Posted on 03/12/2008 3:08:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When John McCain begins his search for a vice presidential running mate, he'll quickly come upon a sad fact. He wants a candidate who will be seen as a plausible president. That's criterion number one. He also wants someone who won't subtract from his campaign in any serious way. That's criterion number two. The unfortunate truth is that few Republicans meet these simple criteria. McCain doesn't have much of a pool to choose from.
But his selection matters enormously, all the more because of his age. McCain will turn 72 on the eve of the Republican convention this summer. Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a presidential nominee makes. And the nominee is judged by the quality of his pick and even by the smoothness of his selection process. So McCain had better choose well.
He has the right idea in mind. McCain thinks three vice presidential picks from the recent past were wise: Republican Dick Cheney in 2000 and Democrats Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Al Gore in 1992. They were nationally known political heavyweights who passed the most important test. They were accepted almost instantly as ready to replace the president if necessary. And they had no significant drawbacks.
The list of plausible presidents is short. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman qualify. That's about it. There are a number of popular Republican governors--Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Haley Barbour of Mississippi--but they fall short of Cheney-Lieberman-Gore stature. It's not their fault, but it's nonetheless true.
So how about Lieberman in 2008? He's a pal of McCain, a brave backer of the war in Iraq, and now the most prominent Democratic supporter of McCain's presidential bid. He would surely enhance McCain's appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He's a political adult.
But he's no Zell Miller. Lieberman is a liberal on domestic issues, including abortion. McCain already has trouble with conservatives and picking a Democrat would make things worse. Lieberman would probably subtract more votes from the McCain ticket than he'd add.
So would Giuliani and Ridge. True, Giuliani was a hero of 9/11 as mayor of New York, and Ridge, a former Pennsylvania governor, was President Bush's first homeland security chief. But both are pro-choice on abortion and would horrify social conservatives, an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. Giuliani or Ridge might prompt a third party pro-life presidential challenger.
Fred Thompson, the ex-senator from Tennessee and now a TV actor, is also a close friend of McCain. If he'd run a more spirited presidential campaign of his own this year, he'd be the obvious pick for running mate. But his campaign was dreary and disappointing. McCain needs someone more vibrant and upbeat.
That leads to Romney. He has run a vigorous national campaign and been vetted by the press and his opponents for the Republican nomination. These are very strong pluses. A pick who produces unhelpful surprises, as Geraldine Ferraro did in 1984 (her husband's business deals) and Dan Quayle did in 1988 (his National Guard duty), is exactly what McCain doesn't need. Romney is a known quantity.
Romney has three other add-ons. He's acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns. He's unflappable in debates. With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain's admitted weakness on economic issues.
Romney has allies in the Bush wing of the Republican party. President Bush favors him as McCain's veep. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries, but never endorsed him publicly. Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, has hinted that he considers Romney to be McCain's best running mate.
Is there a downside to Romney? Possibly. It's not his Mormonism. He lost the nomination to McCain, but religion wasn't the reason. As a corporate turnaround artist, he rescued companies, sometimes by laying off workers. When he ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 1994, the incumbent, Teddy Kennedy, raised the layoff issue with punishing effect. No doubt Democrats would use it again, and it might have resonance if a recession hits and unemployment is increasing.
Mike Huckabee's name is bound to come up in the veepstakes, since he's now run nationally and been vetted. According to Rove, he would "double" McCain's trouble with conservatives. Both foreign policy and economic conservatives would scream bloody murder if McCain chose the Huckster.
Presidential nominees once tried to balance their ticket with someone who'd helped win a state they might otherwise lose. This hasn't entirely gone out of fashion. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is often mentioned in this regard. Former House member John Kasich and ex-trade representative and budget director Rob Portman, both from Ohio, are too.
McCain has also been advised, at least by the media, to pick a much younger person for vice president. Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri, 37, and a handful of others have had their names trotted out. Some of them have impressive credentials. Blunt, for example, is an Annapolis graduate and a Naval Reservist called to active duty after 9/11.
But I don't believe the option of choosing a running mate for purely political reasons is open to McCain--not during wartime, anyway. His strong suit against Barack Obama, his likeliest Democratic opponent, or even against Hillary Clinton, is experience. In fact, Clinton has set up Obama to be attacked by McCain on this front.
Her TV ad raising doubts about Obama's readiness to be president was critical to her victories last week in the Ohio and Texas primaries. She also said in a campaign appearance: "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience [to the White House] and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference." In Obama's 2002 speech, he opposed the invasion of Iraq. One can envision her comment in a McCain TV ad zinging Obama.
McCain would throw away the experience issue if he named a much younger running mate or someone without national stature or a background in world affairs. Obama's response could be devastating: "If experience is so important, why did you pick a running mate who has so little, indeed less than I do?"
Romney thus appears to have the best ratio of virtues to drawbacks. But there's just one problem: McCain doesn't like him. Just how important compatibility is--that is something McCain will have to decide.
“The list of plausible presidents is short. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman qualify.”
Romney. I was thinking earlier, maybe Ridge but I hear that he is a pro-abort so forget it. I’d love Fred in the job if he were ten years younger, otherwise all you have is TWO grumpy old men on the ticket.
“Romney would be a disastrous VP pick”
Why?
But Romney would not be a great pick, and potentially a pretty bad one. He's a major league flip-flopper and a Mormon. Those are probably less important faults for a VP, but they're still electoral faults.
I don’t think that the theory that a VP can ‘buy’ states works anymore.
pick a VP to balance the man...Bush didn’t pick Cheney to win Wyoming’s precious electoral votes. He picked him because he needed to be balanced with foreign policy experience. Likewise, mccain should pick a conservative governor who specializes in economy because he is a moderate senator who specializes in foreign policy.
mccain had a problem with romney ever since the winter olympics in 2000. You see, mcCain really doesn’t like spending on pork that doesn’t serve the national interest...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-olympics3feb03,1,4840688.story
On Sept. 19, 2000, John McCain rose in the Senate to rail against what he called the “staggering” sums that the federal government planned to spend to help Salt Lake City stage the 2002 Winter Olympics.
“The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion and a half dollars,” McCain said.
The Arizona Republican vowed to “do everything in my power” to delay or kill “this pork-barrel spending” and to end the “fiscal abuse” related to the Olympics. “This is preposterous and it must stop,” he said.
>>As for his own views, Sanford told me that after securing the borders, he’d support “a bill that said to every employer out there, if you hire an illegal you’re in serious trouble” — something he’s trying to do in South Carolina. Beyond that, he explained that he understands the practical problem of trying “to pull off the largest migration in the history of mankind and send 12 million people back outside the United States.” But he added: “Would I have a problem with it, were it to occur? No.”<<
It may be more than 12 million. I wish McCain himself would agree with Sanford (or if he actually does, let us in on it).
well, the last thing any conservative (and especially libertarian) wants is some giant secret police like the Stasi or KGB in order to find and deport all these people.
I believe the main focus should be on Mexico. The only reason why there are illegals crossing the border in the first place is because Mexico’s corruption destroys the economy. We have an even bigger, less protected border with Canada and we don’t have millions of canadians sneaking through. So if I was president, I’d be putting a lot of pressure on mexico to get their act together.
>>well, the last thing any conservative (and especially libertarian) wants is some giant secret police like the Stasi or KGB in order to find and deport all these people.<<
I think a tripling of the number of ICE agents is a good idea (then they would only be outnumbered about 3,000 to 1), but I agree that would be just part of the solution. I meant that we should at least make a good faith attempt at employment enforcement.
>>I believe the main focus should be on Mexico. The only reason why there are illegals crossing the border in the first place is because Mexico’s corruption destroys the economy. We have an even bigger, less protected border with Canada and we don’t have millions of canadians sneaking through. So if I was president, I’d be putting a lot of pressure on mexico to get their act together.<<
Good luck with that. Thanks to the drug wars (and no thanks to our government’s open borders policies) the situation is getting worse down there.
Four liberals and conservative Fred. Yeah right!
I think it could get better with calderon. but bush is too soft with mexico.
“There are good potential VPs out there who lack the baggage that Mitt has, not just for this year, but in 4-8 years when it really matters. ‘First loser’ does not make you in the automatic VP in any case.”
True, we need to use this opportunity to place a true conservative front and center, and have a conservative future to look forward to.
Not yet, but when asked he will.
That’s why I said to watch for it.
Since Fred Barnes doesn’t seem to be objective enough for you.
great guy but still, just a congressman. A senator wants a governor. I don’t know of anyone more qualified than Gov Sanford and not 500 years old.
Romney is simply unelectable. He gives the impression he’s a used car salesman. He turns people off as soon as he opens his mouth.
Don’t take my word for it...just ask ordinary Americans.
Romney has the 2nd highest delegate count.
That’s all I need to know.
Either Mark Sanford or Fred Thompson would potentially energize the voters to go vote for the team ... and this in turn would aid in getting more Republicans into the House and Senate. My great fear is that John Insane will pick Lindsey Grahamnesty. That should pour just enough ice water on the base to insure Democrat victory in White HOuse, and congress.
then you’re not much of a political scientist.
He’s going to turn off a lot of people that didn’t vote in the primaries and he turned off a lot of people who did.
He already has the high negative ratings that Hillary took years to ‘earn.’
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/10/romney-and-obam.html
“A second disappointment for the Romney campaign that is difficult to dismiss is the fact that Romney has the most negative image at this point of any of the major candidates for president. Our mid-September poll shows him with a 27% favorable and 35% unfavorable rating. That makes Romney the only candidate we tested (including Hillary Clinton) who has a higher unfavorable than favorable rating. Among Republicans, while Giuliani’s favorable to unfavorable net difference is +54, and McCain’s is +47 and Thompson’s is +45, Romney’s is +19. In other words, Romney is much less well liked among Republicans nationally than any of his three chief competitors.”
>then you’re not much of a political scientist.<
Well, we’ll just save your little assessment and revisit the subject at a future date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.