Romney's running mate? It could be Christie or Santorum

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | January 9, 2011 | Thomas FItzgerald

[Clintonfatigued]

Christie is leaving the door open. "If Gov. Romney comes to me and wants to have a talk about that, we'll have a full conversation about that and then Mary Pat and I will make that decision about what we want to do with our future," Christie said in a Fox News interview before Christmas. "But my view is, I think if you fast-forward the tape to a year from now, I think it's going to be President-elect Romney and some other VP-elect - and Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey."

Christie repeatedly has said he would not be a good second fiddle. "Do I look like somebody's vice president?" he said at one point.

Another name very much in the mix: Florida's junior senator, Marco Rubio, a charismatic Cuban American with nine years in the state legislature on his resumé, including a term as speaker of the Florida House, and strong support from tea party activists. Presumably Rubio, 40, could help carry Florida, which will be as pivotal as ever, and also appeal to Latino voters, the nation's fastest-growing minority group, which has been drifting to the Democrats in a big way in recent years.

But here's a Pennsylvania angle on the veepstakes: Some handicappers even think Rick Santorum might be a good No. 2.

The former Pennsylvania senator has right-wing street credibility and is strong among evangelical Christians and other social-issues conservatives - important parts of the GOP coalition. As the grandson of an immigrant coal miner, Santorum also is a Northeasterner with a working-class sensibility (Did you hear him from Iowa on Tuesday night, describing his grandfather's hands?). Pennsylvania is a swing state, and, until his landslide loss to Bob Casey in 2006, Santorum had demonstrated strong appeal to economically stressed but culturally conservative whites

[Lauren BaRecall]

Oh yes, I can see Coulter presiding over the Senate. lol

[Lauren BaRecall]

Only Romney and Paul have qualified for Va. Just sayin’.

[tallyhoe]

Well I figured that if a So Called Conservative could wok for a Socialist he could work for anybody!

[AmericanInTokyo]

****DISGUSTING***

Unless he runs as a Third Party candidate, how can Mitt Romney indicate or even have a running mate, if he is not the nominee of the GOP? Moot question. And entirely premature if thrown out there before even one primary has been conducted by the GOP for 2012.

The question itself and corresponding psywar article, not to mention the over presumptive quotes from Gov. Christie trying to create an inevitable narrative--along with what the MSM is doing--stinks to high heaven and deeply insults millions of voters who have yet to have their say about Governor Romney (RINO-Massachusetts). There is currently nearly a 75% vote block in the GOP WHO DO NOT WANT ROMNEY AS THE NOMINEE.

I don't even know why this drivel is here on FR in the first place or why Jim would allow it.

[rintense]

Amen!

[moose-matson]

It could be romney/perry but perry is, imo, too bush-like for the voting public....I see romney/huntsman.

We would hate it but they would bracket the map with "executive experience" that doesn't scare the middle....and it would still be "anybody but obama".

[AuH2ORepublican]

There is still time to stop Romney, but it’s running out fast. We’re down to one bullet: conservatives coalescing around Rick Santorum in SC and FL and building upon victories there to beat Romney one-on-one in later primaries. If we keep arguing over whether perhaps Gingrich or Perry or Ron Paul should get to shoot our one bullet instead of Santorum, Romney will wipe the floor against the divided opposition. A month ago one could argue over who should be the one conservative standardbearer, but the die has been cast and relitigating that will only help Romney.

In the days prior to the Iowa caucuses, I told anyone who would listen that the most important thing wouldn’t be whether Romney, Paul or Santorum finished first, but whether Perry and Bachmann get below 10% and then dropped out, given that Santorum wouldn’t be able to defeat Romney in later states if a chunk of the conservative vote was going to Perry and Bachmann. Well, Bachmann got below 10% and dropped out, and Perry got just north of 10% and, after some initial confusion, decided to stay in; hopefullt he won’t get 10%-15% in SC and hand the state (and perhaps the nomination) to Romney.

In NH, on the other hand, the most important thing won’t be Romney’s victory margin or whether Santorum finishes 3rd, 4th or 5th, but how well Huntsman does. A strong 15%-20% showing by Huntsman could be enough for him to live to fight another day and maybe build a little momentum, and if Huntsman is able to compete in the FL primary he could cut into the Romney vote from moderate Republicans in the Gold Coast and Tampa Bay. That would be terrific news for Santorum, since otherwise Romney may be able to forge a coalition that would give him a plurality against Santorum, Newt and Perry (with Paul getting some votes as well).

Regarding the subject of this thread, I think that the obvious GOP VP candidates from this cycle—Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Pat Toomey and Jeb Bush—have one thing in common that could make them bad picks for Romney: they are all Roman Catholic. If, as has been speculated, Evangelical Protestants (particularly Southern Baptists) are wary of Romney’s Mormonism, he needs a VP pick that will assuage the feelings of this crucial voting block, and picking a Catholic runningmate may not be a good way of achieving that end. In other words, a Catholic VP candidate would be terrific for the GOP, and, in a happy coincidence, most of the obvious GOP VP candidates happen to be Catholic, but only a Protestant presidential nominee would be able to pick a Catholic runningmate; and while every single Republican presidential nominee from 1856 to 2008 has been Protestant, this year our nominee will almost certainly not be (the only Protestants still in the running are Perry and Paul, and it’s too late for someone else to jump in). So, because of our curious predicament, I think that we’d be better off with a Protestant VP nominee, and that (God forbid) Perry wins the nomination he should pick former MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty, SC Senator Jim DeMint or WI Gov. Scott Walker as his runningmate.

[Jumper]

Maybe you need to think that comment through, unless of course you prefer Obama to Rommeny.... A republican of any ilk any day over the democrat alternative.... OUCH, it is hard to say that but in the END.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Romney will pick a conservative but not one that is running against him at this point—It will be someone from the south with a lot of clout—like The former Governor of Mississippi. Maybe the former Governor of Nevada. Christie is possible—but I don’t think so. It will be someone from the west or south.

[Inwoodian]

Two Northeast moderates on the same ticket?

[rintense]

No way. And that’s the exact thinking that gets us RINOS every Damn time- and destroys what it means to be a conservative. And that’s exactly what Rove, the establishment, and the RNC are counting on.

You do NOT advance conservatism by becoming more liberal.

I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. Period.

[Nifster]

No argument from me on that point. I just so fear for my country if the Obozo continues

[MattinNJ]

It will be Christie. I have it on good authority. Can’t elaborate.

[Jumper]

Well, you are caught in no-man’s land which is the best Obama can hope for, e.g., you will not vote for the alternative, period. We all have choices and if you choose to not vote for someone who represents at least a sliver of what you want, then you forfiet the right to complain. There is no perfection left in America, you take the best and only you know which you consider worst. For me, I will not throw away my vote but will vote against Obama for the other guy who has the nomination, period. I didn’t like John McCain, and Dole didn’t impress me either but this election year if either were the nomination I would vote for them. If it is the one we all dislike on FR, e.g., that guy who was governor of MASS then so be it.

[rintense]

Where did say I wouldn’t vote? I said I wouldn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Jumper]

Sorry I misinterperted the intent of of your message. I am with JR/FR on not liking Mitt too. I just wish two things:

That our votes are for people who actually represent us, rather than like in the Soviet "where they pretent to pay the workers/the workers pretent to work".

That the Republican Party attracts independents to the degree that we can govern effectively without the Communist appeasers/socialist lite lovers.

[rintense]

I hear ya. I wish conservatives would unite and decide who we want, rather than the MSM and GOP deciding for us.

[Impy]

I bet Romney would go with one of the Catholics despite that concern about the Evangelical vote.

Santorum though, double Catholic ticket? I don’t know.

Speaking of Jim DeMint, I would be nice if he got off his keister and backed Santorum.

If Steve King had pulled the trigger on an endorsement it would have easily overcome Romney’s disputed 8 vote margin in Iowa.

[Clintonfatigued]

AhH2orepublican had the same concern. I think I addressed it to his satisfaction.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2831690/posts?page=16#16

[Repeal The 17th]

-