guy who’s concerned about the federal government and the economy, and places the perfect guy in that position to fix things.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
JA Pruce,
I think that’s just a little too rosy. Portman is a fine man. But he is, for better or worse, wedded to the Bush administration. And aside from that he was one of 18 congressmen in Ohio. That means that most of the voters of the state don’t know much about him. If he were a senator or a mayor of a big city (like Voinovich) then I’d be more bullish on Portman.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#16: Metro
You and I are pretty much in agreement on our love of Romney, but I don’t think you or I or anyone else who has problems with Romney would not vote for McCain because of it.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Big S,
McCain can’t excite moderates against Barack Obama. It is beyond the realm of possibility. Moderates aren’t very excitable in the first place, but when choosing between a post-racial Cicero and a crotchety old guy from the wrong party, even in a parallel universe Mac only “wins” moderates. And if you just “win” moderates, and if your base is three times less enthused then the other guy’s (something like 47% of Dems are very excited about Obama compared to 15% of Republicans very excited about McCain), and if that base has already shrunk to a pinprick, you lose. Every time. This idea of solely focusing on “expanding the universe” is deeply misguided. I’m not saying, necessarily, that Romney is the solution for the base’s ails. But, he’s one potential solution, for all the reasons Adam outlined, and he’s an impressive enough figure (in debates, townhalls, interviews) that whatever squeamishness folks in center felt about the prospect of a “President Romney” will probably be diminished as they think about a “Vice President Romney”.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Metro,
“And run as a 3-man can-do team.”
They could run as the Hydra ticket.
It even SOUNDS vaguely environmental.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Adam,
Even if you were going to settle for playing defense, and targeting only states like Colorado, Virginia, etc., why on earth would you choose to select a running mate to target a group that 1.) is a small part of the population and 2.) has very high turnout within its ranks and votes overwhelmingly conservative anyway?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
He WOULD be like ice water in some places. But WHERE would he be like ice water? In Alabama? In Mississippi? I’m not too worried about that. The dirty little secret is that after Labor Day, all across the South, when the white folks see that the blacks are gung ho over Obama they’re going to reflexively vote McCain, regardless of who is at the bottom of the ticket. The same thin happened in 1988. Jessie Jackson ran all through the south to rally support for the Democratic campaign. What happened? Whites that didn’t like the elite northeasterner by the name of George H. W. Bush came out in droves to vote for the Republican ticket.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I actually wrote to Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla earlier this morning to address a few glaring problems I found with this article of hers.
Romney was harshly criticized by most economic conservatives who saw the former Massachusetts governor shamelessly pandering to Michiganders, by promising a mult-billion dollar government bailout of the auto industry. McCain, meanwhile, was lauded by many of us for being honest with voters there, telling them that many of those auto manufacturing jobs were simply not coming back, and that it was his priority to help those, through job training, make the transition to our globalized 21st Century economy.
She pointed out that Romney was a guest at McCain’s ranch in Sedona, Arizona, along with other potential vice presidential nominees such as Governors Crist and Jindal. However, what she didn’t inform her readers was what a McCain adviser revealed after the Memorial Day Weekend gathering: “McCain has gotten a good look at Romney as a competitor and as someone who is running in support of his candidacy, and frankly he can’t tell the difference. It’s been a very educational process. Let’s just leave it at that.” Even Rush Limbaugh, who was a Romney supporter, concluded upon reading this “McCain is not impressed with Romney. Thinks Romney is still out there running for himself.”
One factual error I caught was in her mention of the Mormon turnout in Nevada. The Silver State had a caucus; not a primary, as she wrote; which renders the fact that one-quarter of the participants were LDS, a lot less relevant regarding November’s general election.
Lastly, of what relevance was it to report that a Romney campaign adviser says in Hugh Hewitt-like fashion “The most logical person in anyone’s mind is Mitt Romney”? And why would such a quote warrant citation in the headline?
Kavon,
I know you’re of the belief that the average voter isn’t influenced by the VP, and whether he/she is prepared to take over in an emergency is the only concern, but according to the most recent Quinnipiac polls in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, 86 percent said the vice presidential candidate is “very important” or “somewhat important” to their vote. Only 10 percent said it’s not too important. And, in those three states, 8% of Republicans, 23% of independents and 35% of Democrats said McCain’s age makes them less likely to vote for him.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Here is my new VP test: post the video showing your choice moving/inspiring a crowd. McCain needs someone who will move people and the best evidence that a person can do it is that they have do it before.
Metro,
From a constitutional standpoint your idea is problematic. For example, where would this COO fit in the line of succession? Good intentions, but bad idea.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Big S,
Because to answer that small part of the population accounted for 1/4 of the votes in the NV Primary and WILL have an outsized effect in CO. Those are two of the four most important states this cycle. Also, yes, Mormons may vote overwhelmingly conservative anyway - but those Mormons will be a lot MORE likely to knock on doors of their neighbors that might be on the fence. I know it’s anecdotal - but I’ve met a share of Mormons. Whatever you think of Romney, the Mormons have a reputation of being good honorable people. They can convince those that need just a little bit of a shove - and they could do it in the states where it will be most beneficial.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
#27: Why would a newly created Cabinet position need to be in the line of succession? We’ve created many new Cabinet positions.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Aron,
You keep bringing up some austere quote from a McCain advisor about this trip. It’s kind of crazy, because I am sure you could all sorts of opinions depending on the advisor.
Secondly, Romney offered no bailout to the auto industry, you know and I know it. It’s a phony argument. He offered a path through deregulation and investing in research. Sounds pretty economically conservative.
I don’t even want Romney as VP, but your arguments are against are weak.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I think that one favorable aspect of a potential Romney Vice Presidential candidacy is his ability to transcend religious identity. If Romney were to lead the party in 2012 and beyond, he could be the post-religious affiliation candidate. Romney has an opportunity to really make the GOP truly ecumenical and build bridges across religious divides and schisms. One friend of mine was skeptical of a McCain/Romney ticket because of the latest focus on Obama’s flip flops. I had to remind him that any political evolution Romney may have experienced was due to conviction and not political expediency as in the case of Obama.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
#29 Cabinet officers are in line of succession. Would this COO come before the Sec of State, who is now first among cabinet secretaries?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
True. A few months ago I would have made the same argument. But the NV caucus had a considerably higher rate of participation than caucuses in similarly-sizes states - like Maine, Montana, North Dakota, etc. So the energy level is deinfitely there.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Matthew Miller,
As usual, you misunderstand independents and moderates. Republicans need them in order to win. They may not be “excitable” in general, but that’s not the issue. This is one of the worst years for Republicans in a long time, and expecting someone who spent the past two years making himself into the image of a “generic Republican” to help the ticket is rather silly. McCain is running far ahead of the party ID, largely because he is not a generic Republican. Putting anyone who is on the ticket will only drag McCain down.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Romney’s guys are putting the big push on. I give them credit, but he is not the guy. I suspect McCain will want to splash some waves. McCain is all about the band of brothers. He wants one to work with one.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
#35: Romney just announced he’s worn face paint and dogtags off and on his whole life while hunting varmits.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Metro, if he made Mitt chief energy, economic, and problem solver extraordinaire, wouldn’t that make McCain a PINO?
Just kidding poking a little fun!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It’s not that Romney is phony (you can’t fake success), it’s that he is not as slimy and slick as the rest (especially Obama and Huckabee). He is the prototypical outsider, coming from the business world with a brief stint in the statehouse, he embodies executive experience like no other. Anyone who says anything different is either jealous or ill-informed, and those attributes are the hallmarks of a Democrat.
It is Romney’s careful, data driven, fact based decision making style that led to his business success, and that is the kind of careful handling that our national economy needs right now, not political harangues or close minded ideology.
Not only could we do worse, we could do a lot worse. Give the guy a chance.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
#31:
You think Romney went from pro-gay marriage, anti-Reagan and Bush and pro-choice during his political career just out of the goodness of his heart? Sorry, but that is funny
July 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Big S,
Republicans need moderates. But, they can’t win with only moderates. I think you’re seriously underestimating how impressive the Bush machine was in 2004, and how virtually non-existent McCain’s is in comparison. Talk to people who’ve studied elections seriously; the notion that McCain can somehow best Obama with the worst campaign apparatus in modern history is laughably ignorant. Moderates will not knock on doors; they don’t do that sort of thing, especially not when the other guy is terribly exciting and has a post-partisan message. Moderates don’t organize precincts. They don’t send out mailing. They don’t micro-target, they don’t donate, they don’t man phones. The question isn’t “can we win with just the base?”- of course we can’t- but, rather “can we get ANYONE to vote without more excitement, more money, better organization, and is at all likely that any of these things will come from moderates?”
July 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
#39
Correction - Romney was NEVER pro-gay marriage. Find me one instance where he said he was.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Because to answer that small part of the population accounted for 1/4 of the votes in the NV Primary and WILL have an outsized effect in CO. Those are two of the four most important states this cycle.
Mormons make up about 7% of the population of Nevada, and about 2% of the population of Colorado. Mormon turnout is usually high, and the vote is overwhelmingly Republican. There’s not a whole lot of room there for gains in vote percentages via courting Mormons, maybe 1% in Nevada and far less than that in Colorado. That’s a huge concession by McCain for very little gain.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
39. Romney was NEVER pro-gay marriage. He was never anti-Regan as well.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Go, Vice President Quayle, go!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The “moderates will donate, organize, volunteer, campaign if only we had a more moderate candidate” idea is as ephemeral as the “well, the youth vote is finally going to push X over the top this election cycle”. Only it’s so self-evident, that no one bothers arguing it anymore, except deluded McCain supporters who want an all moderate, all-the-time ticket.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
DaveG,
It’s beyond me how you could equate Romney with Quayle.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
#42 I don’t agreeing or disagreeing with your assumption, but I understand that CO is 5% Mormon…if that changes anything.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
45.
Nearly by definition Moderates are not the most enthusiastic. It’s why they are moderate- hence the name. It’s like saying that Libertarians will have a strong organization- it’s impossible.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“It’s beyond me how you could equate Romney with Quayle.”
Indeed. Quayle was very sincere. He meant what he said.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Matthew Miller,
No amount of door knocking or pestering voters over the phone will result in a win for Republicans this year. You came close to hitting the target when you mentioned Obama’s “post-partisan message”. The only way to win this year is for McCain to be more believably post-partisan than Obama. He can start by shining the spotlights on Obama’s voting record and illuminating his dishonest straddles on many issues. Then, he can pick a running-mate who did not race to make himself a caricature of a run-of-the-mill partisan Republican, like Romney did.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Wow, MWS, enlightening.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“He was never anti-Regan as well.”
Need I drag up the footage of his debate with Ted Kennedy? Or will the quote do? “I was independent during Reagan-Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”
July 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The one thing McCain has to be cautious about is whether by not selecting Romney he causes an angry Mormon backlash that might threaten to depress LDS turnout in pivotal western States.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
BigS,
Where is your proof that micro targeting won’t improve things for MCCain.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
#42 I don’t agreeing or disagreeing with your assumption, but I understand that CO is 5% Mormon…if that changes anything.
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Membership_Statistics_U.S.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Romney is mega-unpopular. Every time he goes on a hypothetical ticket, he hurts it. (See surveyUSA). His support begins and ends with wingnuts and caucus goers. His UNapproval ratings are jaw-dropping. http://www.pollingreport.com/R.htm#Romney
July 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
All these arguments about the base not being important reminds me of Giuliani’s anti-early state strategy.
“This is a different year.”
“Momentum isn’t important.”
We saw how that worked.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Can romney really add votes or a state? No! This year the GOP name is toxic. McCain better come up with a better name than romney? If McCain is hammering obama on flip flop charges, and McCain’s theme is starting to be service, how does flipper, no service romney fit in?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Big S - as has been discussed many times before, and on this thread extensively, its not how many more LDS will vote for the ticket with Mitt vs one without Mitt. Its the enthusiasm, hard wrok, and deep pockets created by Mitt. And I’ve talked to scores of people who are not LDS who feel just as enthusiastic about him as the LDS themselves do. Its hard to argue against those credentials and his success.
Remember this folks, Mitt had gone from near obscurity to approx. tied in national polls by the time he dropped out, right? This is when he had not even campaigned in many, many of the states involved in the national polling. In spite of that he had caught McCain, and was continuing upward nearly every month. So, here is the point, if only 2% of the nation are LDS, isn’t it pretty obvious he was (and is) the favorite of millions of other people???
July 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Jason,
“Wow, MWS, enlightening.”
Hey, I try. When you said equating the two was absurd, that’s the first thing that came to mind.
And it’s the first thing that comes to a LOT of people’s minds when they see Mitt “what’s it gonna’ take to get you in this Lexus today” Romney. That’s why his disapproval numbers are skyhigh, and WAY too high for any VP pick.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Jason,
He has no proof. I’d guess he hasn’t seriously studied any elections. That stuff matters. ALOT. If you have it, and the other guy doesn’t, you steamroll him. Pretty much routinely. Just take a cursory glance at election history: see how often the candidate who spends the most wins. And money is only a sort of stand-in for the more important factors, namely the bits that go into organization: i.e, money correlates with organization, and is therefore an easier measurement. And it’s extremely distressing to me that some McCain supporters think he can win a two-man race without money, without enthusiasm, without organization, by just “somehow” appealing to moderates.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
MWS,
As opposed to Mike “How much can you donate to my campaign to get a pardon?” Huckabee?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
#40 Matthew:
There’s something that’s always troubled me about that argument, and I’ve heard it any number of times, and I think I’ve finally figured out what it is.
“Moderate” is simply a label that applies to folks who aren’t necessarily excited by either end of the political spectrum at any given time. In 1940, a guy like Strom Thurmond was a moderate, because he didn’t believe in either the liberal Democratic party line nor the Northeastern Republican one. Now guys like Strom are the ones manning the GOP phone banks. In 1940, though, Strom’s followers probably weren’t going door to door for either party, while all of those Northeastern Tom Dewey Republicans were manning the GOP phone banks, folks that we’d now call moderates.
That’s what irks me about the idea that the GOP has to coddle, say, evangelicals, lest we cease to exist as a meaningful political entity. If the GOP became redefined as the party of, say, tight budgets, entitlement reform, smart government, and putting America first in her foreign policy, lots of current members of the GOP base would no longer be particularly motivated to work for or give money to the GOP. But lots of other voters, those who are currently reached by neither party, would be excited by this new entity and would be the ones knocking on doors and manning the phone banks.
Just look at Huckabee. Were he the nominee, there would be millions of fiscally liberal social conservatives excited about the GOP for the first time ever. Or look at Romney. Millions of LDS voters came out of the woodwork to work for him, probably many of whom had never done anything political before. Every candidate and every change in the party platform will reorganize the base in some way or other. But I think it’s a false choice to suggest that we either excite the current base or have no base at all. If the current base’s positions are simply anathema to the majority of Americans and simply cannot be the basis for a majority party in today’s America, there are plenty of other voters out there — some who we now call “moderates” due to their disgust with both a big-government, pacifist Democratic Party and a big-government, big-religion GOP — who could form the base of a new Republican Party, one that could actually garner majority support in today’s America.
Propping up the 2004 GOP and the Bush coalition perpetually is like a bad sequel to Weekend at Bernie’s. One that goes straight to DVD.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Jason,
“As opposed to Mike “How much can you donate to my campaign to get a pardon?” Huckabee?”
No. You got that wrong. Huckabee made his stupid pardons based on sad-sack stories, not campaign contributions. He was too gullible in some of his pardons. Not corrupt. There’s a difference.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
If an ultra conservative executive-type is what McCain needs he’ll go after Mark Sanford before even thinks about Romney.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
BigS,
Where is your proof that micro targeting won’t improve things for MCCain.
It barely worked for Bush, and now there are far fewer people to rely on to do the targeting, or to be targets themselves. Turnout-boosting schemes work when the party ID is about equal, but you can’t overcome a huge deficit like that when the field is so tilted in the Democrats’ favor.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
DAveG,
Any plan that involves the exclusion of one of the three major wings of the party is a bad plan. It’s plain nutty to think you can win an election in such a bad year for republicans by just writing off one-third of your base.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Jason,
“All these arguments about the base not being important reminds me of Giuliani’s anti-early state strategy.
“This is a different year.”
“Momentum isn’t important.”
We saw how that worked.”
Indeed. You know what’s so darn striking about this primary season, after all is said and done? That it wasn’t terribly different from past primary seasons after all. The next in line still won the GOP nomination. For all intents and purposes, there were still “three tickets out of Iowa, two out of New Hampshire” (Fred and McCain basically tied Iowa). The winner of the South Carolina primary still triumphed. The Dems through over their front-runner, yet again. To quote Shirley Bassey, “to me it seems clear, that it’s all just a little bit of history repeating”.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
But it’s not JUST the Mormons. The Mormons in Nevada made up a quarter of the caucus-goers but Romney got to 50 percent in the state. CO and NV are going to be close, and yes, Mormon turnout is going to be high either way, but I’d MUCH rather have an enthusiasic volunteer organization to counter Barry’s. I’ve come around to thinking that no one on the GOP side besides Romney has the enthusiasm to drive up turnout in the West . That alone is enough to give him the VP slot.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
What McCain really needs is an “overlap” VP - someone who attracts new voters and independents as well as energizes and excites the base. That is why Jack Kemp was such an impressive choice in 96, he really straddled a wide coalition. We need someone of stature like a Jack Kemp type who can appeal across the board to the many GOP factions.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush
-Mitt Romney
Yeah, that’ll rally the Reagan Democrats. A McCain-Romney ticket will instantly dwarf Obama’s flip-flops.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
MWS,
How about Mike” Lets destroy all the computers with incriminating evidence before I leave office’ Huckabee.
OR how about…
Mike “I will fire the Sheriff who investigates my son for stoning and hanging a dog” Huckabee.
It’s kind of ironic that a huck supporter would try and equate one of the most successfully business men in the country as a car salesman when Huckabee parked a double wide on the governors mansion lawn to live in during a remodel!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
#59 yes it is amazing how romney could go from being unknown to having such high negatives in polls! That is such a great feat, and it will earn him his position as ambassidor to Mauritius.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Hispanics are key in this election. Hispanics won’t vote for Romney.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Oh boy, another Romney thread.
“Romney is a saint.”
“Romney sucks.”
Personally, I have never seen a politician so shallow and lacking in substance of any kind invoke so much blind love and hate at the same time. Oh, wait… I forgot about GWB. Never mind. (Romney is not change I can believe in.)
July 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
#49. Right…
July 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Sampo,
He was referring to Regan-Bush Deficit spending. How about the whole quote? Do you wish Romney was in favor of their deficit spending?
Gotta run.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
#69:
If McCain wins PA, WI, OH, and MI, then winning NV, NM, and CO doesn’t seem as important. The 3 Western states equal only 19 electoral voters. The 4 MidWestern states equal 68 electoral votes.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
#42, #55
You’re right.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Great White,
Yes - but PA, WI and MI are much longer shots than NV and CO. The former three haven’t voted for a Republican since people were driving around in boxy-looking cars with ALF dolls suction-cupped to their back windshields. I don’t see any indication that in this terrible environment those three states will flip.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Florida Primary:
Hispanics:
McCain - 54%
Romney - 14%
LOSER.. LA-HOO-ZA-HERR!
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#FLREP
July 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
DaveG,
It is a false choice, in a sense. I have no qualms about the idea that today’s moderates can become tomorrow’s party regulars; that coalitions change and evolve and shift, and that certain candidates or ideas can foster entirely new movements; but it simply seems clear to me that this isn’t, and won’t, happen with respect to McCain. It’s been 6 months since he wrapped this up; he has still has no enthusiasm, either from base Republicans, or from any other sector of the electorate. Polls bear this out. There hasn’t been any flooding of GOP registration rolls; if anything the disparity is growing. And McCain has been an active figure in American life for a decade now. You can keep with the “wait, it’ll click. All these Mavericky signs he’s throwing off will forge us a new coalition. Just you wait”. I’m not nearly so sanguine. if it hasn’t happened it’s not going to. And you’ve tacitly conceded in the past, when you’ve admitted that McCain doesn’t have it in him to be a re-aligning figure. And yet you keep promoting strategies that are only remotely plausible with that sort of candidate. I understand you want re-alignment, but a smart activist works with what he has. And in McCain we have a guy with a strong personal brand and a strong political brand (though perhaps one that won’t resonate with the electorate this cycle), but terribly political skills otherwise. And that means no realignment. That means trying to create moderates who’ll become party regulars who’ll man the phones in one election cycle is inoperative. It means the base must be involved.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
#81, well then it looks like the GOP hispanics were gonna vote for McCain anyways.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
sampo,
I agree. If McCain picks Romney then he needs to sit him down and tell him to shut up about immigration. But I think you’ll agree that Romney will have no problem twisting himself into doing exactly what McCain tells him on the matter if he thinks he can land himself on the ticket.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
#80:
WI and MI and PA were all extremely close last time. WI was lost by only 12,000, votes (.48%). MI was less than 200,000 (3%). PA was also less than 200,000 (less than 3%) again.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
It is not terribly convincing that this board is slowing moving toward Romney. It would not matter if Race42008 unanimously agreed that Romney is the best VP. The problem is that we do not represent the voting constituency. The voting constituency is made up of many different pieces, most of which are fairly inflexible at this point. But the group that will count in the end — at least for republicans — is the middle-class, blue collar, value-oriented republicans who for the last decade or so came to believe the republicans represented their values, as opposed to the democrats (who used to be the party of the people way back when). These days they are really in a quandry over what to do, terribly unenthusiastic and strongly considering sitting it out. That’s because they don’t feel represented this time round. Even though lots of them may now believe President Bush took a lot of wrong turns, they were enthusiastic about him for a long time. McCain doesn’t cut it. And trust me, Romney will never cut it for them.
Please don’t bombard me with the “Romney is the best choice” — maybe for you guys, but not for the middle-class average voter trying to make ends meet, pays the bills and barely stay afloat.
I agree, however, that he will probably be McCain’s pick. More’s the pity!!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
81, Makes it-oh-so-much more pathetic considering that Romney outspent McCain probably 50-to-1 in Spanish ads. Plus I thought the pure and true Mittbots are rooting for McCain to lose so Slick Willard can win (lol) in 2012.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
It is not out of the realm of possibility that Romney could attract Hispanic voters if he were to moderate his immigration position somewhat to align more closely with a McCain or Lindsey Graham comprehensive model, but that definitely has to be a consideration.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Jason, they don’t care…they are completely dishonest in grabbing quotes out of context…There is no way a Romney would have allowed the deficit spending that Reagan did.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It is not out of the realm of possibility that Romney could attract Hispanic voters if he were to moderate his immigration position somewhat to align more closely with a McCain or Lindsey Graham comprehensive model, but that definitely has to be a consideration.
If you expect people to buy another Romney pivot on immigration, you’re dreaming.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
84, what you say is true Adam. But I have no use for president who simply says whatever he needs to get elected.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Great White,
I know that. In fact, a few months ago I was hopeful for all of those states - but not anymore. We have to be honest with ourselves here. It’s not 2004. If lost those states in 2004 with a motivated base, we’re not winning them this time. Matt Miller is right. McCain is not making people excited. That’s why I’ve made the unlikely switch in allegience to Romney for VP. Yes - he’s electoral poison in PA and WI. At worst he’s going to be net neutral in MI (though I think that state stays blue anyway) - and he helps in the West.
I don’t think we can play offense with our nominee this year. So the best way to defend the turf we have is to drive up turnout where we can. Romney can do this in the west and the south is crimson enough that his influence shouldn’t be detrimental.
I really believe this is the way to go.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
When it comes to conservative cred, Mark Sanford > Mitt Romney. Period
July 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
sampo,
Neither do I. But Romney isn’t going to be president. McCain is. Romney will just get to test-drive the vice presidency. If he screws up then he’s out. I don’t like it anymore than you. But we have to be honest - not enough Republicans are excited about McCain and there is no indication that enough will become excited about him by November.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Big S,
Maybe not so much a “pivot” as a de-emphasis. He would not be allowed to utter the words “sanctuary city,” “border fence” or “deportation” through the duration of the campaign.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
sampo,
Yes. But what is Sanford going to do to help us in NV and CO?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
JA Pruce,
Right. All Romney has to do is shut up about immigration.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Big S,
Maybe not so much a “pivot” as a de-emphasis. He would not be allowed to utter the words “sanctuary city,” “border fence” or “deportation” through the duration of the campaign.
Doesn’t matter. Democrats will be happy to remind voters of Romney’s previous positions, and he’d be asked at every turn to square his previous positions with his new ones.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
#92:
I think we lose this year if we don’t play offensive. That was the rationale behind nominating McCain was that he could hold the 04 red states and reach out to slightly blue states. The Republicans need to fight the Dem’s on their turf. I still think that those 4 MidWestern states plus a couple NorthEastern states (NJ, NH, and maybe CT, and DE) will still be in play.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Everytime Romney names pops out, the list of comments is HUGE. Romney does cause a reaction while other do not… whether you like it or not.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
And why wouldn’t Romney shut up about immigration if McCain asked him to? I have no doubt that Romney is genuinely a fairly conservative guy on immigration, but he spent the first 3 years of his Governorship not railing on about it. For large portions of the primary, he was muted on the subject. He’s not Tom Tancredo. It’s not going to make him seeth with uncontrollable rage that he can’t talk about border fences every two minutes.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
voter, you apparently did not watch the Romney campaign in Michigan. Those were the working class voter, and they were extremely excited about Mitt Romney. Go find some video if you doen’t remember.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The one thing that I hadn’t considered or thought of before reading these very insightful comments is whether a McCain/Romney ticket might energize Hispanics in CO, NV and NM against the ticket thus blunting any momentum among enthusiastic Mormons. Could the Democrats play some of Romney’s more aggressive immigration comments to cool Hispanic voters to the ticket? I don’t know. Or would Romney’s presence on the ticket help excite anti-illegal immigration voters in places like MI, WI, and Ohio?
July 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
deg,
Romney causes alot of positive reaction because he’s an enormously impressive guy. I’ve not been a Romney for VP advocate. I’m still not, although he makes my very short-list. But, I supported him in the primaries, and he’s one of handful of people in the Republican Party capable of dazzling. He’s also capable of coming across as enormously insincere, which no doubt inspires the negative feelings.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Part of this debate must also include timing. It would be a mistake to wait until close to the convention to announce the VP and then endure the envitable blowback during the convention. Frankly, its unwise to pick someone who has the potential to be in any way controversial.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Whose on your shortlist Matt? re:#104 (just curious).
July 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
JA Pruce,
1. Pawlenty
2. Carcieri
3. Palin
4. Romney
5. Bill Bennett
The 5th spot rotates a bit, but that’s where I am now.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
#103
The problem with Romney is that he’s boxed in on both sides. If he keeps his “generic Republican” positions, he will turn off moderates, but if he pivots, he will alienate his fans. Also, wither way, the tension between his positions and McCain’s during the primaries will cause too much of a distraction in today’s 24/7 media age. McCain needs to spend his time and money getting his message out there, not answering questions about what he and Romney plan to do about things given their previous disagreements.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Great list Matthew, thanks. What would you think about a McCain/Portman ticket?
July 7th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Big S,
That’s a better argument, which is part of the reason Romney’s not ultimately at the very top of my short list.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Jack Kemp was a great choice? That’s one of the best laughs I’ve had lately. Kemp was the very definition of “blah”.
A Kemp type selection would only assure that McCain foolows in Dole’s footsteps.
On the bright side, it could end up clearing the decks for 2012.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Bill Bennet certainly is an interesting choice and I think could fit the Jack Kemp mold of a VP candidate pretty well (in fact I think his name was mentioned quite a bit in 96). I think we need to emulate a “Jack Kemp” choice that will not offend any segment of the party.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Jim,
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Kemp. a lot of conservatives in 96 wished that the ticket had been reversed - he did and continues to have a lot of fans in the party. Kemp was the best choice in 96 and Dole got that one right.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’m too lazy to scroll up and find out who it was, but someone said we should concede PA and MI and simply focus on winning red states. I think that’s a recipe for a sure loss. Obama is going to win IA and probably at least two of NM, CO, and VA. That’s pretty much game unless McCain can hold FL, MO, OH and win at least one blue state, with MI, PA, and NH being most likely.
Something interesting happened in the Michigan primary this year. Romney won the blue Detroit suburbs while losing the red rural areas. Think upper middle class educated white suburban voters. The types that probably get excited about job growth, gas prices, crime, and taxes but not about abortion or gay marriage. Romney won them by running as Governor Fix-It/Good-Government Republican. He talked about economics in Michigan and didn’t try to be Bush III and won blue voters. I may not have said so at the time, but I was VERY worried about McCain after Michigan.
So how about this. Put Romney on the ticket IF he plays by McCain’s rules. First, his primary job will be to raise as much damned money as possible, which he’s very good at. Secondly, he should try to use cultural identity to up the Mormon turn out in the west because, as base as it seems, people tend to vote for the guy who reminds them of them. If that’s what works, then do it. Finally, send Romney to Detroit for the rest of the campaign and have him talk to Michigan voters about economics. No more trying to play Bush and talking about doubling the size of Gitmo or magic buttons that erase porn from your PC. No more photo ops with Ann Coulter. Just the three M’s: Money, the Mormon vote, and Michigan.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
JA Pruce,
I wouldn’t think much of it. His connections to the econ Conservative wing of the party are shaky, despite his stints as a trade rep and in OMB; he’s never been in business, as near as I can tell. So he’s unlikely to mobilize anyone on that side. He’s boring, if smart, and almost unknown in Ohio. And worst of all, he’s connected to Bush.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
“Fiorina could shake the race up and really make a push for women voters without sabotaging any base or McCain’s status as an outsider.”
—
Fiorina has too much to hide for a VP slot, and I doubt she could pass the vetting process, big risk, but otherwise it would be an interesting choice.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
#116:
If McCain is going to pick a business woman, why not Meg Whitman? She comes without all of Fiorina’s luggage.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I just heard something very dangerous on CNN. Carl Bernstein said, “John McCain is not the same as 8 years ago. He’s different in terms of synapses and in terms of policies. He’s now a generic republican.” Its been a while since someone so forwardly raised McCain’s age as an issue.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
That may have been me you were talking about. I just don’t see a scenario where we take PA or MI if we lose CO or NV. I don’t think we ought to totally abandon any hope of winning blue states - but I think we should really focus on shoring up base states first. Polling averages show us ahead in NV and MO and only slightly behind in CO, with VA being a pure tossup. It’s going to be a hell of lot easier to win those than PA.
I do like your 3-M’s idea though. Romney certainly can raise money, he WILL help in the Mountain West and who knows? Maybe there is something going on in Michigan (even though I remain skeptical). Even if we probably won’t win there, sending Romney to campaign couldn’t hurt.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Jason,
Yes, “some austere quote” that was never disputed or refuted by the McCain campaign.
“I’m not open to a bailout, but I am open to a workout,” Romney said of the auto industry, vowing to spend $20 billion over five years for research. How many Michigan voters mistook that for a multibillion-dollar bailout pledge?
“From legacy costs, to health care costs…Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer.”
Is it really the federal government’s responsibility to help prop up Michigan’s auto industry, that’s struggling because of its health care and legacy costs? It sounded like Mitt was suggesting his version of HillaryCare is part of the solution.
Jed Babbin called Romney’s ideas “a Khrushchev-style five year plan for Detroit.”
Ross Douthat noted at the time: “for weeks and months, conservative pundits - from George Will to the denizens of the Corner - have waxed hysterical about how Mike Huckabee’s criticisms of corporate excesses and his discussion of working-class struggles represent, in Will’s phrase, a repudiation of “free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.” Yet now comes Romney, making an actual substantive policy proposal that violates free-market principle, and the response in conservative circles seems, well, muted.
Romney, to his credit, did come out in opposition to increases in CAFE standards, but less than three years ago, he was complaining that we weren’t raising standards fast enough. “Almost everything in America has gotten more efficient in the last decade, except the fuel economy of the vehicles we drive,” he said in September 2005.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
End the end, I think it may come down to being this simple:
This is a year where the VP has to excite the base (because McCain doesn’t) and the middle (because the GOP is in the toilet). Screwing up either loses the election.
There are two personalities who can probably check both boxes: Pawlenty and Palin.
And in the end, that’s the shortlist McCain’s top people are debating.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Is that the same Bernstein who thought he was so smart writing a Hillary book last year that you can now get for $1.99 on the surplus rack?
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to him.
I would pay attention to our nominee being on the wrong side of 85% of Republicans and 60% of Independents on the key domestic issue of the election.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
jim, keep hammering on ANWR!
July 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Palin makes a McCain flip on ANWR most possible. Sign me up for the Palin camp. I don’t know how the hell I ended up in the same camp with IR-MN… but I think that says a lot about the power of that pick.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
So basically you agree Arton, it wasn’t a bailout? All you have is a quote from a Douthat that still doesn’t show where the bailout it is.
I don’t even need to point the hypocrisy on your part for not railing against McCain’s “Bailout” in clean coal research as pander to the state of PA. But I guess I just did.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Metro,
That’s my suspicion too, although I’d vaguely prefer Carcieri over Palin. But, I think alot of Pawlenty’s fortunes will hinge on what happens at the National Governor’s Association meeting this weekend. Pawlenty’s the chairman and, very conveniently for him, his initiative is “alternative energy”. With gas prices practically the biggest issue these days, that could give him an awful big platform to hop off of; if they actually make some headway on the initiative.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The thing is, Pawlenty will seem like a super nice guy to most, someone they can relate to, but won’t excite them. Palin will excite right and middle.
Haven’t seen Carcieri on video but I’m quite sure he can’t compare to Palin. Sounds like an identity politics play, but we need more than that.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Metro,
I think Pawlenty is more “exciting” then Palin on his own merits, but I’d concede Palin seems more exciting, due to a somewhat more compelling biography (in 2008 anyway). She’s a reformist, attractive, female governor. That’s pretty compelling. But, she doesn’t give a great speech, and she doesn’t even seem terribly serious on issues that ought to be in her wheelhouse (her interviews on drilling haven’t impressed me). I’m not convinced we can ride the “she’s a pretty woman” thing all the way to November.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Jason,
Hypocrisy? I was simply responding to Heidi Przybyla’s piece, disputing the notion that the presence of Romney on the ticket would satisfy the legitimate concerns economic conservatives have with the pandering economic populist McCain.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
OMG, 130 hits on Romney, when I was this thread and the comments, I though the “Whitey” video was released!
Last week Sarah Palin went to Homer, Alaska. They essentially shut the town down. They did not have an facility to hold enough of the public. People were driving and flying from miles around to see her, and people were actually parking miles away. Does this excitement remind you of another candidate in 2008? The local media were talking like the Pope had come to town.
McCain needs to make a statement with his VP choice. He needs to find someone as far away from the GOP establishment as possible and who is perceived as “clean” as possible.
Mitt is not far enough away from the GOP establishment, although Mitt is a great guy.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Getting to a quote from this article:
“The challenge would be in overcoming the animus that set in between Romney and the presumptive Republican nominee during the party’s primaries.”
If McCain allows a grudge to prevent him from selecting the best VP candidate then he deserves to lose. Arguments such as these suggest that everything is personal. Right now, it is about what is best for the country and best for the party, not about what is best for John McCain personally. Kennedy understood this with VP Johnson, Reagan understood this with VP Bush 41, and I think McCain also understands that.
I think McCain will select Romney as his VP for the reasons stated in the article, Romney is a Washington outsider with solid economic credentials who isn’t associated with President George W. Bush, can fill the vice-presidential attack-dog role, help win Western and Midwestern states and cut into Democrat Barack Obama’s fundraising advantage. Romney is also vetted.
No other prominent politician fits the bill.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m decidedly in the anti-Romney camp and that won’t change if he’s on the ticket with Senator McCain. His incessant pandering, seeming lack of convictions and outrageous claim equating campaign work to military service soured me on Slick Willard long ago. I have a hard time stomaching the idea of someone like Romney being anywhere near the GOP ticket. It’s hard for me to articulate it other than to say he just makes me very uncomfortable.
That’s not to say he doesn’t have his strong suits and could help the ticket in some ways. But his boosters would be wise to recognize that putting Romney on the ticket could do as much harm as it does good.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
cwpete,
I agree that Romney has a compelling case, but I’d disagree that he’s a good fit for the attack dog role. He did alot of it in the primary, but the mark of a successful attack-dog is someone who can attack another candidate, without coming off worse himself. That’s not Romney. With very exceptions (the attack on Giuliani’s immigration positions in that one debate stands out) Romney always came off looking worse after an attack. To an even greater degree then Hillary, Romney’s attacks drove his negatives up; he seemed like a jerk.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
#132. Aww shucks… Dude, you want to talk about pandering? Who doesn’t pander? Name him or her. Romney sucks at pandering but give the guy a break, he hasn’t been a life-long panderer like some of these other guys. The guy has convictions, if he didn’t have any he would have done the political correct thing by distancing himself from his religion. The guy a record of greatness and will bring that to the table better than any other VP. Romney is the best option for McCain period.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Micah,
I think that’s what it boils down to ultimately; Romney sucks at pandering. He can’t lie with a straight face. This is actually the same sort of quality that afflicts John McCain. Romney just decided to play the typical politician (i.e, shift positions and pander), whereas McCain normally goes his own way. That may be a mark of character for McCain, and a mark against Romney, but I confess that I prefer either of them to Barack Obama on that point, as I noted in my piece a few weeks ago. I’d rather have a politician who lied, but seemed ashamed of lying, then one who lies smoothly, convincingly, and without compunction (or even self-awareness). Better the man who goes against his conscience, then a man without one.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
a few days ago I mean.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Romney is a good pick.
But whenever Romney comes up we have comment diahrea on this board. Some one get a gun and shoot me.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Matt,
Romney’s attack success or in your opinion the lack thereof, is a testament to is willingness to actually do just that - attack. That is exactly why many like him some much, and that is why some dislike him so much. Romney can and actually will attack. Right or wrong, for better or for worse, Romney is capable of actually fulfilling the VP job duty as attack dog, which was the point I think the author was trying to make.
Romney had some very good attacks, and some that were not so good. I love it when he laid into Obama exposing him as the inexperienced light weight that he is.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Last week Sarah Palin went to Homer, Alaska. They essentially shut the town down. They did not have a facility to hold enough of the public. People were driving and flying from miles around to see her, and people were actually parking miles away.
Kristofer,
I must say, that does seem quite plausible.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
#139, LOL!
July 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Micah - you’re right, Romney hasn’t been pandering his entire life. He started when he decided to run for public office in 1994 and told MA voters he was an independent during the Reagan-Bush years and would be a stronger advocate of abortion rights than Ted Kennedy. And then, 12 years later, he spent over $50,000,000.00 telling GOP voters he is the second coming of President Reagan.
But take a look at the larger issue - if a sizeable number of us here on this board (most of whom I’m sure consider themselves right of center) see Romney as an opportunistic phony why would moderate voters (who will decide this election) feel differently?
The fact of the matter is that no matter much sense Romney for VP makes to some McCain will, in the end, go with his gut and pick someone he trusts. Romney is in it for himself and himself alone and thus won’t be the VP nominee.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Aron,
I think I saw Ted in that picture.
http://www.homernews.com/stories/070308/news_1a_003.shtml
July 7th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Matt, regarding Romney’s ability to attack successfully or not. I would like your opinion on the The Smiling Assassin portion of that link.
I think the best argument for Romney’s unsuccessful attacking is the fact that he’s not our nominee. Aside from that, I think he’d be an excellent attack dog for the reasons stated there in that section of the link.
One has to workout hard prior to the championship boxing match. Many of our candidates simply refused to even throw a punch.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Romney does bring out the posters here on R408, that’s for sure. There’s something about him where you either love him and are redy to worship him or you can’t stand him and think he’s a phoney, fraud and charlatan. There’s really no middle ground.
As for Romney as VP, he makes a lot of sense in a conventional way and has a lot of benefits. He also has quite a few drawbacks.
I don’t see how him winning 39% of a MI GOP Primary really says anything about his ability to deliver MI to the party in November. By that logic, McCain should have no trouble winning NY and NJ, after all he won over 50% in both of them. I don’t see how winning a little bit more than a third of the vote tells us he’ll win the state as VP in a state where 103% of the black vote in Detroit will go for Obama and one that hasn’t gone GOP since 1988.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
How can Romney be the VP nominee when he basically (and correctly) said that McCain had no idea about the ecomony?! The no 1 issue of the election. It’s not going to happen.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:33 am
I just wanted to be the 146th comment. wow. And it took me forever to read through them all. For better or worse, Romney and the “love him or hate him” talk kept me interested whereas John hasn’t ignited a single thing in me. He better get someone that can do some igniting or this will be one ugly election.