The Candidates
Featured Archives
Just moments ago on CNN, John King reported that he had just received an email from a senior McCain adviser nixing the possibility of a pro-choice running mate for Sen. McCain. Thanks to the wonderful world of time-shifting, I’m able to transcribe King’s quote with precision:
JOHN KING: After the forum tonight I received an email from a senior adviser who said look at the answer on abortion, look at some of the other things he said, you will not hear any more talk from us about the possibility of a pro-abortion rights vice presidential nomination.
McCain probably decided that a pro-choice VP would do more harm than good, which unfortunately narrows McCain’s options, as it seems the Republican roster is free of politicians who are both pro-life and who would help in a big blue swing state. Given that no one really thinks John Engler is being considered, McCain should pick Tim Pawlenty to be his running mate, the best of the pro-life veep candidates in the field.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
There’s also a chance he’s saying he isn’t going to *discuss* the issue… while keeping the possibility open.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
This night inspired the base… it is time to get to work…. please donate to johnmccain and the rnc… I just gave 25 bucks to both.
We need to create a “money bomb” tonight to put McCain over the edge.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I was looking forward to seeing Lieberman as Vice President. But now that he’s gone, McCain should definitely chose Romney.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
If they wanted to say they’d ruled out a pro-choice running mate, they could say THAT.
Instead, they are saying they will not be discussing the matter.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
1: I agree with that interpretation. You can read it as “look, McCain made it abundantly clear where he stands on the issue and what his policies will be. We’re not answering anymore questions about it and feel we now can choose whoever would be most qualified as VP without answering for it because McCain has already proven his bonafides”.
I think this clears the way for Ridge.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
#5:
This could also mean that they aren’t taking anymore questions at all. Perhaps the announcement is coming soon?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
It’s just so ridicules the the VP hasn’t been announced for either one of them. Most running makes have been announced weeks before this date. What are they planning on doing, announcing them at the convention?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
It was reported in a way that indicated they thought it meant he was going to pick a pro-life VP. Who knows what the email actually said, but there could have been more in there that caused the reporter to have the understanding that it meant no pro-choicers.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
8: Actually I don’t think that’s true. Traditionally its the week of the convention. I believe Kerry choosing Edwards over a month before was the earliest ever.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You guys are kidding, right? Of course it means the VP will not be pro-choice. Anyone who ever though John would choose a pro-abort weren’t listening to him. He made it clear many times that he wouldn’t do that.
Ridge? Ha.
It’s Romney, folks and always has been. These last few weeks were all about keeping people talking.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
As long as we’re speculating, for any of the pro-life deal breaker style posters out there: did tonight’s performance and answers by McCain satisfy you to the degree that McCain is sincere about his convictions and policy intentions to the point that you would support him and not hold it against him if he chose a Tom Ridge or a Rudy Giulliani or a Joe Lieberman if that is what he felt was best for the ticket?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
11: If the new strategy is to be the candidate Evangelicals rally behind, I don’t think Romney is the most likely choice.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
In light of this, I believe that John McCain’s Veep is almost certainly going to be Tim Pawlenty.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
It sounds to me that McCain’s “Tom Ridge shouldn’t be dismissed totally because he’s pro-choice” interview was less of a trial balloon, and more of genuine indignation from a Maverick, that his good friend has been maligned. I’ve said before that I don’t understand this truly bizarre notion that McCain’s at all likely to pick a pro-choice running mate. Tom Ridge is the only pro-choicer that even begins to make sense, and only because if we carry Penn and Ohio, we can probably afford to lose 2-5 million evangelicals elsewhere. But, given that Ridge far from guarantees either state, he was never an overwhelmingly likely possibility. And now…well…
August 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I think McCain felt that his 25 year pro-life voting record would allow him to pick his friend Ridge or Lieberman as his running mate. I think he was taken by surprise at how much pro-lifers distrust him on the issue, which is why he came out tonight and reminded everyone very forcefully of his voting record, and that he plans to govern as a pro-life president.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
# 5,6,7
You guys are dreaming.
McCain was UNEQUIVOCAL tonight. That’s why he was so sharp. Obama was all thought and nuance.
McCain told Rick Warren and an audience of millions that he believes life begins at conception and legal life begins at conception as well. Obviously, that means he thinks abortion is illegal and, effectively, murder. How could he ever accept a Pro-Choice VP
then without everyone believing his position tonight was fake and that he made it up for the forum? It was a position , I’m sure , embraced by Evangelicals as well as the overall GOP base. To be so cavalier as to effectively say, ” the hell with what I said to Rick
Warren. I
really didn’t mean it”, just isn’t going to happen,
So, effectively Lieberman and Ridge and Guiliani are not in the mix anymore.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
17: Why couldn’t it be a message of “I’m in charge and this is what I believe, and Tom, Joe or Rudy as VP would have a sphere of influence on the issues they are most qualified to handle, but don’t worry I’ve made it clear that their selection would have zero influence on my social policy?”
August 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
By the way, I’ve thought from the beginning that it would be Pawlenty and still do, but I’m just challenging that there’s one way to interpret that e-mail.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
craig, I think if McCain picked a pro-choice VP now, it would make him look like a phony. Especially after tonight and that e-mail from the campaign.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
By the way, since Meg Whitman was originally hired by Romney and learned much of what she needed to know at E -BAY while working for Romney at Bain and was Romney’s campaign finance manager, what does that say when McCain says Meg is one of the smartest people he knows?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
#18:
That takes too long to explain and in politics if you are explaining you are losing.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Kavon,
I didn’t see the whole forum, I’m waiting for the replay, but I noticed in some of the clips on CNN that McCain responded to the “what is America’s biggest failure?” question with “we haven’t always lived for causes greater then our individual self-interests”. Now, this explicitly recalls Warren’s Purpose Driven Life message, but it also recalls something else; what I take to be Tim Pawlenty’s traditional stump speech. I’ve seen him use this phrase on numerous occasions (his speech to the Young America’s Foundation is speech that most comes to mind). It’s clearly possible that McCain was just attempting to recall Warren in front of Warren, or that he sees the utility in reminding folks about sacrifice, when that’s practically his entire campaign theme; but it seems a little too neat to be total coincidence to me.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Kavon,
It may be Pawlenty, but it might be someone else who is more revered by Evangelicals, and I am not talking about Huckabee.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
21: It obviously means that Romney is the smartest man ever, and anyone who ever had success who has worked with Romney, clears owes all that they have to him and his benevolent genius.
Did I get that right?
It’s amazing, I didn’t really dislike Mitt Romney much until having to read thousands of messages from his rabid supporters who seems to believe that he walks on water and that we are all fools to consider anyone else as President, let alone as our King. I don’t want him to be VP now more so because his supporters have become insufferable, and they will only become more so if he is selected (”great! Now Mitt can be co-President and completely control our economic policy, and maybe our foreign policy, and come up with judicial appointments and speak for McCain and then McCain can do what’s best for the country and step down just after his second year, allowing Mitt to take over and then run for 2 more full terms and serve for 10 years as the greatest leader in world history!” I seriously think this is what many believe.)
August 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
i think its down to romney and pawlenty
lieberman and ridge, however, are very good bets for state and defense respectively. in fact, i would be shocked if thats not the exact spot mccain has pegged for both.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Its Romney or Pawlenty 100%
August 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
#23 Matthew:
That was actually a McCain line from his 2000 run: that he wanted to inspire young Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Matthew #23,
I think you may have hit the nail on the head on this.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
#16 BINGO. This means the opposite of what most folks here think.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
if rumors hold true, i have to say, john kerry vs mitt romney does peek my interest, just to watch it
August 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Kristofer #24,
You have got me genuinely intrigued. Who do you have in mind?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Kristofer means Palin.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
31: You would need a scorecard to keep up with all of their position statements!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I think McCain is telling us it’s Romney and we can’t seem to read the Tea Leaves. And two late events may have pushed him past Pawlenty:
1. The cynical self-serving pressure exerted by Huckabee to block Romney and essentially tell McCain who he should pick. This surely would irritate and antagonize a John McCain.
2. Pawlenty’s very poor results in the Minnesota polling showing a drag on the ticket of 8-10 points in his own state. We can only guess what internal polling shows for Pawlenty in other nearby states like Michigan and Wisconsin, let alone states who have
never heard of him. I suspect internal polling probably shows a positive Romney impact in Michigan and Nevada and Colorado that would guarantee a McCain victory.
The bottom line is that the DNC believes it’s Romney. They have spent a lot of time recently running ads against Romney, even before he is selected. Why ? Why no ads against Pawlenty if he’s the guy? Especially since Romney has been out of the limelight for the
last 3 weeks in Canada, New Hampshire and China.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
#31:
The battle of the Massachusetts blue-bloods. What would be more interesting is seeing Michelle Obama and Theresa Heinz Kerry on stage together. The ads would make themselves
August 16th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
honestly against bayh, biden, clinton, or kaine i would prefer romney, i mean he has proven he can clean house in a debate against top opponents. pawlenty may be out of his league against some of those people (not kaine). i think romney could mop up bayh and biden.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
36: Holy crap that’s a scary image.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Let’s look though history of when the VP’s have been announced.
Kerry/Edwards 2004 – July 6th
Bush/Cheney 2000 – July 25
Gore/Lieberman 2000 – August 13
Dole/Kemp 1996 – August 16
Clinton/Gore 1992 – July 10
Dukakis/Bentsen 1988 – July 13
You would think that either one of the candidate’s VP’s would have been chosen by now.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Metro #33,
Palin more revered than Huckabee among Evangelicals??? I know that Kris likes Gov. Palin, but I do not think he’s jumped off the deep end into Act Blog territory yet.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
39: This is the latest the conventions have ever been. They’ve been in early to mid August in the past.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
i think floating ridge was the campaign making romney appear to be to ridge’s right, effectively making mitt more ‘right’ then mitt could. after floating a pro-choicer the right would almost sigh with relief at romney. i think this was all a way to nudge romney to the base without having him do it himself.
also, i think its ironic that the vp will tow the party line on abortion, while the 3 top cabinet jobs are likely to go to choicers (liberman-state, ridge-defense, giuliani-AG)
August 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Kavon, he said more revered than Pawlenty.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
quayle was the second day of the convention i think
August 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
#42, matt those offices tend to be graveyards for future ambition.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
#39:
Those all (except for the Kerry/Edwards pick) coincided with the Conventions. The convention for the out party is incredibly late this year since the Olympics are so late. Patience my friend, 8 days before we will know at least one VP.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
sjm855
Almost right. Practice makes perfect. Work on it and you will eventually develop some skills that will help you later in life.
I didn’t say Meg Whitman. McCain did. Her biography is on the Internet. Where else do you learn anything in life but from teachers and associates and managers. What is your problem, chief? You seem to be hung up on those that favor Mitt Romney because he is
actually smart. You, and others call us ” Rombots” and we are supposed to say, ” Gee, I guess we are, whatever that means.
Of course, Romney has faults. Most of us do. Perhaps you do too. But we think and argue his case with sincere conviction and energy. What is your problem with that? Pick your own candidate and do the same.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
In the past Sec State, was the #1 position from which to run for President.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Kavon,
I read that sentence as saying “someone more revered then Pawlenty, and I don’t mean Huckabee”. I think it’s reasonable to say Palin is more revered by evangelicals then Pawlenty.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Mitt and Huck are like matter and anti-matter at this point. Both camps bitter hatred of each other ensures that neither will be the Veep (and to project into the future, probably means that neither will ever win the Republican nomination). McCain is not going to wade into that mess when he can just pick Tim Pawlenty, who is basically a hybrid of the two with absolutely no baggage.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Incidentally, after seeing Warren in action, I feel much more optimistic about the next generation of evangelicals in this country. Warren asked both candidates about their faith but didn’t give them the third degree on specifics, nor play the role of Grand Inquisitor. The only traditional social issues he brought up were judges, abortion, and marriage. There was no concern whatsoever about the private sex lives of adults. It appears that today’s evangelicals are far more comfortable with pluralism than those of the past and are no longer at war with modern culture. All of which is a good thing in my opinion, as it means the demand for Culture Warriors will go the way of the demand for Crystal Pepsi.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Matthew #49,
I wouldn’t say that at all myself. 99.5% of the population doesn’t know who either of them is.
But I understand now what Kris was saying. I didn’t get it (obviously) at first.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
47: I have no problem with Romney, or that he is “smart”. I have a problem with his supporters who can’t seem to get over that he lost in the primaries and instead of supporting what is best for our nominee seem more concerned with finding a way to backdoor Romney into the presidency. That’s about as blunt as I can put it.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Man was that stuff ever nasty!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
#53:
Here here. I would be more receptive to a Romney VP if his supporters weren’t so insistent and pushy, particularly with the whole “Romney in 2012″ or “Romney in 2016″ thing. One election at a time folks.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Metro/Kavon,
Actually, Yes, Palin is more revered than Pawlenty, but not Huckabee.
I was also thinking, Thune.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
McCain
Romney ‘08….
O I can’t wait!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I think that rules out the former gov from MA
August 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Thune is interesting. While Pawlenty is no more nationally known that him, I’ve got to think 6 years as a Governor says something for experience than adding another first term senator.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Kavon – there is no mess. There’s just Huck and his supporters acting like spoileded children. Time for them to move on, Romney has.
It’s obvious that it’s Romney and it has been for a long time. Matt was right when he said McCain floating the pro-choicers this week was to prove that Romney really is a conservative that will satisfy social cons.
Nobody else helps McCain as much as Romney in key states. Pawlenty does absolutely nothing, therefore he really is a drag for McCain.
McCain needs to rev up the base, Pawlenty cannot do that, Romney will.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
So anyone know when Romney is coming back from the Olympic’s?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Kavon,
I don’t really think McCain and his staff think a minute about whether Romney and Huckabee’s camps care about each other. I think McCain cares about winning the most electoral votes in November. If it is down to Pawlenty and Romney, which I think it is, a
pragmatic McCain should ask his staff to look at the internals and tell which of the two brings the most Electoral Votes to the table. They can always sort out the differences between the camps after they are in the White House….like Kennedy and Johnson. If
they don’t get to the White House, no one really will care about the differences, except the two camps for 2012. But for McCain, the issue is here and now, not 4 years from now.
Again , what states does Pawlenty bring, without some wild guessing, to McCain’s table ? What BLUE STATES does he switch? What RED STATES does he hold?
If his numbers are better than Romney, he should be the VP. If not, he should stay in Minnesota, which is what the voters of Minnesota evidently want.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
McCain did a excellent job tonight!! I feel much better about this election and a McCain victory!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
craig,
And the McCain Team I believe know’s this, and that Romney brings states into play, and if i were a betting man then i’d but my money on Mitt Romney
Mac & Mitt – A Perfect Fit
August 16th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
sjm855
What do you think we are talking about with Romney……..losing in November ? The whole argument of the Romney supporters is that he is the best choice to help WIN in November. Yes , that MIGHT help in 2012. It might not as well and surely the VP role
is not the best use of Romney’s skills from 2008 to 2012. But helping McCain win is the best that Romney can offer now.
I don’t get you guys. You seem to be lost in some Rosicrucian nether plot to stop Romney from helping McCain so that somehow Romney will be stopped in 2012. In truth, Romney will be a candidate in 2012 whether he is VP or not. In fact, he may have
a better chance if he isn’t on the ticket , but that may not be the best support for John McCain HERE and NOW.
That’s is simple as I can make it , too.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Excuse me, but why are we having an argument about Romney vr. Huckabee?
A major annoucement was made by the McCain camp. Clearly, McCain has decided (this annoucement and his fantastic performance tonight) that the pro-life agenda (including VP and administration) will be in the forefront of his campaign.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
As many of us have said for a long time, its going to be Mitt or Pawlenty, with Palin having and outside shot. I believe Mitt helps most in electability, but the question is will McCain cower to the threats of the few evangelicals who say they would have concerns over Romney. Its not usually John’s style to cower, so I think he could just do what his internals tell him to do, and go with Mitt if that is what the polls have been telling him. He knows for a certainty that Mitt can be a better attack dog, debate much stronger, have a command of all issues, energize the base, and help in the battleground states better than Tim. We should know when Mitt gets back from the olymics.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
#51, I wasn’t aware many people ever considered the sex lives of adults to be a POLITICAL ISSUE.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Sampo,
You are well aware that Romney said his one change of position , from Pro-Choice to Pro Life while he was Governor of Massachusetts, was based on his learning experiences in the Governorship.
You also know, if you listened tonight, to his answer when Rick Warren discussed Changing Positions based on life experiences and said, of course, that was not flip flopping, and then asked McCain about a changed position he had made ( just a couple of
weeks ago, as I remember.) on drilling.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
If evangelicals are going to worry about a Mormon as VP, shame on them. Look at the Presidential Candidate we saw tonight, there should be NO DOUBTS!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
#69: Huh? Hardwick. Sodomy laws. Anti-contraceptive laws.
I love how SoCons forget their own past.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Romney is on ABC tomorrow morning with Stephanopoulis. I assume he is still in China, so it is taped ? I think he is scheduled back on Wednesday. Not sure.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
#25 sjm855 – you’re reasons for not supporting Romney remind me of someone who might say didn’t know if they should take a trip to Switzerland but then when they heard all these people go on and on about Switzerland and how beautiful it is, it really turned them off, and then decided, once and for all, to never go.
Have you even really looked into the man’s credentials? Really, read what you wrote again and see if it doesn’t sound a bit … well, silly.
I got a little turned off by Huckabee’s supporters, but the only reason I didn’t support him was because of what I learned about his character, his time of governing in Arkansas and his positions and views. Huckabee is a great speaker and is good in debates, but that a good president does not make.
Do you get my point?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Metro as usual you distort history. It makes me wonder if you were ever taught history. Sodomy laws were mostly enforced against rapists. They’d been on the books long before social conservatism started in the 1960’s.
Evangelicals have no problem with contraception.
Dave was talking about Evangelicals, Metro, not Catholics.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
66: I’ll say my piece to explain myself more and then I’ll let it go.
I’m not saying you can’t have genuine support for Romney helping the ticket. But for too many around here it’s about getting Romney positioned to be President. You can say that’s fine, many of the other choices (like Palin or Jindal or Pawlenty) are being touted for similar reasons, the big difference is, we would like to think that McCain will not only win in Nov but be re-elected. To believe he won’t at least run for a second term is without merit beyond a hope that the path will be cleared. Even going on this most genuine premise of support, unlike the other mentioned candidates, Romney will be quite old himself in 8 years, and after 16 years (hopefully) of GOP white house, he’s probably not well positioned anyway.
In a more selfish view, Romney is being set up for 2012, which would require McCain to lose which speaks for it self in its negativity.
And in the most delusional point of view, Romney will serve as some sort of co-president where he will have vast, unprecedented power over many executive responsibilities and even some have suggested Mccain will step down before his 1st term is up to actually set Romeny up as the incumbent! This is obviously completely ridiculous.
Again, it is not Romney I have a problem with, it’s the attitude of his supporters who espouse things described like the above that are all about getting Romney into the White House. You don’t see this from Fred or Rudy supporters or even Huck supporters (again nothing to do with the graciousness of the candidates themselves).
Romney supporters with their zeal and mentioning the virtues of Romney and how he is the only choice to be made are trying to win support with the “undecideds” or independents so to speak of the online world who don’t have a candidate for VP they support. But instead, without realizing it, what they are doing is alienating the very independents they’re trying to convince. Which is ironic, because that’s exactly what Romney would do to the ticket in the general election.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Obama said Sam Nunn is one of the people he would put trust in….I think Nunn will be his VP. Who does better in a debate with nunn? Romney or Pawlenty?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
1. Sodomy laws have been enforced against gays, in many states. That’s how Hardwick ended up before the SCOTUS. In the 1980’s the Moral Majority was vehemently anti-sodomy.
2. Social conservatism did not begin in the 1960s. SoConism has always been a part of history in all cultures. It is that segment of society that wishes to preserve traditional social mores.
3. Who cares which sect was pushing it most strongly? It was the SoCon agenda.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
74: I don’t doubt his credentials. I think he’d be a strong GOP chairman, which involves fundraising, organizing and public speaking, all Romney strengths. The VP pick involves not being divisive and being an attractive choice to independent voters. Not Romney’s strengths.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
How did this rule out a pro-choice veep?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Metro that’s a misleading description of Social conservatism.
Until the 14th century social liberalism was a rare and occasional occurrence. There was no one promoting traditional culture because it was never under attack.
It’s simply a historical fact that the large majority of sodomy convictions were against rapists. Most of those were male rapists of female victims.
As I said before you’re showing no grasp of history. Until Francis Schaeffer there wasn’t even a viewpoint among traditional religious people that they should influence politics. That’s a recent social phenomenon.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
smj855 -How is Romney divisive? Did you know the Zogby poll showed Romney bringing the most support for McCain with independent voters?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
#80, Alex, many times (most), we have to read between the lines, when we hear “Pol” speak. But this was clear.
Read it again.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Metro, it’s also dishonest to apply your definition to social conservatism since the values of American social conservatives were never dominant in America. They’re trying to change America to something it’s never been, not to something from the past.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
smj855 – Also, why do you care that some Romney supporters want to see Romney as president someday? We should be thinking about the future and strengthening conservatism in the party. Romney committed himself to doing just that.
For me, Romney is the best choice to help McCain win, and would also be a tremendous asset to a McCain presidency in these perilous times.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
We all need to go to RNC.org and donate $25 or more to the RNC and the John McCain campaign. Let’s let McCain know how well we thought he did tonight by donating to his campaign and the RNC! Who’s with me?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
85- because Romney is not the future. To suggest he is, is either being disingenuous or hoping McCain loses this year or clinging on to a selfish “can’t let it go” attitude that McCain steps down without running for a second term.
The future of the party are Pawlenty, Palin, Jindal, Crist, Blackburn, Cantor, etc.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
#87 – why is Romney not the future of the party?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
#87:
Crist is a one-term Governor. Guaranteed; if he is picked by McCain as VP, we loose Florida.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Mitt Romney is most definitely the future of the Republican Part, he may not be as young as those mentioned before but he would be a wonderful VP and president someday.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I think if McCain picks Romney as VP it will guarantee Romney is never President.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Because assuming Mccain runs for 2 terms Romney will be 70. If Romney is the future of the party, I should credibly be able to argue that my candidate, Rudy Giuliani. I don’t argue this, because it’s ridiculous, but if you will concede that, I guess I won’t argue.
Re: Crist, I’m not advocating him at all, Im just saying he’s in the conversation a decade from now because of his relative youth.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
92: We need an edit feature. That should say *I should credibly be able to argue that my candidate, Rudy Giuliani is the future of the party.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
#92:
I know you weren’t advocating Crist. After all, who would think that a do-nothing one term Governor would be the future of the Republican Party? Oh wait….
August 16th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Romney has a wealth of experience in so many areas of life and a proven track record of success. He has a wonderful marriage and family and can be held up to America’s young people as a model to follow.
He is a conservative that is strong in all three areas of conservatism: strong national security, strong economny (limited government with an emphasis on solutions from the marketplace) and a strong family and values.
He is a true gracious leader. Read about his accomplishments and his life. You cannot walk away from your research without being impressed and hopeful that someday America will be blessed with his leadership as Vice President or President.
If what I’ve just said turns you off to him, then there’s not much I can do about it.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
94: Oh, I see what you did there.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Chuck Todd;
“McCain was impressively on message.”
“he (Obama) seemed a little rusty and clearly has some work to do before he meets McCain face-to-face on Sept. 26, the night of the first presidential debate in Oxford, MS.”
If MSNBC is hinting that the event tonight was a big win for McCain, it was a REALLY big win for McCain.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
95: Yes, because I can *totally* see troubled urban youth looking at Romney and his “perfect” Mormon family and just becoming so inspired. (let alone this being an argument of your qualifications to LEAD).
Well, then again, he does seem to connect really well with diverse audiences…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8Nq7BglIg:
August 16th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I have to say this again … I was very impressed with McCain tonight. He is on Fox again (replay) and I’m impressed with him — he is animated, passionate, sharp and concise and speaks from his core. He looked at the crowd and spoke with the people … almost leaving Rick Warren out of the conversation.
I didn’t watch Obama’s part too much but from what I did see, he just seem disconnected and said a lot of “ahs” and “uhs” and tilted his head a lot like he was trying to think of what to say.
Big contrast tonight! Big!
August 16th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Doug, check this out. 2003.
http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/falwell/jf_sl_062603.html
August 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
My links aren’t pasting, but if you Google 2003 sodomy, you’ll find TONS of SoCon leaders bemoaning the ruling as the end of morality in America.
You’re simply in denial about the nature of the movement you’ve joined.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I’ve not joined a movement Metro. I wonder where you got that idea.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:02 am
#102 You know what I meant… and nice admission you lost the argument.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I wasn’t aware you were arguing with me. I was trying to get you to understand how your recent ideas about “social conservatism” were historically ridiculous.
You didn’t address that so I’m not sure why you expected me to address your irrelevant posts. Are you looking for my opinion or something?
August 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I think everyone can see you denied social conservatism waged a campaign against sodomy, and I pointed out that by Googling sodomy 2003, you can see they’re still doing it this decade.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
I am a Huckabee supporter and wanted Mike on the ticket with McCain because I truly believe he is the best bet (and the Rasmussen and survey usa election polls agree) to help McCain win. If McCain is comfortable with someone else who is strong on pro-life, I am fine with that. I actually think it would hurt Huckabee’s future political aspirations to conform to McCain’s ticket. Huckabee is a unique blend of politician and I believe his views are visionary as to the direction the country needs to take. The fact that McCain did not endorse the Fair Tax bothered me and a few other issues that disagree with Mike’s platform. He would be better of in the private sector where he can do his tv show on Fox, fill in on radio, keep making speeches both here and abroad and getting his message out to the people. Being stuck as vp would not allow visibility that he needs. I DO feel he deserve credit in the media that he is NOT receiving. You have never heard how Huckabee tops all these independent and clearly respected polls. I kept hearing how the Rasmussen polls are predicting the race between McCain and Obama but NEVER did they mention how Huckabee aced the Rasmussen poll for helping McCain’s ticket. That is just not fair and balanced reporting….
August 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
98.
What republican political figure do troubled urban youth look to foe inspiration? Palin? Jindal? Is that really your measuring stick? Our leaders are to give “hope”?….
August 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am
beth I totally agree with you, I’m a Palin supporter, but Romney is outstanding in every way
he does tend to equivocate/pander, but for the most part he is a standup guy
August 17th, 2008 at 12:38 am
#105, Where did I say that?
August 17th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Im reading Romney can help McCain win and I’m thinking, do these guys really even read the independent polls and what they are telling us??? They tell us Romney does not help McCain’s ticket. If fact, the latest Rasmussen polls taken 7/25-27-08 showed Romney actually HURT McCain’s ticket a minus 6!!! Mike Huckabee was the one who helped the ticket the most… a full 8 points. That’s a 14 point difference! So, if you TRULY wanted a vp who HELPED the ticket, you would go with Huckabee. I tend to agree with the other poster that Huck will be better off to stay OFF this ticket and go with his unique message for 2012. However, judging from the polls and Huck’s growing popularity I believe the GOP has underestimated him once again….I believe they may regret it….
August 17th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I was really hoping Joe Lieberman would be the pick, since it’s clear none of my preferred candidates are going to get the nod (Whitman, Fiorina, and Palin). But if he’s officially ruled out a pro-choice candidate, I guess I’m stuck with Pawlenty [ugh].
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the cynical interpretation of the McCain campaign’s statement as mentioned in comments 1, 5, and 6 holds true (though I suspect not).
August 17th, 2008 at 12:51 am
#108 – thanks, Joel. By the way, my son’s name is Joel.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:55 am
The problem I forsee with a Romney pick is it gives the impression that some backroom deal was made between Romney and the McCain camp at the time those delegates were delivered to McCain just days after Romney dropped out. Because Romney had stated over and over that it was the Huckster taking votes away from him, it just appeared all too odd that he immediately forked those delegates over to “mortal enemy” McCain and became his disciple follower…McCain’s reputation as an honest straight shooter is at stake…That is not even bringing into play the way those conservatives are protesting Romney’s incosistencies with his platform issues and that disastrous health care plan he implemented in MA that is coming back to haunt him and ruin his perceived reputation on the economy. I think McCain will go safe and boring….Pawlenty.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I guess you realize that in a recent poll 3 out of every 4 Mass. voter indicated they like the plan.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:42 am
113:
Romney dropped out when it was obvious McCain was going to win. He enthusiastically supported him because he’s an adult and didn’t want Obama to win. There was no backroom deal and I think you’re the only person who’s even thinking about it.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I’m more certain than ever that it’s either Romney or Pawlenty. The way my math has it figured, McCain only needs Michigan or Ohio to win. I think Romney’s economic credentials help in both states, and his hometown boy image will help win Michigan.
I cannot WAIT for the real debates, especially the obligatory town hall style debate. McCain will school this dingleberry.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:04 am
#115 Thank you, Thomas Alan.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:47 am
McCain-Romney ‘08
August 17th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I for one do not think there was a back room deal, but I do believe that the main reason that Mr. Romney dropped out was that he was sick of wasting good money after bad. I am not saying he is a bad man by any means, but to say that he dropped out in a noble fashion and for noble reasons. C’mon, I was not born yesterday.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:17 am
test
August 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I said he dropped out because McCain won. Who was portraying it as noble?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Thomas: You for one may have been just stating a fact, but I appears that many in your camp have been making much more of the circumstances than I believe warrant.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
So McCain isn’t going to pick a pro-choice veep. This is news?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Thomas Alan and Ohio Joe,
Just a mild side note. Noble or pragmatic, not everybody dropped out when McCain won.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
If it’s Mitt v Tim as I’ve said for 5 months we should have a serious discussion as to the merits of same vis a vis the other as McCain may be selecting in 7 days and these blogs are read by those who matter.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:14 am
sjm855
The “future of the party” means many things. As far as I am concerned, the “future of the party ” is election day in November. If we don’t win, the future of the party will be VERY different and the cast of players in 2012 will be very different. The future of
the party for John McCain is also in November. Yes, he might run for re-election in 2012. If he loses, there is 0 chance he will run again.
The future of the party, if you go far enough, is in the hands of children today, so we are talking about a window of 4-12 years when we talk about the future. In this window, there are many possible candidates, all of whom have been included in this
discussion, including Romney. He , like others, is trying his best to help McCain get elected NOW, not 4 years from now. And he is doing as much or more than others to make that happen because the GOP “future” depends on it’s success in November.
“Totally” troubled youth will vote, if they vote, for Obama , not Romney. You are absolutely correct.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:16 am
“Because assuming Mccain runs for 2 terms ”
…an extremely foolish assumption to make.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Craig, Yes Dr. Paul stayed in the race after Mr. McCain had enough delegates.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
[...] by McCain’s earlier comments that he wouldn’t rule out selecting a pro-choice VP. Race 4 2008 is reporting – through CNN – that the McCain campaign has ruled out the possibility of selecting a [...]
August 17th, 2008 at 9:04 am
125 Heath
Agreed. And I’m wrestling with it a little, b/c it’s something of a head v. heart dichotomy for me.
My head tells me Romney’s the better pick as a V.P.: an effective speaker, a willing attack dog, a resume that speaks to his readiness to take over should something happen to Mac.
In my heart, I really like what T-Paw represents politically and would much prefer that Pawlenty had the reins to the party, long-term. He’s just had less expsoure than Mitt so I have a hard time evaluating if he’d make as effective a surrogate as Mitt will. And I’m not sure he meets the readiness test in quite the same way as Mitt, but his 6 years as governor meets whatever “baseline” metric the electorate has traditionally used (subjective, I know).
August 17th, 2008 at 9:15 am
If you followed McCain last night then you would see that he gave a very strong commitment as pro-life. This along with his strong support for strict constructionist Justices and Judges favors a Rudy VP pick. What McCain is saying is that even if he picks a pro-life candidate, his (McCain’s) Presidency will be strongly pro-life through his expressions & through the Judicial nominating process via strict constructionists.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I still don’t understand this push for Romney. He is the biggest flopper we’ve seen in a long time. You don’t think the left will show ads putting him on the same side of an issue as themselves? If Romney helps elect McCain, than I’m all for him, but I think we can do better. There is something to say for a persons potential. We’ve all seen Romney and Huckabee at their worst and best, but we haven’t seen Pawlenty’s full potential on a national stage. I’ve never been really in favor of Pawlenty, but that’s also cause I knew of McCains religious background. He is one of my heroes, and one of my favorite books is “Character is Destiny” which has the cross story and the story about his wife bringing home his daughter. McCain is going to win this thing, and I think he should pick the best vp he can. No matter what we say. He can energize the evangelical vote on his own, all he has to do is speak openly about it when asked, and not cater to the “leaders” of the religious right. I am a culture warrior, but my idea of changing our culture for the better is allowing people to live their lives the way they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
McCain is a Baptist Christian. That means he is an evangelical, just not the way the media thinks of it.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:20 am
A large problem the Republican party faces is that of 2012. If Romney or Huckabee are the leading candidates for the Republican party for that election then it will be a very weak party. Huckabee is a 2/3rds liberal and Romney has flip-flopped (on social issues) too much & has even waivered on issues such as national security, which he has no experience on.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Fredo,
I completely understand your issues. I think you have correctly focused on some of the differences. My feeling, however, is that all strengths and weaknesses are time related…..almost like the time value of money. The longer you hold it, the less it is worth. What I mean is McCain’s time window is November. If he doesn’t win, he will never run again and we will have Obama for 4 and maybe 8 years. So, the VP pick’s strengths have to be relevant NOW, this year, the next 90 days. Who is more likely to help McCain win 90 days from now? The “reins of the party” have little to do with victory in November. Pawlenty seems like a capable Governor. Actually, Minnesotans prefer he stay Governor rather than be VP. But that aside, I just believe Mitt’s strengths are relevant in the HERE and NOW, in the next 90 days. There is no time luxury available to McCain to ” introduce” a relatively unknown VP to the voters in the available 90 days. Too much time would be wasted trying to create a good ” first impression” on the voters before they began looking at Pawlenty as VP and potential President. And, when they got around to that point, in early October, they would, fairly or unfairly this year, ask is Pawlenty is ready to sit across the table from PUTIN as a possible President. I think that is a major risk.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Romney on abc right now!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Romney is back from China!
August 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Romney clearly outclassed Daschle on ABC. He was on-point. He ran circles around Daschle on his “judgment vs. experience” answer and left Daschle with nothing more than cheapshot partisan hackery at the end.
I almost wish Obama picked Daschle as his running mate so we could beat the crap out of him all over again.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I was proud of him for refusing to say anything negative about Huckabee, in spite ofr the huge opportunity presented to him.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
It was best for him to not take the bait on Huckabee. Then again I didn’t really expect him to. Everyone knows Huck is a bottom feeder anyway.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
[...] original ruling on the field has been [...]
August 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Governor Huckabee has taken the high road and stayed vertical for the most part. As for Romney, his campaign was ruthless, like that of the type of Company he ran.
McCain has in his SaddleBack, gave his nod to standing up for the Principles that founded this Nation and will not waiver on the social conservative planks.
The one candidate who has the largest Coalition of Americans who will support the ticket is Huckabee. Since Mike bowed out of the race, his coalition has grown manifold in strength and it continues to as every day goes by.
Huckabee for VP will unite the party more then any other candidate for McCain and it will further the confidence of McCain to do the right thing and him being the Maverick he is, I expect great results. Does this indicate my full support for McCain. Not yet. To do that his next two weeks before the Convention will speak volumes.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
#141 – If Huckabee is so super, why is it that in this group of pretty astute political junkies, he was only on 3 ballots of the 52 cast on last night’s vp picks here on race42008? He is the most devisive candidate I’ve seen in a long time, and nearly everyone on here recognizes that.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I added an S since I see there is now another Linda Posting.
Romney has not said a negative thing about Huckabee since the primary ended, and the stuff he said before was on policy. Romney has done nothing but support and help the republican party and McCain in his run for the presidency.
I think Huckabee is shooting his foot by not doing everything he can to support McCain no matter who he chooses. If McCain chooses Romney for Vice president, Huckabee’s behavior will be telling. If he stands up and enthusiastically supports McCain/Romney, there may be hope for him in the party. If not, I think he is done.
I am absolutely sure that Romney would support whoever McCain chooses.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
#141
“Governor Huckabee has taken the high road”
Huckabee and the high road should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
134 Craig
Agreed. Your “timeline” analysis is why I wouldn’t be upset with a Mitt pick, and would probably do the same in Mac’s shoes. Even though deep down I’d prefer Pawlenty.