Well, it’s a better idea than picking a guy whose support is rabid in the right-wing blogosphere and nowhere else. What does Romney do for McCain on the ticket, though? Maverick needs help in the south, where Mitt couldn’t beat a one-trick pony like Huckabee. The Mormon thing is still sadly an issue, too. The best argument for Mitt has always been that he could conceivably stop the centrists like Mac and Huck, i.e. as an “anyone but” candidate. Now that we know he can’t, Coulter’s ongoing boosterism seems bizarre. Why not pick Mark Sanford or Crist or throw the Democrats a curveball by putting a woman or minority on the ticket to take some of the edge off the nominee on the other side?
She’s smart, though, to be thinking of this as a pathway to the nomination in 2012. McCain’s hinted at a one-term presidency and Mitt’s road is going to be rough even with three years of careful positioning. As his advisors now concede, and as the Letterman clip below demonstrates to ample effect, his problem’s always been authenticity — to the point where they now admit they “overcompensated” by tacking too far right on social issues and immigration(!). (Still excited, Ann?) The problem is, if Mitt Romney v2.0 was too phony, how is Mitt Romney v3.0 going to play? If he inches back towards the middle and remakes himself as the technocrat, economist, and counterterrorist his core supporters like Barnett were hoping for all along, he won’t be a flip-flopper, he’ll be a flip-flop-flipper. Good luck, Mitt.