GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Now that my sleep schedule is so thrown off, I don’t wake up until mid-afternoon, and thus, don’t get to posting until the late afternoon or evening. But anyway, here’s the post!
Whose VP stock do you think is rising, staying steady, and falling?
Me:
Rising: Palin, Giuliani (although I still consider him a longshot), Crist
Staying steady: Pawlenty, Romney, Petraeus
Falling: Lieberman, Ridge, Jindal
I still insist that history tells that McCain will select Pawlenty, although, as MetroRepublican has pointed out, we shouldn’t rule out a bold choice such as Petraeus.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/voters-know-they-want-vice/story.aspx?guid=%7B4859A5B9-1F8F-4F2B-A28B-C2ACE2FD35F0%7D&dist=hppr
it says GOP voters favor most a strong conservative with executive experience. I still think most GOP voters want Romney (doesnt mean that I do).
July 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Petraeus?
McCain himself already has enough military / foreign policy credentials. Having Petraeus as VP does not really bring anything to the ticket other than additional IRAQ / IRAN gravitas which McCain already has a lot of.
Petraeus does not balance out the ticket much.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I think Romney’s stock actually fell this week with Phil Gramm’s comments. Fairly or unfairly, many working-class people probably conjur up an image of Romney that is similar to Gramm’s– CEO/corporate America type out of touch with the economic struggles of working people.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ticket-balancing isn’t needed with a general. Powell would help McCain win, too, even though he’s not really a balancer, either.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I would add Eric Cantor to your (slightly) “rising” list, Portman and Thune to your “staying steady” list, and (sadly) Mark Sanford to the “falling” list.
Just curious, but can you really see David Petraeus leaving the battlefield to joining McCain. I think it would hurt the general’s reputation.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Why do you guys leave Huckabee off these evaluations?
July 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
McCain need strong economics man.
Thinking outside of Washington and the box would be a plus.
That brings up Steve Forbes once again!!
July 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#6. Because he’s not worth evaluating.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
If the McCain camp and the RNC want to know where they can get information for campaign ads, look no further than this site for a documented list of Obama’s lies.
http://www.antiobama.net/2008/07/obamas-list-of.html
This is a list of all the times Obama has deliberately tried to misled us or has said something that he emphatically denies. For example: There is the Tim Russert transcript that shows Obama did in fact say that Bush started the war in Iraq for political reasons when he says he never made sucha statement. Or the fact that he takes credit for reducing welfare rolls when he was against welfare reform. Or back in 2004 when he said that tropps should not be withdrawn.
You could run dozens of ads with this stuff alone. This alone would be enough to tear him apart and ruin his credibility. I am no politician, but I have enough political sense to know that his own words are his worst enemy. His associations pale in comparison to this! There should be an ad every week on the air in the states of PA, MI, OH, NH< NV, and NJ. Each week it could start like this: “Senator Obama, do you remember this?”: and then the ad can run his words or any audio of him saying it. Folks, I am not an Einstein or a genius in any shape or fashion, but I could make God knows how many ads on this alone. I really feel that McCain is not fully using what he can. McCain and the RNC have 95 million dollars in the bank. My God, use it!!!!!!!!!!
Add Palin to the ticket, and we look like we are serious about reform and moving beyong Bush. Also, it would be a nice jab at Obama if he selects a man for his VEEP. With her we have a chance at those Clinton supporters who are suspicious of Obama and really don’t like him and some who will vote for him because they feel like they (as of now) have no other choice.
By the way, add in the fact that Obama says we must learn Spanish, and people will begin to see who he really is and out of touch he is. Also, now the Germans don’t want him to come to their sacred icon the Brandenburg Gate and give a political speech. This guy has no clue whatsoever.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I am one who admires and respect success. Especially when it is earned and not inherited. I’ve always preferred leaders who are successful in both their personal life as well as business and other areas.
Success in these areas are only construed as political liabilities by those who seek to divide by class warfare.
Right now, moderates will probably go for an untested Obama on economic matters over a tested McCain who openly admits that fiscal policy is not his strong point. McCain requires a VP who can fill the void on the economy. That issue must be balanced.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Wow, Steve Forbes? For all of you out there thinking that the best way to win over voters on the economy is to get a successful businessman as VP, stop. I don’t care that it makes sense to go for someone who actually understands business to solve the economic woes of our country. They will be seen as the cause, not the cure, and it’s going to hurt us significantly with voters we need to win.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Just curious, but can you really see David Petraeus leaving the battlefield to joining McCain. I think it would hurt the general’s reputation.
He’s leaving soon, anyway.
I would add Eric Cantor to your (slightly) “rising” list, Portman and Thune to your “staying steady” list, and (sadly) Mark Sanford to the “falling” list.
It’s not going to be Cantor, Sanford, or Thune. I highly doubt that it will be Portman; I think that he’s just an obsession of the Washington insiders.
Wow, Steve Forbes? For all of you out there thinking that the best way to win over voters on the economy is to get a successful businessman as VP, stop. I don’t care that it makes sense to go for someone who actually understands business to solve the economic woes of our country. They will be seen as the cause, not the cure, and it’s going to hurt us significantly with voters we need to win.
Correct.
Why do you guys leave Huckabee off these evaluations?
Because he isn’t going to be VP.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“Success in these areas are only construed as political liabilities by those who seek to divide by class warfare.”
And that would be those who, through their poor decision-making, have ended up on the short end of the econoic stick. These are the independents we seek to woo in order to win. I’m not saying it isn’t sensible to actually have someone who’s a self-made success, but they turn off a sizable portion of the public that we need to take a chunk of to win.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“They will be seen as the cause, not the cure, and it’s going to hurt us significantly with voters we need to win.”
If those in poverty view those who are not in poverty with contempt and resentment, then they are doomed to poverty for sure.
The person that is needed to fix the problem is the person who understands the problem. That person needs to have a track record of successfully fixing past problems of this nature. If such a person is resented for past success, then they are helpless.
If a patient refuses to see or listen to their doctor due to success in the medical profession, they they are incurable.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Mitt leads all other candidates by over 10 points on intrade.com. Its been that way for over a week now.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“but they turn off a sizable portion of the public that we need to take a chunk of to win.”
Exactly, Such an electorate can only be pandered to. They are beyond fiscal help. Their problems are a result of their poor choices. That is harsh, I know. But they still have their agency.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Alex, with all due respect, you and I both know that David Petraeus can better serve his country as commander of all forces in the Middle East than running as McCain’s possible VP. Though I agree that Portman is the dream of Washington insiders like Novak, the suggestion of Petraeus is the fancy of people who need to realize that McCain cannot just double-down on security and foreign policy to win. Let’s not ignore the domestic front.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Rising: Giuliani, Crist, Graham
Steady: Sanford, Romney, Huckabee, Ridge
Falling: Palin, Jindal, Bloomberg, Lieberman, Portman, Fiorina, Whitman
July 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Throw Pawlenty in with the risers as well.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Big S (19),
I realize that you have a distaste for Palin, but can you really, honestly put her on the “falling” list? The media coverage has been ramping up and she’s doing very well in the prediction markets.
My take
Rising: Palin, Thune, Cantor
Steady: Pawlenty?, Portman?
Falling: Crist, Jindal, Ridge, Lieberman, Huckabee, Bloomberg, Pawlenty?, Portman?
July 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Oops, forgot Mitt. Put him with the risers.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
18, 20 - Thanks for not writing Huckabee off -
Here is the intro to a nice anti-anti-Huck piece from Adam Graham:
Recently I was debating Chuck Muth on Mike Huckabee and the Club for Growth. A commenter wrote:
Now, we’ve responded to the substance of these allegations earlier, but the issue of Arkansasan Conservatives against Huckabee is something else. Certainly, there’s something else. The 2008 campaign illustrated that in 10 1/2 years of Governor, Huckabee made some enemies. But are conservatives set against him?
If we did, we’d expect a situation like in John McCain’s Arizona where a majority of his state’s Republicans voted for another candidates and Massachusetts were only 51% chose Romney. In Arkansas, with Huckabee’s campaign declared dead by the mainstream press, he won 61% of the vote. An exit poll showed 89% of Arkansas Republican Primary voters had a favorable opinion of Mike Huckabee. What about conservatives? Huckabee won the votes of 62% of Conservative voters and 66% of Very Conservative voters.
Huckabee may have even won a higher percentage of the vote had his campaign been viewed as more viable. Does this mean that all criticism of Huckabee from Arkansasans is wrong? No, what it does mean is that while anti-Huckabee Arkansasans may have valid points. They’re a minority within not only the Arkansas Republican Party and the Arkansas Conservative movement. Perhaps, we should seriously examine what these conservatives think and why if you’re going to use Arkansas as a measuring stick.
You can read the rest here:
http://www.f3coalition.org/2008/07/11/some-folks-from-arkansas-told-me/
July 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Alex, with all due respect, you and I both know that David Petraeus can better serve his country as commander of all forces in the Middle East than running as McCain’s possible VP. Though I agree that Portman is the dream of Washington insiders like Novak, the suggestion of Petraeus is the fancy of people who need to realize that McCain cannot just double-down on security and foreign policy to win. Let’s not ignore the domestic front.
Yeah, I agree, but Petraeus is leaving soon anyway.
I just checked Ye Olde Wikipedia: He was confirmed yesterday as the next U.S. Central Command head.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
McCain can take out Obama in a first round TKO on the energy issue.
McCain has to do is come out day after day explaining to the public that Obama and the Obamists are against digging in ANWAR, against offshore driling against extracting shale, against nuc reactors.
McCain will need to state that he is 110% behind the foregoing especially when the terrorist states are seeking to blackmale us with oil.
Obama instead is dumb stuck into the the campaign slogan that the U.S. needs to develop alternative energy resources.
That is a glass jaw.
Rudy is on the very short list right now because he is best equipped on the economy, on energy, national defense, selecting strict constructionist Judges.
Rudy will help McCain win NJ, Conn., Penn., and FL and will make Obama and the Obamists look silly on the foregoing issues.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Some co-patrons of this site state Steve Forbes may be a good running mate with McCain.
However, do not forget that Steve Forbes is 100% behind Rudy and he has endorsed Rudy.
Rudy would be the pick, not Forbes, as Rudy is America’s Mayor.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Oh..and I found this web-ad on YouTube this morning. It’s not mine, but it’s brilliant!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DkRjBFneUAU
July 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Petraeus would resign from the military to run with McCain. Are you guys drinking Kool Aid ? How about Oprah running with Obama ? Are we serious or are we just playing games with names? And Crist? What on earth does he bring, but a fiancee who also has to be vetted, I guess? McCain will already win Florida. But Michigan’s boos yesterday certainly show where he needs help.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I have no clue other than that Fiorina is definitely off the list and Portman is near the bottom.
The question today should be how is the McCain “relaunch” going? Maybe some think that because of Gramm its gone poorly, but I am not so sure. Getting his campaign in order is more important than the VP right now.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Rising: Tommy Thompson, Mark Sanford, John Engler, Mike Pence, Tom Ridge, Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, John Danforth
Staying Steady: Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, Steve Forbes, Alan Simpson, Olympia Snowe, Bill Frist
Falling: Tim Pawlenty, Carly Fiorina, Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Not under Consideration: General Petraeus, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, L. Paul Bremmer, George Pataki
July 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“McCain need strong economics man.”
Really, who says???? This is a myth. He polled better than any other GOP candidate during the primary. Stop looking at it as a Republican or Conservative, and start looking at this issue from the general voting populis.
McCain will select youth. That is a given.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Rising: Palin, Crist, Romney, Sanford, Graham, Ridge, Gingrich
Staying steady: No one, they are past this point.
Falling: No one, they are past this point.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Kristofer, try being truthful ok? You may be able to site a poll or two, for example the exit polls after the Florida vote that indicated they chose McCain over Romney. But the vast majority of the polls showed the voers realized Mitt was much stronger on the economy. How can they not know, when McCain himself told them so? One reason the Floridians voted like they did is because the last weekend before the vote, McCain lied about Mitt’s tenure as Governor. He stated that Mitt raised taxes 800 million, when in fact he had raised fees by 260 million, and he didn’t bother to say that he had taken an economy 3 billion in the red, and raised it to 2 billion in the black. By bombarding the airways with lies the last two days, Mitt had no time to refute the lies. That’s one reason its taken so long for us to forgive McCain and get on his bandwagon. But we’re getting there, just don’t remind us by being like McCain and lieing.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Im willing to put my money with Romney, have been since the primaries.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I CAN’T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING OF YOUR CHOICES AND EVALUATIONS.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Rising: Romney and Palin
Staying put: Portman, Ridge, and Cantor
Dropping: Jindal and Pawlenty
July 11th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I think the VP will be: Huckabee, Palin, or Jindal. Romney would mean sure defeat.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Bloomberg Gives Rudy Props
July 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
A campaign in trouble?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Alex,
Is it even feasible for Petraeus to leave CENTCOM? It’s a 5 year post, and I remember reading that many Democrats were suggesting that a President make Petraeus head of CENTCOM, precisely because it would make him ineligible to run in 2012 at the top of the Republican ticket. I’m not totally sure, but I think there’d be serious military ramifications if Petraeus left before his term expired.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Why is it any more unrealistic someone would leave a military general post than a governorship?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Haha - these polls are incredibly stupid. Remember the Newsweek poll that showed Obama winning by 15. Well…
The reality is that Obama was never ahead by 15.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The reason for “doubling down” on defense with a Petreaus pick is actually to underscore that the guy SUCCEEDED WITH IRAQ.
The media hype surrounding a Petreaus pick, his bio and accomplishments, simultaneously proves the point that Iraq is fixed. Pretty nifty, eh?
No living executive in a government post has had the kind of dramatic results that David Petreaus or Rudy Giuliani have had.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
If McCain wants his campaign to scream competence… “we can fix this”… then he could name Petreaus as VP and simultaneously Romney as his COO nominee, taking up Romney’s idea of creating a COO position for the federal government.
He could also simultaneously announce Cabinet picks including Meg Whitman, and anyone else who would add to the competence theme.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Meant to say, Meg Whitman, Rudy Guiliani, and anyone else who would add to the competence theme.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
On the original question, I think Sanford is rising and has been underrated during this whole VP discussion.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I have a question for the rombots. If Mitt is really the man we need to turn around the economy, beat our swords into ploghshares, and have the angels start blowing their trumpets, why do you want to see him wasted as VP?
The VP really does nothing. All they do is break ties in the Senate and make foreign trips every now and then.
Wouldn’t Mitt be much better able to serve the nation and bless us with his immense skills and talents as Secretary of Treasury or Commerce or Labor or that COO position Metro mentioned?
Why would you want to see him wasted at a job with so little authority or power?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
BTW, this is the inhuman approach people like Mitt Romney wish to worsen: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/11/guatemalan.adoption/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
A though occured to me today as to how much Bush has messed things up.
Bush has been so bad that voters seem ready to hand the country over to a guy who no one heard of 4 years ago, who has no economic, executive, foreign policy, military, or leadership expereience whatsoever, who is as far left as any candidate since Eugene Debs(or at least was a couple of weeks ago), and has generally contributed nothing to the country in terms of accomplishments or achievements.
All this during two wars, an economic crisis heading towards recession, the #1 terror state hurtling towards nukes, oilk skyrocketing, AND he’s black AND has a muslim background AND his name sounds eerily similar to public enemy #1, AND the democrats chose him over the couple who saved their party from oblivion and have controlled it for the past 16 years.
if you had said any of that was possible a few years ago, no one would have taken you seriously.
amazing.
as for the newsweek poll, the trends are good but I didn’t buy the last one so i can’t get too hyped over this one. It’s good to see the white vote head down, though. If McCain can top 60% of the white vote, he should be ok.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Rising: Palin, Romney, Portman, Cantor
Steady: Pawlenty as always
Falling: Whitman, Fiorina, Ridge, Jindal
July 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Metro,
I’m just wondering if there’s some sort of military protocol that essentially requires a CENTCOM commander to serve the full 5 years at his post; that was the impression I had when lefties were suggesting that Obama appoint Petraeus to the position, to knock off competition in 2012.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I can’t deny that Palin’s stock is rising, but I find it very similar to the way Jindal’s stock was rising a little while ago. Then he got to the point where he was a household name, reached the peak of his media appeal, and we’ve moved on to Palin. I don’t doubt we’ll put her through the same process. It’s wonderful that the younger governors are getting the publicity they need now to prep them for the national stage in 2012/16, but I have a hard time believing many people are really seriously considering either of them for veep, and not just playing the media game for 2012/16 very early and very well.
I agree with Alex on all his rising/steady/declining picks except Giuliani, who’s declining by virtue of being ignored. Huckabee is still on the table, though I’d put him at the bottom of the Steady list.
Incidentally, I find it hilarious how Romney and Pawlenty, the two guys criticized for being the bland white male, are at “staying steady.” It’ll take something monumental to bring change the status of those two boring but probable veep picks.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
cwpete wrote: “McCain himself already has enough military / foreign policy credentials. Having Petraeus as VP does not really bring anything to the ticket other than additional IRAQ / IRAN gravitas which McCain already has a lot of.”
“I don’t have a closer friend in the Senate than John McCain. I’m just telling you that when it comes time to pick a vice president, that the smart money I think would be trying to add to the national security — you know, reinforce that aspect of the ticket.” - Senator Lindsey Graham
“There’s nobody I trust more than Lindsey Graham. I’m honored to have him travel with me and give me the counsel I need.” - Senator John McCain, July 5, 2008
McCain, 71, went on to praise Graham’s “excellent political instincts” and credited the senator from the Palmetto State with helping him win South Carolina’s January 19 primary, a crucial victory that made McCain the GOP frontrunner.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Re rising/falling, I think we should consider the actual pick is likely to be discussed LESS near the time of the pick, while red herrings are likely to be discussed MORE. I think some of you may be reading the signs opposite to their meaning.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
#46 - because McCain’ll kick it in a few months! Duh. Rombots don’t have emotions, remember? That’s how they exploit McCain’s tragedy for their gain so easily.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
If Mac wants to reinforce national security, and if Petraeus can easily extricate himself from CENTCOM without big negative political ramifications, and if he’s a Republican (all huge ifs in my opinion), he’s the obvious choice. Wait til a day after Obama picks Kathleen Sebellius, and watch the Democratic ticket get laughed out of the country on every major foreign policy question (without gaining anything domestically since Obama doesn’t have a clue about working class voters, and Sebellius doesn’t have any particular credibility with working class voters who aren’t Catholics).
July 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“You could do what Abe Lincoln did,” Giulani said as he referred to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on Lincoln, Team of Rivals.
“Abraham Lincoln basically selected all of his opponents to be in his cabinet - all his Republican opponents,” Giuliani said. “Each one of them began with the idea that they were better qualified to be president than he was, and they all left realizing that they weren’t, and that gives you a sense of a man of great confidence.”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NEWS01/801030394/1311/48HOURS
July 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I’ve always thought Petraeus was a good choice, but I think he’s pulled a Webb-like Sherman statement.
Petraeus would have more nat’l expreience than Palin, though. I think everyone but Ted would probably concede that. More than Mittens, too.
McCain/Petraeus works for me.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Veep (or SecDef) Watch news on the other side of the aisle…
Fueling VP speculation, Obama heading to Iraq with Hagel, Reed
July 11th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Watching the Mclaughlin group tonight. I almost lost my dinner. Three liberals and Pat Buchanan were on. They were essentially arguing that McCain’s campaign was either over, or was seriously damaged because of Gramm’s comments. Phil Gramm’s comments were not in the Rev. Wright category.
Interestingly John Mclaughlin was trying to talk about the changing situation with fundraising, but they all laughed and shot him down.
If McCain continues to outspend Obama on tv and radio, Obama will be in trouble, and all these pundits are going to wonder what happened?
July 11th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
This post is starting to get a little ridiculous!
General Petraeus will not be the VP. This week Carly Fiorina proved to us what an inexperienced Pol can say that would come across as stupid, and although I appreciate the service of James Stockdale, he also showed us why you should not select a non-pol.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Aron, are you saying it will be Lindsey Graham? Are you re-thinking that statement he made in Colombia?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Re #46: The more extreme Rombots are of the opinion that McCain, having won the presidency solely on the strength of having added Romney to the ticket, should then step aside and turn the real work of the presidency over to Romney (which McCain would do because he, like everyone else, recognizes Mitt’s superiority). McCain would presumably take on most of the VP’s responsibilities, such as attending funerals and meeting second-rate heads of state.
I believe Act-Blog has stated this as the desired outcome fairly explicitly.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
#62, a lot of people are actually saying that Romney is still campaining for POTUS.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Why doesn’t anyone mention Cox on this site?
He’s the real dark horse with Cantor & Thune.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
#62 Funny Bob - But not a bad idea!
July 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
It wasn’t a joke, Illinoisguy — at least not to Act-Blog.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
#64, he always seems to be mentioned but passed over (last three GOP VP selections).
Heath, to a larger point, people such as Cox, Sanford, Engler and others are not mentioned very often, but seem to be qualified and meet some needs for McCain.
With all this debating and arguing over the VP nominee on this blog, we will probably end up with Cox, or one of the others, thus proving the media are always WRONG.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
and…..on Cox, he apparently is “crazy” smart, like a 145 IQ.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
#62. I never thought about it but it sounds good to me.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I am really getting worried about these Romney supporters.
Since McCain will not pick a 61 year old VP, how will these bloggers take it?
I suggest Kavon sets up an EAP service for them.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
IT’S RIDGE!!!!!!!
July 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Romney is certainly rising. The winds seem to be blowing in his direction. Especially with Michigan up for grabs.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I don’t have anything against Pallin, but I’ve repeated heard that she isn’t interested.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I’ve taken the 100’s logcabin!
Go CC!
July 11th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
#71, are you serious? I cannot find it on the news anywhere?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Trust me bob. Have I ever let you down before?
And if you don’t believe me, think about this: why does a former Congressman, Governor and Homeland Security Secretary suddenly become Pro-Life?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Where did he say this?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11679.html
IT’S RIDGE!!!!!!!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
IT’S BATMAN!!!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
IT’S BARBARA BOXER!!!!!!!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Huckabee has the most upside. He is the most charismatic. He can reach out to the middle class that Phil Gramm has alienated. He has more executive experience than Romney or Palin. He will bring back the most important constituency of all: the base.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:18 am
#81. Theres a reason Huck went to fox news. He adds nothing and McCain knows that. Give him a few months and he will stick his foot in his mouth again.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Whose huckabee?
July 12th, 2008 at 4:06 am
The choice of VP for me, will be a HUGE referendum on McCain’s sanity level. In addition, due to his “advanced age”, we all know that McCain COULD, theoretically, be R.I.P. in the next few years. I mean, statistically speaking, the older you get, the closer you are to death. Do I have to put up some chart to explain that reasoning? Am I being PC enough? So, the VP has to be someone suitable for the position of, president. Leader of the entire free world. There are precious few, known, candidates that I would consider qualified and ready for that role. Of course, Mitt Romney tops the list. I understand others may have a different opinion. Were McCain to choose an unknown, a liberal, or a complete novice….I would consider him as possessing unsound judgement, ranging through to being nutty or irrational, depending on who his choice is.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Huckabee or Gore would be nutty and irrational choices, for illustrative purposes.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Palin would simply show unsound judgement.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Are you drunk maya?
Show some respect please.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
No - maya is just a shill for Romney. She might have better luck trying to convert people to the “Romney is just a tiny sliver less great than God” cause if her biased stance wasn’t so obvious.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Post# 25, you are right, it is Rudy on the short list. Two important persons in the Giuliani
campaign, his capmpaign manager, included,had been recruited recently by McCaign campaign,
which, I think indicate a fusion of the two factions. Does that mean something in the offing?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
#88. So what your saying is Maya has an opinion?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Maya:
Keep in mind, not every single person who disagrees with you is a stupid idiot. Sane people can have a few disagreements.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
There are a few obvious choices, but only a few. Of those, Romney does indeed top the list, but I weary of pointing out the salient reasons why: Money, Organization, Gravitas, Experience, Ability, Debating Prowess, etc., etc., etc. But the main reason to pick Romney is the edge he provides in key swing states. There are other sane picks, but nobody else is positioned as well to provide as much, and everybody pretty much knows it. The reality is as hard for his enemies to cope with as reality usually is for any of us, but there it is.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Rising: Palin, Crist, Thune
Steady: Pawlenty
Falling: Romney, Ridge, Giuliani, Fiorina, Jindal, Portman, Sanford, Rice
Off the table: Huckabee, Lieberman
July 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
#93. I agree with everything but Romney. At the least he is steady if not rising.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Palin is NOT rising. She was the flavour de jour a week or so back. Her boom(let) lasted about half as long as Jindals. Neither had a hope of being picked.
I have a funny feeling Rudy is being considered too.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I really think Palin is starting to catch on, somewhat quietly. And yes, I do now think she’d be possibly the best choice McCain can make, even though I’m a Huckabee fan…
July 13th, 2008 at 2:31 am
BILL RICHARDSON! LOL! Just kidding!
As a PUMA / Hillary supporter and life-long Democrat who WILL definitely vote for McCain this year like hopefully many other millions, I wanted to give my take on whom I think he should choose as his running mate.
First off Jindal and Palin are definitely out. Both way too young and with less experience than Barky. The VP has to be ready to step in at a moment’s notice; and they just lack the executive experience.
Huckabee, I think is the most genuine with many great qualities (this is from my Dem perspective), however, he would be feared as letting his religion into his decision-making. Though I personally would trust him. I just don’t think he can help McCain too much–voters on the fence about Obama would NOT find Huckabee appealing at all.
Whereas, these Centrists, Independents and disgruntled Dems would be open to the more moderate and sensible choices: First Romney, then Guiliani.
With the Economy being the biggie, I definitely have to go with Romney as the top pick. While some have noted that those on the bottom of the economic food chain (myself working in the non-profit world included) would wholeheartedly welcome someone like Romney. In general, I agree with someone above that the “rich” are seen as a danger but desperate times call for desperate measures. He really seems to have a firm handle on how to solve our nation’s economic woes. (And, I have to say I did not like Romney at all when he was still in). I think the public has a generally favorable opinion of him overall, and a high trust in his ability to save the economy.
A running-mate should round out what the candiate may be missing in both skill set and the constituency he potentially brings.
So in addition to the skill set, I think Romney could strengthen McCain’s chances in some of the swing states. I don’t think he helps much in the South–Obama plans to take some of the south and I fear he will.
As for Guiliani, who I think is likely a second place contender, he is America’s Mayor. However, he does have some baggage to bear and does not do much to win the south. However, with so many of Hillary’s supporters in NY ready to jump teams, Guiliani might be able to help McCain win NY and other northeastern states plus Florida. I also think the Catholic vote will be decisive. Like myself, Giuliani is a struggling Catholic and “ethnic” so he brings a bit of flavor that McCain just does not have. Could make for a great combo, but McCain must articulate a clear and convincing plan to save our economy.
On a bit of a shallow note, I am concerned about the height thing. So many elections have seen the tallest man win. Guiliani does not tower over McCain like Romney does.
Btw, as for age, I think both of these men seem younger than they are - at least young enough. Someone above mentioned the death/age thing. McCain’s mom is super old as we all know, but his dad passed at age 70, according to Wikipedia.
A funny little fact I also came across, his parents got hitched at a bar in Tijuana! I like him even more than ever now!
July 13th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Lisa I love your post. Just wondering why you won’t vote for Obama. I think your assessment was dead on.