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 majority of the Freeper Nation seems impervious to objective assessment.
Objective assessment is NOT about “Who have I liked all along that didn’t make it to the top of the ticket?”!!!!
Objective assessment IS about:
Who would garner the most votes NATIONALLY?
Who can bring the most money to the campaign NATIONALLY?
This is basically a redo of 2000. To win the White House we have to win Florida. The logical choice is Frist.
I don’t want McCain to win.
Fred will be the man and will come out with guns blazing in full attack anti lethargy mode. When he begins to eradicate the Democrats, the Presidential nominee and the congress, the previous perception will evaporate.
Romney would be batting .500 there. Instead of getting a lousy candidate - lousy in terms of whether he's electable - who has to pay ten thousand per new vote, why not just pick a good conservative to mollify - nay - enthrall and encourage the base enough to bring in the donations?
Ya!!!!!!
McCain should pick an ultra-conservative, who is capable of gathering another 2% of the National vote, so that the purists on FR will be happy....../sarc
Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback reflect MY ideas of a conservative politician, but I’m not so ignorant as to believe either is capable of bringing a sufficient number of votes to the Republican ticket.
That said, I think it would still be McCain and Fred's election to lose. I've thought for a while that they were the two most, or two only, electable Republicans running. I suspect McCain will prove it by crushing Obama like it's 72/84 again.
IIRC McCain has limited himself to one term.
And Mitt Romney is? Come on. McCain won't be that desperate for cash.
I don’t think it’s so much as what they have against him, at this point. I think it’s more of a lack of confidence in Fred.
And, let’s be honest, Fred did very little to assuage that position. As much as I believed in that man, I have to say, he was a terrible disappointment as a candidate.
If he could cut n’ run, so easily, in the race for the nomination before even super Tuesday, how much intestinal fortitude would he have as VeeP or, if needed, as POTUS?
In that he still hasn’t come out publicly and explained his reasons for dropping out, let alone given me, you, US, the respect and acknowledgment of the customary...”Thank you for your support, you worked so hard, but...” speech, is a real slap in the face and speaks volumes about his suitability for the office, to me.
Sorry, just tryin’ to keep it real...
I never saw anything that substantiated that. It would be fine by me, of course.
I don’t think it’s so much as what they have against him, at this point. I think it’s more of a lack of confidence in Fred.
And, let’s be honest, Fred did very little to assuage that position. As much as I believed in that man, I have to say, he was a terrible disappointment as a candidate.
If he could cut n’ run, so easily, in the race for the nomination before even super Tuesday, how much intestinal fortitude would he have as VeeP or, if needed, as POTUS?
In that he still hasn’t come out publicly and explained his reasons for dropping out, let alone given me, you, US, the respect and acknowledgment of the customary...”Thank you for your support, you worked so hard, but...” speech, is a real slap in the face and speaks volumes about his suitability for the office, to me.
Sorry, just tryin’ to keep it real...
and
1996: Voted in favor of H.R. 2202 (Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996) to reduce rewards for illegal immigration Rep. Sanford voted in favor of H.R. 2202 that denied illegal aliens in-state tuition, in addition to almost all forms of federal welfare.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1996-89
Yes!
Mitt Romney IS capable of bringing a sufficient number of votes to get McCain elected.
What is so difficult about objectively assessing national politics?
Who was running the strongest behind McCain?
(No!...Not who was the most stubborn?...but who was getting the most votes?)
No, what he said was that he would set an agenda to try to get most of what he wanted in one term. The question of a second term is open.
Finally, someone speaking to the reality of the situation.
All in all, I don't think Mitt would help the ticket. McCain needs someone the base believes is honestly conservative enough - not necessarily "ultra-conservative," mind you. There's a reason that conservatives went to Huckabee and Thompson in droves instead of following all the shiny, pretty ads on TV telling them Mitt was one of them.
I was a Fred Head ...but if you don’t understand WHY he would be a bad choice to be McCain’s running mate I’ll paint you a picture in two words: (1) age, (2) cancer.
Surprise!!!
Yes!
That he ran second in the vote count is ALL that matters!
There is NO OTHER unit of measure that places a candidate in the White House!
Former Gov Frank Keating’s name came up once but I have not heard it lately. He might be a very good choice also, and he has an impressive resume. He was high on Bush’s list in 2000.
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.