With rumors swirling that McCain may name his VP choice in the next few days for a pre-Olympic bump (meaning we probably still have no idea when it's going to happen), let me note I concur almost entirely with this concise summation by Matt Lewis:
-Gov. Bobby Jindal - He would excite conservatives.
-Gov. Sarah Palin - She would excite conservatives.
-Gov. Mark Sanford - Conservatives would appreciate this pick.
- Former Gov. Mitt Romney - Most conservatives would appreciate this pick.
-Sen. John Thune - Many conservatives would be excited by this pick. He would certainly not be offensive to conservatives.
-Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Acceptable, but not exciting.
-Gov. Charlie Crist - Barely acceptable. Certainly not exciting to conservatives.
-Former Gov. Tom Ridge -- Unacceptable. Deal-breaker.
My only real point of disagreement is Sanford. It doesn't seem likely he's actually on the table. A white guy from a Deep South state, regardless of his other merits, is not a good fit for this election year. If Sanford was on the list at some point, his recent fumblaya performance on CNN probably nixed that.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 27, 2008 04:25 PM | Email ThisHe's younger, he's sharp and he's vetted. McCain will be a one and out president. Romney would run in 2012 as the current VP and choose Jindal or Palin. An even better and stronger ticket.
Posted by: Don Harris on July 27, 2008 05:27 PMThere must be two different kinds of conservatives - those who want the Presidency and future Supreme Court picks out of the hands of the Democrats and those who will only be happy if McCain picks 'one of their own' even if it means losing the Presidency.
Looking just at the list of names up there Palin, Pawlenty, and Ridge are the only ones there that wouldn't sink McCain's candidacy - Ridge and maybe Pawlenty, the only two that could be President.
'Movement Conservatives'....be prepared for a 'deal breaker', there ain't no way that McCain is going to give up the Presidency to make a few vocal suburban conservatives happy.
Posted by: Doug on July 27, 2008 08:02 PMMy 2 favs are Palin and Jindal BUT I also think it's way too early in their careers (to waste them).
I don't like Crist... I can't say why, it's just a gut reaction.
I do like Pawlenty.
Tom Ridge is a non-starter: too much baggage.
Sadly, ditto Rick Santorum.
One that has caught my attention is John Kasik. He has name recognition, he brings Ohio and he's very well regarded in Conservative circles as an honest upstanding guy.
Another name bandied about is Jodi Rendell, Governor of CT. Personally, I don't know too much about her but I hear her reputation appears impeccable... however she did get elected as a Republican in far left CT and I would be afraid to have yet another Olympia Snowe/RINO clone.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 27, 2008 09:07 PMI thought Jindal said he wouldn't accept it if it were offered to him.
I think Doug offers the best reasoning. I find it hard to believe that conservatives would sigh and say "I give up for the next 4 years" but I'll take it if that's the thinking.
One thing, though, Obama seems to be shaping up like Clinton - extremely bright (and not even next to Bush but next to anybody) and well-liked (heck, he might even become beloved like Clinton). Why is it that the Dems manage to find the bright AND likeable people? We don't always win but somehow those two things together for Dems but not so much for Reps. Reagan was beloved (for whatever reason) but bright? Not so much. Nixon? Bright but beloved? Bush I and II? Bush I, bright, Bush II, neither of the above.
Good Luck.
Posted by: westello on July 27, 2008 09:15 PMPlease stop repeating the liberal media lie that Reagan was "not too bright"! Have you ever actually read any of the man's writings? He didn't care if he impressed the powers that be in Washington so he didn't bother to put on the psuedo-intellectual show that makes Beltway people feel important...but he was a very well read, intelligent and insightful person. Plus, he had a true grasp on human nature and knew how to relate to the vast majority of Americans, something that the AlGore/John Kerry/Barry Hussein Obamaa crowd can't seem to figure out because they're too busy being oh-so-impressed with themselves!
Posted by: suzihomemaker on July 27, 2008 09:28 PMI mean this aging, hypocritical clown makes all the right noises any tree hugging root kisser would love about the junk science of global warming...
I mean what's in it for these folks on that short list to get a position that would in the words of Cactus Jack is nothing more than a 'wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit'?
Posted by: juandos on July 27, 2008 09:32 PMPeople always say he's not experienced enough. That negative can be turned into a positive, though! By every measure, positions, responsibilities, accomplishments, he is MORE experienced than Barack Obama. And at a younger age.
If they try to use the experience argument against our VP candidate, we can make a better case for the TOP of their ticket!
Posted by: AD on July 27, 2008 10:11 PMWill help McCain in the upper Midwest!
He's Pro-life.
He's in his 50's.
He's a gov.
The convention is in his hometown.
His wife is awesome.
Huckabee would make a good pick, too.
Honestly, Romney scares the crap out of me. I don't think he's very conservative at all. I never trusted him, don't trust him now, and probably will never trust him. His record as Gov. of Mass. is quite telling.
Posted by: Cydney on July 27, 2008 11:54 PMThat was his main public exposure to me. After he was appointed every time I saw him it was with a deer in headlights expression.
He may be good and it may have been the situation, but if he is picked, there is a whole lot of reintroduction that would be required.
As for Palin, I, too, am impressed, but so late in the game? Too much for anyone.
Jindal- didn't he have to eat a campaign promise just a week or two ago regarding some controversial legislation? How did that all shake out since then? Republicans and Democrats were both after him.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2008 06:43 AMNot to be rude, but are you serious?
Need I remind you of your last two nominees for president?
Posted by: jimg on July 28, 2008 10:20 AMAs for me, I'm gonna write-in Ron Paul.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 28, 2008 12:47 PMAnd yes, she just had a baby. Your point is?
Posted by: My Boaz's RUth on July 28, 2008 01:49 PMOnly weakness (which all the others have too): Could possibly not be fully ready to be POTUS in the event John buys the farm.
SO WHAT! That's why you have a chief of staff and a cabinet, DUH!
Anybody see Sarah firing that assault rifle on YouTube? Go see it. She has more balls than all the other Veep possibilities and the Hollow Man (Obama). And she'd take'em on with baby Trig slung on lher shoulder.
She'd capture the hearts and minds of all American women.
Posted by: Tom on July 28, 2008 01:58 PMOnly weakness (which all the others have too): Could possibly not be fully ready to be POTUS in the event John buys the farm.
SO WHAT! That's why you have a chief of staff and a cabinet, DUH!
Anybody see Sarah firing that assault rifle on YouTube? Go see it. She has more balls than all the other Veep possibilities and the Hollow Man (Obama). And she'd take'em on with baby Trig slung on under her shoulder.
She'd capture the hearts and minds of all American women. This gal can lead.
Posted by: Tom on July 28, 2008 01:59 PMSeriously, a woman, any woman with a new baby, a baby with Down's Syndrome (a special challenge in itself for the entire family)would face some special challenges of her own running for office. I'm a liberal and I would think it a poor idea; I can't imagine what most conservative Christians would think. (Abilities or not, to a lot of these people, she's still a woman with a baby.)
She'd be running for Vice-President - it's no walk in the park (plus the fact that she lives in Alaska - how often could she get home?).
But again, really, if that's who you want run her up against Obama and almost anyone (but please let it not be Joe Biden - bright but he's a guy who cannot stopping talking), go ahead.
McCain would lose with her.
Posted by: westello on July 28, 2008 07:36 PMThe Reps are fighting youth and enthusiasm and visible intelligence in Obama (I'm not saying that makes him presidential material; he has other good stuff for that). By contrast, McCain looks old and tired and sometimes grumpy. (It's Nixon against Kennedy even though Nixon wasn't that old at the time.)
But I did hear one thing on some news show that I believe to be true. This election is not about McCain; frankly, I think most fair-minded people could say John McCain is qualified to be president I've always thought John McCain to be the one Republican I could truly stand in office (Arizona is my home state so I have a soft spot for him).
However, I feel like he's sold his soul to be President and that saddens me. All the BS he took in the 2000 election about his service in Vietnam, his wife and, unbelievably, his own child, all that pain he endured only to have to smile and make nice with the same people he knows threw that dirt at him. Where's the maverick now?
No, what these pundit said was that the election was a referendum on whether people believe that Obama can lead. No debate on McCain but if people believe Obama can lead, he will win and there's nothing McCain can do. Obviously, this points to trying to undercut Obama at every turn (a Republican specialty) but unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a huge past to tear apart and so far, like Reagan in the past, seems to have a Teflon veneer.
Posted by: westello on July 28, 2008 07:47 PMConservative Christians are far more open-minded and progressive than you are, apparently, because you have it completely backward.
I'm not sure it's a stranglehold; he's just not that interesting.
Wow. So John McCain, who has spent a career in the Congress fighting for govt accountability and strong national security, who was a Vietnam war hero, is not interesting, and yet Obama, who is black, is?
Seriously, what else is interesting about him? Please, I am begging you, tell me. I have yet to find anything. Wow, he can give a good speech. And? What does he actually STAND for, apart from utterly meaningless tripe about directionless "change" and vague "hope"? Where's the substance?
However, I feel like he's sold his soul to be President and that saddens me.
Yes, you're a fan of Obama, so we already know you're more about feeling than thinking.
All the BS he took in the 2000 election about his service in Vietnam, his wife and, unbelievably, his own child, all that pain he endured only to have to smile and make nice with the same people he knows threw that dirt at him.
I recall no dirt whatsoever about his wife or his Vietnam service. I think you're making it up. As to his child, the person responsible for that -- no, it wasn't Rove -- is NOT someone McCain has dealt with in this run, that I have seen, so you're making that up, too.
Where's the maverick now?
He's still there. What shred of evidence do you have to show otherwise? And again, it's not about your "feelings."
Oh right, he shook hands with someone he called an "agent of intolerance." McCain was not being a "maverick" when he was name-calling in 2000, he was acting like an immature brat. It's good to see he has matured.
This is actually one of the things I like about Obama: he doesn't overtly demonize people he disagrees with, and even meets with them. But when McCain does that, it's a bad thing? Yet another double-standard to add to the list.
No, what these pundit said was that the election was a referendum on whether people believe that Obama can lead.
No, it goes far deeper than that. Obama has not only never shown he can lead -- ever -- he also doesn't actually have any serious positions of his own on any issues. And further, with every passing day, more and more people think he is -- as seems quite likely -- a radical leftist on economic and social issues.
And as for his supposed intelligence, considering he was a professor of constitutional law, he shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the Constitution. I cannot respect the intelligence or judgment -- take your pick -- of someone who studies the Constitution for years, and yet thinks it is acceptable to completely disregard the Tenth Amendment, to, in James Madison's words, "subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
So no, I do not respect the intelligence of Illinois' Junior Senator.
if people believe Obama can lead, he will win
I know you WANT that to be true. There goes them feelings again!
Obviously, this points to trying to undercut Obama at every turn (a Republican specialty)
Yeah, because the last eight years have shown that the Democrats *suck* at undercutting Bush. Oh wait.
but unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a huge past to tear apart
The sad thing is that even though McCain much more of a past, Obama has about as many skeletons as McCain does! And I don't know about you, but I think most people, when they are looking for a President, don't think "I want someone who doesn't have much of a past."
... and so far, like Reagan in the past, seems to have a Teflon veneer.
I think you mean "Clinton."
From Wickpedia:
"Hull (then Governor of AZ) would continue to attack McCain during the campaign, and was featured in high-profile Arizona Republic and New York Times stories about McCain's reputation for having a bad temper,[13][24] with the latter featuring on-the-record criticism from Governor of Michigan John Engler.[24] By early November, stories about McCain's temper problem were frequent enough that Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote a survey article about them.[25] Some of McCain's opponents, including those in or close to the Senate Republican leadership, intimated that McCain's temper was a sign of mental instability."
and during the South Carolina campaign:
"The day that a new poll showed McCain five points ahead in the state,[51] Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us."[13][51] Incensed,[51] McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton,[13] which Bush complained was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary."[13] An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like.[13][52] These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[47]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[13][46] The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with these attacks;[46] Bush said he would fire anyone who ran defamatory push polls.[53] During a break in a debate, Bush put his hand on McCain's arm and reiterated that he had no involvement in the attacks; McCain replied, "Don't give me that shit. And take your hands off me."
So yeah, he was attacked for service (and its outcomes, namely that he is mentally unstable), his wife was rumored to be a drug addict and that his adopted daughter was really an illegitimate one. And, he believed Bush was behind it all along.
That's what I was talking about; I would never make up trash about a candidate no matter who it is. Funny you would think a guy as old as McCain needed to "mature". It's more that he needs to wise up about the people in his party.
Posted by: westello on July 29, 2008 09:16 AMPicking Mitt "Flip-Flopper" Romney dooms his campaign even more because the religious nut-jubs (aka the Evangelical wing) will sit home rather than vote a guy in a cult religion to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Considering McCain has a higher chance of dying in office that's a really scary thought to the fine Christian votes of this county.
"Another name bandied about is Jodi Rendell, Governor of CT. Personally, I don't know too much about her but I hear her reputation appears impeccable... however she did get elected as a Republican in far left CT and I would be afraid to have yet another Olympia Snowe/RINO clone."
Ragnar, the former Ohio Congressman's name is Kasich, not "Kasik," and the Connecticut governor's name is Rell, not "Rell." If Jodi Rell looks good to some, it is only on paper. While popular, she is a thoroughgoing mediocrity, and would we way over her head talking about national and international issues. Your fear that she would be another Olympia Snowe/RINO clone is also well-founded. She is no conservative. Add to that the fact that her chief of staff, to whom she has been doggedly loyal, has had major ethics problems, and Rell should not be on anybody's long list, let alone a short list.
We really need someone who can cut Obama down to mortal size and also take the media to the woodshed. Rudy Giuliani can do that. He also is credible as a leader, does well in debates, has handled opposition controlled legislatures and is well known. He is an Italian and will stir interest in that community. Does he get you a state? Probably not, but then did Dick Cheney or George Bush 41? Also, he will not distract from the lack of experience argument needed against Obama like some of the other people mentioned above.
Posted by: KW65 on July 29, 2008 02:58 PMRomney will lose with social conservatives/evangelicals.
Posted by: Abraxia on July 30, 2008 02:51 PMHe not only highlights what an empty suit the Jr. Senator from Illinois is, he serves as a more than capable back of for Commnander in chief should McCain's health turn south during his first term. This is not the time to be throwing around unknown Joe's and Jill from nowheresville,USA as a credible candidate for VEEP. We don't have the time to introduce the electorate to these persons.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 30, 2008 03:36 PMNo kidding! The Republican Party needs to get out of bed with the social conservatives and religious right.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 31, 2008 03:38 PM