June 04, 2008
VP Stakes: Post-Selection Benefits

Since our discussion of the potential Republican VP choices, I've given some more thought to the issue and tried to digest as much coverage of the issue as I could, including Michael Medved's exhaustive examination. Consequently, some additional thoughts on the benefits of potential selections:

First and foremost, as much as it's great fun to discuss potential electoral strengths of prospective VPs candidates, the ability of VP nominees to secure states and/or demographics for the ticket is generally unproven. What is proven is the importance of a VP nominee choice that maximizes earned media following their selection as well as on the campaign trail in the coming months (plus, it would help if they don't lay an egg in the VP debate). The earned media factor is perhaps even more important this cycle given the comparative weakness of paid media in competing with the 24/7 news cycle in multiple mediums.

That means Bobby Jindal has to be considered the first choice. The combined strengths of his resume, youth, and identity as a movement conservative all mean likely pluses for media coverage. He's young, smart, and the child of immigrants - thus blowing up the media stereotype of conservatives. Though his youth might be deemed excessive and thus a drawback to some, the positives he brings to the ticket are just too strong to be ignored.

Mitt Romney would make a fine second choice. He easily surpasses the core criteria McCain needs out of any ticket-mate: strong on domestic issues, impressive executive experience, passes the Commander-in-Chief credibility test, energetic & tested campaigner, talented fundraiser, and proven debater.

Yet, he would inevitably be viewed by the press as a sop to the right and a concession to the Republican and conservative establishments. Thus, he would receive much less of a post-announcement press honeymoon than Jindal. Furthermore, while a Romney pick would assuage many conservatives, a vocal minority of social conservatives would be highly displeased with the choice. As if McCain needed more enthusiasm problems with that group.

Tim Pawlenty seems like a very solid, if safe, option. All indicators point to him being a solid compliment to McCain's reform-based agenda for the fall campaign. He appears to have acceptable levels of support from all wings of the party. Yet, there's nothing about his storyline that is particularly compelling at this point in contrast to other contenders. That means less likelihood the press covers his announcement as a truly interesting story. Perhaps that's the price of being on every VP list since McCain looked like the nominee, but that's reality.

Given everything Pawlenty brings to the table, he looks like a top-quality pick, especially if the age factor/1st year Governor issue ends up disqualifying Jindal in McCain's eyes and if Romney's much-discussed baggage is too much.

Any of those three would be a welcome option, though the secluded nature of VP deliberations always complicates such things. Until it is announced, however, there probably has to be real concern that the selection will be an untested/unvetted campaigner (read: someone from the business world) who could very well turn out to be a dud - or even on a weakness - for the ticket. Likewise, a "maverick" pick solidifying a McCain break from the GOP itself rather than embracing a new reformist mold for Republicans could likewise be a disaster, sending the grassroots for the exits.

This is a tricky little dance McCain has on his hands.

Posted by Eric Earling at June 04, 2008 07:35 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Eric said:

"What is proven is the importance of a VP nominee choice that maximizes earned media following their selection as well as on the campaign trail in the coming months"

Well if a media following is a criteria for a VP candidate why doesn't McCain pick someone like Chuck Norris. He already has name recognition (with a media following), is actually a very solid conservative, and if all else fails he can kick some serious butt (tlak about tough on terror).

Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 4, 2008 07:36 AM
2. Yes, I agree - this became so obvious after comparing McCain's speech last night with Sen Obama's; bottom-line NO COMPARISON! Sen McCain needs help with his telegenic appeal big time and some youthful VP candidate would help immeasurably.

Posted by: Prancer on June 4, 2008 07:36 AM
3. Given the names bantered around, I would have to agree with Eric, that these are probably the top three, especially given Sarah Palin just giving birth. I know some would want McCain to make a Equal Opportunity pick, but I don't think that in itself is a good enough reason.

One thing to consider, given the last two VP's (Gore and Clinton), would be what fight/role does McCain want their VP to lead once elected. Both McCain and Obama do need to look beyond just getting elected and state how their VP would also help them acheive their goals. Both Gore and Cheney have helped their respective Presidents immensly in this endeavor, especially Cheney. This is why I don't see Clinton being the logic choice on the Democratic side, since she would have her own agenda, and it is why I am not as positive on Jindal as some here.

Posted by: tc on June 4, 2008 08:04 AM
4. One thing I think we all can agree on- McCain is a maverick and one things mavericks like to do- shoot from the hip.

I just hope that whoever he picks is a name we have bandied around since he very likely could pick someone and we all say, "Huh?"

Romney is really the only choice. If not, he will continue the fight to elect Rs across the country. Not bad service, IMO.

As for Jindal, all I can say is "did you see Obama last night on TV? He looked like a college kid and this is what the Ds have put up as their nominee?"

Posted by: swatter on June 4, 2008 08:39 AM
5. If you are now saying that maximizing free earned media is the key to the VP selection, then why did you bump up your Romney to 2nd again? He obviously would only bring about negative media attention.

If you are ordering them based on the media attention, Jindal probably would be number one. But ahead of Romney you'd have folks like Tom Ridge, Rice, Powell, Palin, Dole, Hutchison, Giuliani, JC Watts and Steele. All of those would bring about far more in the way of positive media from the VP selection than Romney could.

Posted by: Doug on June 4, 2008 09:03 AM
6. Oh yeah, forgot about Lieberman, he'd probably top Jindal for a positive media effect.

Lieberman, Jindal, Powell, Steele, Dole, Hutchison, Watts, Ridge, Palin, Giuliani, Rice, Pawlenty - - all before Romney.

Posted by: Doug on June 4, 2008 09:07 AM
7. #3.TC.
Both Gore and Cheney have helped their respective Presidents immensly in this endeavor, especially Cheney.
------------------------------------------

Yes on Cheney. No on Gore. It was Clinton and his wife. Gore went to the back of the stage and stayed there. His only act that brought him to the lime light was the China funny money & munks scandel.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 4, 2008 09:11 AM
8. As for Romney, the only reason he has as much support for VP as he has is because his support comes from those that don't like McCain. Basically, it's the Obama putting Hillary on the ticket move.

It's a show of weakness. Romney would have no role in a McCain Presidency (unlike a Cheney in a Bush Presidency and much like a Bush I in a Reagan I Presidency).

At some point in the next couple months most of the Republican McCain haters will realize that and start moving towards one of the other potential VP candidates. As such Pawlenty is probably still a good choice and Ridge might be a choice if they decide to play geography and take down PA and OH in the electoral college.

Safe choice: Pawlenty
Maverick choices: Lieberman, Powell
Geography choice: Ridge
ideological choice: Huckabee
combat Dems choices: Steele, Dole

Posted by: Doug on June 4, 2008 09:19 AM
9. Jindal looked good last night. I don't think the choice of venue or his presence were coincidental.

From what I've seen of him, Jindal will provide a good foil for the dem's "old" and "racist" mantras. He also appears to be fairly well grounded as a conservative.

While the uber-conservatives might not like Jindal's youth and populism, I do not believe his choice as VP will alienate them as much as some of the other options.

Posted by: deadwood on June 4, 2008 09:45 AM
10. Really think that Romney is the best choice out of the few that are mentioned in this article.

Posted by: Michael on June 4, 2008 09:52 AM
11. I thought that Jindal was too young, until I read Medved's point that, even though he is younger that Obama, his resume is considerably stronger. Provides a nice contrast with the weakness of BHO.

Posted by: IcePilot on June 4, 2008 09:54 AM
12. Where's the Shark? Has Earling taken over this blog?

Posted by: Jim on June 4, 2008 09:58 AM
13.
True @1:

Would you really want someone like Chuck Norris to be next in line to become the President of the United States?

Please tell us you are only kidding.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 4, 2008 10:11 AM
14. Doug at 6, why didn't you put your guy, Huckabee, up there? You did everything else, including an undignified Romney rant.

McCain will put who he wants there regardless of who the party wants. Simple as that. Take it or leave it. Not bad stratergery on his part. I just worry it will come out of the sky.

Posted by: swatter on June 4, 2008 10:14 AM
15. Even if Jindal doesn't get the nod, he'll likely be speaking at the convention and has a bright future in the GOP.

Posted by: Palouse on June 4, 2008 10:23 AM
16. For Conservatives, Jindal is the only choice.

Romney only started "acting Conservative" after he was losing the primary. Huckabee is practically a Democrat.

As the article says, Jindal is 100% no compromises on abortion. That about says it...right?

Posted by: John Bailo on June 4, 2008 10:28 AM
17. Even though there is possibly a bit of downside risk, on balance I find myself tending to agree more and more with IcePilot @ #11 WRT Jindal:

''... even though he is younger that Obama, his resume is considerably stronger.''

I would go so far as to say significantly stronger in several key areas; especially reform and cleaning up government waste and corruption (remember the history of Louisiana, going all the way back to and before Huey Long). That fits right in with Senator McCain's ''no earmarks'', etcetera record.

Nobody can question Jindal's GOP credentials, but to a considerable degree he is also an ''out of the box'' Republican.

Obama may or may not be more-or-less forced to pick Clinton for his VP. Either way, if the GOP picks 2 old white guys, that is a comparison that will not match up well; especially for however many new / young voters actually end up voting.

And if Jindal is the pick and Obama complains that McCain was inconsistent in calling him too inexperienced and then picking Jindal:
That is a nice debate lead-in to a comparison of the records of those 2 individuals. Jindal comes off REALLY well when objectively compared to what Obama has done (or not done).

Posted by: Methow Ken on June 4, 2008 11:10 AM
18. While Jindal is certainly an intrguing choice, and an infinitely more qualified candidate in terms of "real" executive experience than Senator Obama, I'd still like to keep him in the bullpen for a couple more innings before putting him in the big game. It may look to some as a pandering pick to counter a minority VP selection to the first minority Presidential nominee and the age issue will just negate the GOP's attempts to illustrate Obama's inexperience.
Let the Democrats wallow in the navel-gazing minutia of "identity" politics for now and instead go with a proven leader in Mitt Romney in 2008.

Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2008 12:12 PM
19. Holy smokes..can you parrot Rush Limbaugh a little bit more?

Posted by: Dimmer on June 4, 2008 12:15 PM
20. @ 19 I'm assuming you're referring to me with that insult. I haven't listened to Limbaugh since around '93 or so, but if that's what he's saying to his listeners, the GOP might just have a shot this election yet. Do you have any insight? or just insults?

Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2008 12:32 PM
21. Reality Check -- If Bobby Jindal became Vice-President (after less than a year as Louisiana's Governor), the Lieutenant Governor would become Governor for the remainder of his term. Mitch Landrieu -- a staunch Democrat and brother of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu -- would fill out the remaining three years.

Posted by: Richard Pope on June 4, 2008 12:33 PM
22. 21. RP....

Wow, like you really care.
All I ever seen from you is bash the CON/REP.

What now, change of heart.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 4, 2008 12:40 PM
23. No. 20 - Yes i was referring to you and why would you consider it a insult. i was listening to rush today and he said that almost verbatim. i did not mean to insult you in any way sorry if you intrepreted it as such

Posted by: Dimmer on June 4, 2008 12:44 PM
24. I think Sen. McCain would like to go with Bobby Jindal - the location of his speech last night, and sharing the stage with Jindal is no doubt being focus-grouped at the moment. But many will say that Jindal needs a full term as governor - not quite ready yet.

The good money is probably on Tim Pawlenty.

However, I've been more and more impressed with talk of Sarah Palin - the 44 year old governor of Alaska. I know Eric has brought her up before, and she is being mostly dismissed. She has a very compelling personal story, is reportedly very good on the stump, and has a high appeal among independent minded women. With a large number of disaffected Clinton supporters who are already tilting McCain, someone like Palin could be big trouble for Sen. Obama.

I read that Palin was listed as being the most popular governor in the United States, with an approval rating in the mid 80% to 90% range - the highest of any current elected state or federal official in American politics.

She appears to have strong conservative credentials, has a record of being anti-tax and anti-corruption - a good fit for a McCain running-mate.

While she is in the Jindal camp with regard to experience, her being a woman trumps it.

She's young and telegenic. Despite her family issues, I think she merits continued consideration.


Posted by: airfoil on June 4, 2008 01:28 PM
25. Agreed. Why should every woman of child-rearing age automatically be disqualified for high office, IF they are willing to make the sacrifices to be there (And the fact that she is governor says she is willing to make the sacrifices).

I just gave birth to my first last August (at almost 35 years) and I will probably still be having children into my 40s -- as more and more women are these days. I think it says something that you aree not afraid of a woman of childrearing years in the office -- after all, it was never considered a disadvantage that Theodore Roosevelt had young children in office. And he was President, not just Vice-

Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on June 4, 2008 01:40 PM
26. If you were insulting me, I listen to Limbaugh a little, but not enough to know what he is saying with respect to VP.

My concerns with the VIPs is what are Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge going to do now that Clinton is gone? Politico reported Drudge has been tacking left, but I disagree. But both don't think much of McCain, either.

airfoil, my word, it's Alaska. Population 100,000 spread over a state the size of Texas. She would be a better cabinet pick or Senatorial pick.

Posted by: swatter on June 4, 2008 01:54 PM
27. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html

No sooner discussed by airfoil than RCP makes his case for Palin. Congrats on the catch.

Posted by: swatter on June 4, 2008 02:09 PM
28. The VP case against Palin is easy ~

The Eastern half of the United States believes the state of Alaksa is actually a Canadian Province.

I agree with a possible cabinet post though.

Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2008 02:33 PM
29. Yeah, I like Palin too. She like Jindal defuses the Democrat racist mem of the right being just a bunch of old cigar smoking white guys. And she is popular, fills the woman void for some females who wanted Hillary on the ticket for that reason, etc.

JIndal is great too. Personally, I would steer clear of Romney only because he seems to evoke such a visceral reaction in so many.

The trouble with Jindal is, as Pope notes above, that essentially assures that Louisiana goes down the tubes. Better for the country that it not, and he have an even better shot, and a much better conservative candidate in 2012 for Pres.

And Pawlenty would be a fine choice too. Although like Lousiana, Pawlenty is one of the few things preventing MN from going in to the abyss. Maybe not such a good idea to let MN become entirely the province of AL Frankenstein.

So, that's why I like Palin. Alaska will always do fine on her own, because that's just her psyche.


Posted by: Jeff B. on June 4, 2008 02:34 PM
30. Bobby Jindal would make a good choice for PRESIDENT in 2012. He needs four years to do something in Louisiana as Governor and why waste him in a year we are fated to lose.

Was suggesting him a way to get him out of the national scene and destroy any chance for him in 2012? I wouldn't put that past a Evans Republican like you.

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 02:53 PM
31. I am not an Evan's Republican. If you read here, I am quite upset at a number of his causes, including the Growth Management Act and then going backwards when he couldn't subdivide his rural property in Kitsap.

So, don't call me an Evan's Republican. In fact, don't call me a Republican.

Posted by: swatter on June 4, 2008 03:36 PM
32. Swatter @14,

I don't put my man Huckabee up there because I'm guessing there's only a small percentage chance he has to help the ticket. Notice I listed alot of Pro-Choice candidates though I'm a Right-to-Lifer. I still believe he would be the best President of the bunch (Ridge probably would be a good one as well) because he really did a great job as Governor. However, unlike the Romney supporters here, I can recognize what the ticket should look like.

Huckabee only would help if the math says McCain needs more rural votes. Huck probably does the best stump speech of all of them, but the VP candidate's role is limited in that regard. It is very true that evangelical Christians are more likely than suburban republicans to sit an election out if they don't have a candidate which is why if it weren't for Romney being willing to throw Tens of Millions into the pot, Huck would be better for the ticket than Romney.

Still, there are far better alternatives. As for my list, it was based on what would bring the most immediate positive free media impact as a VP announcement. Huckabee's positives in the media are more long-term and accumulative so he won't bring any amount to have a significance in that regard.

Either way, McCain is not going to win over many Black Americans this election with Obama the other candidate. McCain probably will also gain most of the Hispanic vote, unless Obama picks Richardson for his ticket. If McCain wants to pick a candidate to cause the Dem's trouble as far as race or sex issue is concerned, Jindal, Watts, or Steele probably won't do much help at all, if any.

He would be better off looking either towards a Lieberman, a Dole, a Palin, or a Rice. You might also want to look at some of the other male candidates to see how they fare with the women vote - of course when you look at the Republican Primaries, the exit polling isn't so nice for Romney on that account, once again the bulk of Huck's support (or at least more than his fair share) came from the better sex.

Posted by: Doug on June 4, 2008 04:02 PM
33. Why sacrifice Jindal in a year we know he is going to lose?

I am really serious about wanting him to become President!

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 06:01 PM
34. By the way Liberman would be the last straw for many conservatives (the few who haven't decided not to vote for him already). Lots of undecided conservatives say it all depends on his VP pick and a social liberal and a Democrat to boot would certainly drive them over the edge.

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 06:05 PM
35. I am not yet invested in the Veepstakes, but am puzzled why NONE of the commenters here have mentioned Charlie Crist of Florida. He is #2 on the referenced Medved list. I've seen him on TV a couple of times, and he looks and sounds appropriately vice-presidential. He delivers Florida, and seems to be pretty popular. So what gives guys?

Hairy

Posted by: Hairy Buddah on June 4, 2008 06:05 PM
36. McCain could win with Alaska's governor Sarah Palin. She's Christian, politically brilliant and courageous, very charismatic, she walks the pro-life/pro-family talk, she owes no one, and makes people feel good. Her husband is blue collar. Unlike other potential VP's, the conservative talking heads would fall in right behind her upbeat, unifying persona. She's much more qualified than those CPUSA moles and dregs Barrack "The Magic Negro" Hussein Obama and Hillary Rotten Clinton.

Posted by: The Pirate on June 4, 2008 06:10 PM
37. Bush has turned too many people off the Republican Party. It's just a Democratic year. Now two years it might be the reverse but this year it is just a Democratic year.

McCain has absolutely no chance of winning. Only Kool-aid drinkers think otherwise (and deep down even they know I am right it is just too hard for them to admit it to themselves.).

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 06:23 PM
38. By the way I am surprised no one has been mentioning The Frog. It is something all conservatives should think about before being a knee-jerk supporter of McCain. We must look at the larger picture here than just one election cycle.

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 06:26 PM
39. As follow-on 2 Jeff B. @ #29 and The Pirate @ #36:

In just talking about Jindal in my above, I did not mean by omission to indicate I had anything against Palin; not at all. Also Eric did not mention her in this thread start. Anyway:
She and Jindal top my list of up-and-coming new faces in the GOP.

And as to the fact that Palin just had her 5th child..... well, surely one of the perks of being VP is plenty of staff so that there will never be a problem finding a sitter.

SIDEBAR to Jeff B.:
Your comments about LA or MN going further down the tubes if they lose Jindal or Pawlenty are well taken, but if I have to choose between saving the Country and letting one state drift a bit longer, then..... well, sometimes triage is difficult, but you have to consider the greater good.

Posted by: Methow Ken on June 4, 2008 07:09 PM
40. There is no way our country can be saved with McCain. In fact (the frog again) I believe he would be more successful in destroying America than Obama would be.

We must look towards 2012.

Regardless it isn't going to matter. McCain has already stated that he is going to run a losing campaign. And from what I have seen of the campaign so far he is doing a very good job of it.

Posted by: Kim on June 4, 2008 07:20 PM
41. Unkl Witz @13

I was only half kidding about Chuck Norris. Yes it would seem like quite a bit of a stretch to ones imagination, but look at what we have for candidates running this year (not what one would truly expect from either party).

In reality Norris is actually very conservative in his beliefs(far more than McCain), but I really doubt he wants to jump into politics (at least not at the VP level).

As for Sarah Palin, I do think she would be great as a VP, but I seriously doubt that she would take on the role considering that her newest addition has down syndrome and that will take allot of her time which is completely understandable.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 4, 2008 08:51 PM
42.
True:

Regardless of his "conservative beliefs", what is his resume? He has never been elected to any public office. He has no executive experience at running anything other that his acting career and his karate competitions.

How on earth could you propose he be put in line as next up for President of the United States?????????????????

Please tell us you're not just kidding, not even "half-kidding"...

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 4, 2008 10:30 PM
43. Unkl Witz,

I know he has absoulutely no resume at all and I would have to believe that he is smart enough to realize that he would have no chance whatsoever to actually even be considered as a VP candidate. I just figured that with how bizarre this election cycle has been that about now anything is possible and you have to admit that McCain picking him would be a "maverick" move. In reality I am just trying to point out that media attention in a campaign is not always the best way to look for a VP which is what I gathered from the original post from Eric (please correct me Eric if I am wrong on that).

Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 5, 2008 12:56 AM
44. McCain should choose the most conservative VP as possible. I'm not encouraged by the McCain presidency however if he chooses a good VP, that would reduce the smell a bit. The most important thing we can do as conservatives besides the VP choice is get envolved here locally and change our local politics. Yes it is hard work, however if we use good persuasion skills and tell the truth to people often enough just to raise a small doubt in their minds then perhaps we can begin to change this outragious left wing nut group sink in this state.

Posted by: TruePatriot on June 5, 2008 07:22 AM
45. Unk, I envy your ability to sleep through the night, but I don't have that ability and wake up a lot. Ergo, I watch the boob tube and always see QVC type companies run by Norris peddle this or peddle that. That is where he has made his money.

So, while we don't think running a TV infomercial company as a "business", it really is, so let's not completely pooh-pooh the resume of Norris.

Deliver Florida? It is already in the bag. McCain is better with the Latino, the retired Jews hate Obama's stand on Israel and the Democrats are livid that "not every vote" counts.

For Romney and others, apparently the McCain barbeque was just that- a social event- so all the players could meet and greet each other. Romney said he was happy for the get-together. Romney will be a player on the McCain campaign one way or another. Deal with it.

Posted by: swatter on June 5, 2008 07:28 AM
46. 42. Wizzy
Regardless of his "conservative beliefs", what is his resume? He has never been elected to any public office. He has no executive experience at running anything other that his acting career and his karate competitions.
______________________________________

Yet you say Obamam has all of this. LOL.


Gezzz I need a drink!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 5, 2008 07:44 AM
47. I'm thinking Virginia Senator Jim Webb for the Democrats. For the GOP--Fred Thompson. Thompson is a true Conservative who is trusted by that wing of the party.

Posted by: Mike Barer on June 5, 2008 07:59 AM
48.
True:

OK, I see your point and it is well taken. I agree McCain should go outside the mainstream to pick a veep, much like Bush did in the last go-round. Though it kills me to say it, Dick Cheney was the perfect addition to his team.

We'll leave to the historians to judge his Presidency.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 5, 2008 08:55 AM
49.
Swat:

I do sleep well at night, especially Wednesdays after basketball.

I don't watch much television any time of the day. It's often on in the evening for the benefit of the other denizens of my abode, usually some god-damned baseball game. But it drives me into the haven of my office.

Anyway, if Chuck Norris does run successful businesses, good for him. He is clearly a successful man and deserves our respect along with everyone else. But I just don't think the Vice Presidency is an entry level position into government.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 5, 2008 09:07 AM
50.
Army:

Obama has been elected to a couple of different political offices now. And he has run a stunningly successful national campaign for the highest office in the land, upsetting a legacy that seemed all but inevitable this time last year. So give him a little credit.

Oh, and it's after 9 am now so I guess you can go have that drink.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 5, 2008 09:09 AM
51.
Mike:

I gotta think you're a Democrat from the looks of your advice. Jim Webb is a good thought, but Fred Thompson? McCain/Thompson? The thought of those two fossils together on the same ticket would make every liberal heart in the land leap for joy.

McCain would be better off putting his mother on the ticket. She certainly has more energy.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 5, 2008 09:17 AM
52. Kim @ 33
Why sacrifice Jindal in a year we know he is going to lose?

Yeah, why blow your wad early? Just pick another white make like the Governor like Mark Sanford and get it over with.

Give future candidates with real credentials time to prove themselves.

Posted by: Cato on June 5, 2008 09:56 AM
53. I don't disagree that he is not in the running, but you have admitted he does have a resume.

Witz, you bring up a good point. Perhaps SP could take a day breather and post an article that sits back and acknowledges what the Democrats have accomplished.

Barrack Obama is the first multi-racial person to have the nomination from a major party running for the President or even Vice-President of the United States. That is a great accomplishment and one my black friends really think a lot about. It is earth-shattering when you think about it. Was it 30 or 40 years ago that King walked the streets of the south in peaceful protests to allow blacks the same privileges as whites or other races.

Just a day would be okay and then we can go back to dissecting his lack of gravitas.

Posted by: swatter on June 5, 2008 10:49 AM
54. OK, then tell me. Who is the GOP choice?
Do you go right, or left?

I have a feeling what you guys think, but is it the most electable way to go?

Posted by: Mike Barer on June 5, 2008 11:16 AM
55. If McCain picks Jindal, I will vote for McCain. If McCain loses, Jindal is still LA gov and instantly becomes a front runner for 2012 over Romneycare and that fast talk Democrat statist Huckabee.

Posted by: AP on June 5, 2008 11:49 AM
56. Michael Savage said that McCain should select Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - but he was being sarcastic.

A conservative would be nice someone who was be viewed as a viable candidate for 2012. Calling himself a reform candidate would also help. He needs some fresh ideas - wonder if he will do this or if he will ignore consensus advice ?

Posted by: KS on June 5, 2008 07:27 PM
57. I think if McCain could land Powell, that would be a complete game-changer.

The problem with Republican African-American politicians, no matter how smart or talented they are, the "mainstream black establishment" always views thems as Uncle Tom's or sellouts. Condi Rice is suddenly less Black than Father Fleger because she doesn't tout the accepted ideology. Condi could be running against Hillary, and Hillary would probably still get 80%+ of the African American vote.

However, Collin Powell is the on exception to that rule. He's the one African American Republican that is actually considered "Black" by the establishment.

He also would have some "cred" with the anti-war types because he was seen as the reluctant warrior and sorta "duped" by the Bush Administration about the war. (which is an insult, Powell's too sharp to be duped by anyone), so they will tend to not be so hostile towards him. Plus he's basically immune to attacks by the media.

I don't think Powell will want it though. He's often expressed no interest in running for an office.

But if McCain could get him, Powell would be the #1, #2, and #3 best choices.

Other choices: Lieberman, Jindal, Steele, Dole, Hutchison, Watts, Ridge, Palin, Giuliani, Rice, Pawlenty, Romney

Leiberman - I like Joe, but the Conservative base will defect en-masse if there are two moderate liberals on the ticket. They won't vote for Obama, but they'll stay at home. Also, McCain needs some youth and vigor and oratory on a running mate to Balance, and Joe's none of these things.

Jinal-Too new, Louisiana might rebell if their newly minted Governor who they put in to fix the mistakes by Blanco jumps ship for the VP.

Steele & Rice: For the reasons I mentioned above, they probably wouldn't help McCAin much, and may look too much like a pander to minorities. From a competence point, both would be more than qualified.

Dole, Hutchenson, Ridge: Don't think there's much to gain here, other than some women votes...which is a possibility I suppose for Dole and Huytchenson. But McCAin will already get Texas, so Hutchenson might not be a good choice. Ridge might help in Penn, but he's no more exciting and engaging than McCain...some problem as Leiberman.

Pawlenty - Would be a good choice, and could possibly delivery Minnesota and possibly other upper midwest swing states like Wisconsin and Iowa. Young, good speaker, and vigorous, as well as pretty conservative. Good balance on the ticket with the potential to lock in some swing states.

Guiliani - Would be a good choice too. He's moderate enough that Independants won't turn away from McCAin like they -might- if he picks a very conservative VP. However, he's well liked by conservatives and conservative pundits. Hannity, Bech, Rush, etc. like the guy, so you help shore up the Conservatives, without alienating the Independants. He'd also bring some Blue states into play like New Jersey and Penn. Downside: Then you have 2 old white guys on the ticket.

Romeny - Good choice too. Youthful, vigorous, great speaker. If you were casting a guy to play the President, you couldn't pick a guy better than Romney. He's also amiable enough that he won't be attached by the 527 Media the way certain conservatives would me. If he can be governor of Mass, then he's got some cross appeal.
He'd shore up the Conservatives, raise money, and Balance the ticket well.
Downsides: There's a far right Christian condingent that don't like him because he's Mormon. Really only the Far right christians, and far left athiest really hate him, everyone else is neutral or like him (regardless if they'd vote for him). And the Far Left will never vote Republican, so you don't have to worry about those. Also, might not deliver any new states. Possibly Michigan, and MAybe Colorado but that'd be it. Utah and other Rocky Mtn states will go to McCAin anyway.

Palin- Interesting Choice. Alaska will go McCain anyway, so there's no new states to be had with her. As a woman and a conservative, she could help shore up those two demographics, and I personally like the fact she wants to drill through the head of a carabou to get to the Alaskan oil...so maybe she can talk some sense into McCain. She was born in Sandpoint Idaho, so there's a very outside chance that that could by proximity play well enough if Washington to possibly get that into play...but I don't put much faith into that...Unfortunately WAshington has gotten too Blue over the last Decade.

So, In Short:

#1 Choice: Powell
#2 Choice: Romney, Guilliani, Pawlenti
#3 Choice: Palin, Jindel, and maybe Dole or Steele

Posted by: Brent on June 6, 2008 10:30 AM
58. Mitt Romney was in Seattle at the Sorento Hotel on Saturday raising money for Rossi.

He is incredible.

He will be a great president someday.

His ability to speak clearly on issues would be a great asset for McCain.

Posted by: Bronx Latina` on June 9, 2008 04:31 PM
59. Here's the thing. It would be pretty hard to imagine a Republican having more than 3 terms. So if you really want Romney as Pres, probably the best thing would be for him not to get the VP, McCAin to Loose, and then Romeny have a shot at it in 2012 or 2016.
Even if McCAin Wins, it's likely (historically speaking) that a Dem will win in 2012, so Romney in 2016 is still the likely shot.
In fact, if Obama wins this year, Romney in 2012 will probably look like Reagan in 1980.

Posted by: Brent on June 10, 2008 09:38 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?