Says Novak, who also claims to have heard from Romney’s people that McCain promised Charlie Crist the VP nod in return for his endorsement in Florida:

A footnote: Karl Rove and other prominent Republicans are talking up a McCain-Romney harmony ticket despite personal dislike between the two presidential candidates. Romney also would have to overcome opposition to him going on the ticket by his closest advisers.

We’ve been down this road before vis-a-vis Coulter but since we’ve got some new readers via Captain Ed, let’s run through it again. Romney might bite at the offer since it’s the best leg up he could have on Huckabee, Jindal, Sanford, Pawlenty or whoever else is coming down the pike in 2012/2016, but what does he do for McCain? There’s no shortage of southern evangelical (read: *wince* non-Mormon) social cons around to help him shore up the base, none of whom come with the baggage of nasty exchanges with McCain at the debates and in ads. The only potential advantage he brings is money, which is no small thing when the GOP is taking a hellacious beating on fundraising, but Mitt’s not going to bankrupt himself to make Maverick president and his campaign fundraising wasn’t so prolific as to put him anywhere near the class of Hillary or Obama. He’s not going to deliver any northeastern states to McCain either. So what’s the angle here? Appeasing talk radio by putting a guy on the ticket whom none of them were especially passionate about until he became the only alternative to McCain?

Here’s a better question. Strictly from an electoral standpoint (i.e. not in terms of your own policy preferences), why is Romney a better pick than Huckabee? Silver tongue, tireless campaigner, social con cred, and just enough (shudder) economic populism to maybe steal a few undecideds from the Democrats in the center. I’m not asking if he’s the ideal pick, mind you, just why he’d earn fewer voters than Romney would on the ticket.