Rumor: Rove wants Romney on the ticket
posted at 11:55 am on March 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
IF, the pick is very important to sow up the conservative base for McCain but has little to no net effect on the moderate vote: Then why not pick someone with serious cred like Newt? If newt as vp wouldn’t keep the moderates from voting for Mccain and would go a long way to get the hard core conservative vote back…why not?
jp on March 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM
He IS a magnificent bastard if it happens.
Hening on March 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’ll vote Nadar before I’d do that.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
You think McCain is having troule suring up the base now? Just wait and see what would happen when the Huckster becomes the VP candidate.
Zetterson on March 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
One of the reasons why I voted for Bush was for Dick Cheney (I’m twenty-seven years old and have fond memories of US military prowess on Bush 41’s watch), but I wouldn’t vote for McCain just for Romney or any over VP pick. I don’t think that a McCain administration is going to leave much room for a proactive VP a la Gore or Cheney.
I’m still voting McCain anyway just because the Messiah is so freaking scary.
Vatican Watcher on March 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Well then, looks like we are moving in the right direction. Now just stay where you belong.
Zetterson on March 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I doubt he picks Romney. Too much anti-Mormon sentiment from Southern Evangelicals.
He needs someone appealing to that group and he will walk away with the election, for bascially the same reason that the Southerners won’t vote for Romney.
drjohn on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Agreed.
I seem to remember originally being attacked for saying I’d vote 3rd party before I’d vote for McCain. It’s apparently acceptable, however, to threaten to vote 3rd party if you don’t get the VP you like.
amerpundit on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 PM
That is the best I have heard and if that is happening I will be enthusiastic in supporting McCain. I am also sure that they have a good chance of winning. Romney’s got the presidential look and it is actually a very good choice. The economy will be the #1 issue and Romney is the guy.
mariloubaker on March 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The ONLY reason that Mitt got the support of conservatives at the last minute was because he WAS NOT McCain (or Huckabee) On his own Mitt has no value. He was not a PROVABLE conservative and HE BAILED AT THE FIRST SIGN OF RINO-Establishment opposition.
He would only help with the Mormon vote.
Ex-tex on March 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Really not much of a debate except for Policy wonks and talking heads.
I don’t know ANYONE who will change their vote because of who a VICE Presidential candidate is.
McCain choosing a real Conservative does NOT make him a real conservative (not saying Mitt is one…).
As to Mitt’s chances next election? He’d be stupid to be VP under McCain. IF McCain is elected, their will be way too many “questionable” decisions made (not conservative) that would tar Mitt as well. If he ever wants another office, his best bet is not to have anything to do with a McCain Presidency.
Think Gerald Ford here… think Mondale… think all those other VPs who served under horrid Presidents. They effectivly ended their Political Carreers.
Romeo13 on March 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I think McCain should go with the Discovery Channel’s host for ‘Bizarre Foods”, Andrew Zimmer as his VP running mate.
I can see the placards now!
FINALLY, A TEAM THAT REALLY TURNS YOUR STOMACH!
pilamaye on March 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM
AP shilling for Huckabee is not good for the soul.
PrezHussein on March 3, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I don’t think Romney would be a bad choice, but I think there are better choices.
ConservativePartyNow on March 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Huckabee is no worse a pick than Romney, but they are both bad. McCain should pick a well vetted outsider who has never been a politician before although suited and capable for the job.
ninjapirate on March 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Karl Rove recently said on FNC after one of the last primaries that a VP pick doesn’t do anything for a ticket, but a wrong pick does hurt. In other words, the only thing that McCain can do is pick a VP who would damage his chances with some of his existing Liberal & Independent supporters.
Also, no Conservative should relish being on a McCain ticket, unless (s)he really expects McCain to win. VP Candidates on losing tickets don’t come back to win on their own - see Dole, Quayle, Lieberman, Edwards (when was the last time it happened)? Therefore, if I am a fan of Conservative pols - Jindal, Palin, Romney, et al, I’d specifically not want them on the ticket, unless I want them to lose.
McCain should therefore pick Gramm (either Lindsey or Phil), Hagel, Lieberman or any of his Senate friends, so that we can be rid of not just one, but two Liberal Republicans from the Senate (since McCain could have a Dole moment and leave the Senate to consolidate his campaign when the going gets tough.) Hey, why not Olympia Snowe, and try steal some of the Hillary vote from Obama?
infidelpride on March 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM
How about Meg Whitman? I have no idea about her background, but she liked Romney.
ninjapirate on March 3, 2008 at 12:16 PM
That is a good question. But I don’t think McCain is going to pick a guy who is going to make him look bad. If you were to look at the relative age of Huck and Mitt, you’d be reminded of McCain’s advancement in years. The silver tongue-ness of Huck would remind the base that the front man on the ticket gives speeches rather poorly. I still think he’ll pick a “moderate” (either republican or democrat) governor. That will add the “executive cred,” without making the base wish the second guy on the ticket were the first guy on the ticket.
Weight of Glory on March 3, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Romney back in the game is the only thing that could possibly get me excited enough to vote. Everyone else is just UGH!
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on March 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM
It’s gotten to the point that you can’t get away from this guy no matter how hard you try! I’m watching The Food Network have a World Championship Steak Cookoff last night that happened in Magnolia, Arkansas. Guess who is there moderating the event! This clown! I’m waiting for him to pop up on the Cartoon Network any day now!
pilamaye on March 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Not going to happen. Not only is there some personal tension between the two men, but a McCain-Romney ticket would suffer from “issues tension” as well. Either Romney would have to adopt all of McCain’s policy stances, or his selection would undermine McCain’s own credibility, which is one of his greatest assets. The former situation would have the “very conservative” wing of the party up in arms, while the latter would poison McCain’s chances in November with the independent voters among which he does so well. Sorry to beak the news to you, but McCain will pick someone with whom he agrees on most issues as his running mate; someone who will continue his policies in the event that McCain leaves office. He’s not going to use the VP selection as a means to counter his own agenda.
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
If you want to join McCain be prepared for the loser curse.
Dole, Qualye and Kemp were all VP selections on losing campaigns and only Dole ever made it to the top of the ticket again many years later.
Its a kiss of death for anyone who wants to run for president in 4 years. Just ask Silky.
William Amos on March 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
He’d be stupid to be VP under McCain.
Dude, who would not want to be VP when the Pres is an ancient geezer in questionable health?
Lehuster on March 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
eBay CEO Whitman ‘77 resigns, considers politics
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/20/20167/
ninjapirate on March 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
McCain is all about celebrity. His VP will be a unknown that will not outshine him. Crist probably fits the bill
PrezHussein on March 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM
What Rove thinks? He’s the “architect” who drove Bush’s popularity into the 30’s and presided over the loss of congress. Obama has a leg up because of a backlash against Bush, but the real problem is that an Obama victory would be coupled with big margins in the Congress. Reagan was a force of change, even with a Democratic Congress. Obama won’t have to deal with an adversarial Congress. The current large congressional margins are Rove’s legacy.
Back on topic, Romney probably doesn’t give McCain any electorals he doesn’t already have. Rudy would help in the NorthEast, Huck helps with the economic populism, Kay Bailey Hutchison could be interesting with moderate women who lost a chance to vote for Hillary.
dedalus on March 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The base REJECTED Romney during the primaries. NOT because he is a Mormon, but because he is, -ahem-, a recent convert to conservatism, shall we say.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Does McCain really have any say regarding who will be his VP? The delegates can nominate anyone they want, I do believe. I don’t think McCain’s delegates are sworn to vote for his VP choice and he’ll barely have enough delegates to secure his own nomination.
Buddahpundit on March 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
JUAN HERNANDEZ
AMNESTY
Hee Haw Damien on March 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Agreed. I’d like to see Romney get a leg up for 2012, but it ain’t happening.
Unfortunately, there’s some truth to this. Romney just didn’t get the conservative juices flowing, even as much as the disgusting Huckster.
This is the right answer, but I fear it will be a Southern Baptist religious right grabber who’s “moderate” (left leaning) like McCain on fiscal matters, rather than a true “Reagan legacy” conservative who has nothing in common with McCain but national defense.
peski on March 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Crist makes more sense than Romney or Huckster. Florida is a swing state with a lot of electoral votes, and Crist (though imperfect) is conservative enough not to further alienate conservative voters.
Both Romney and Huckabee have questionable conservative credentials, and aside from the Mormon vote Romney doesn’t really have a strong demographic that would tilt the election to McCain in a close race- Massachussets ain’t voting Republican no matter who the VP is, plus it would be a negative in the minds of a lot of evangelicals.
Hollowpoint on March 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I like the dismissive “appeasing talk radio” shit. “Talk radio” is not about the host or the medium. It is the voice of millions of Conservatives. Picking Romney would re-assure CONSERVATIVES, talk radio is the mouthpiece and one of the forums for that. It is amazing how some folks, even on “our side” like Allah don’t understand the phenomenon of Conservative talk radio.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Not this Mormon’s vote. I would have settled for a Mitt lead ticket, but McAmnesty is too much for this conservative to take.
Looks like I’ll be leaving the POTUS and VPOTUS slots blank come november.
opusrex on March 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
So your voting for Obama ?
William Amos on March 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I don’t care who McCain picks, I am not voting for him. I am just not. Call me what you will, but I am not voting for him. Besides if I endorsed McCain, he is likely to denounce me and toss me under the Straight Talk Express. Who wants to get run over by that bus???
I for the first time in my life will either vote 3rd party or vote none selected. I can’t vote for the Obamanation either.
USBB on March 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Huckabee is no worse a pick than Romney, but they are both bad. McCain should pick a well vetted outsider who has never been a politician before although suited and capable for the job.
ninjapirate on March 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Ross Perot tried that with Adm. Stockdale in 1992. God love the Admiral, but the VP debate that year was rather painful to watch. (”Why am I here?”)
It seems generally understood that McCain is going to be a one-term President. Therefore, McCain’s VP choice is going to be especially important because that VP will be up for President in 2012. It makes sense for Romney to be McCain’s VP for that reason.
I think McCain could benefit from Romney because (1) Romney would put New England into play (he got within 10 points of Teddy Kennedy for Senate in ‘94) and (2) Romney shares McCain’s deficit-hawk positions and would therefore push Obama even farther to the left on spending — right into a “tax and spend liberal” trap. Also, Romney has some support among conservatives without having true right-wing policy positions that would alienate McCain personally or, for that matter, swing voters. Just my $0.02.
Outlander on March 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Re-reading this asinine post from Allah makes me think he should quit. The only potential advantage Romney brings is his money? How about his enormous business acumen, something the Maverick lacks? how about his eloquence and energy? How about his CONSERVATIVE credentials? How about taking back MICHIGAN in the general which could tip the scale? These are just a few things that Mitt brings to the table. I know Allah doesn’t like Mitt, but this analysis is weak and stupid.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM
“Flip Flop” “Conversion” charge only worked because of peoples lack of trust for Mormons. Other campaigns knew this and ran with it. A university study proved this.
If you don’t like someone identity past actions are hard to forgive. Huckabee supporters liked his identity and have forgiven him for his huge flip flops.
PrezHussein on March 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Crist (though imperfect) is conservative enough not to further alienate conservative voters
He needs someone who people have actually heard of.
I don’t care who McCain picks, I am not voting for him.
Eh, he could maybe redeem himself with the right VP choice, but I doubt it’s gonna happen.
Lehuster on March 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Yeah, talk radio proved oh-so-effective in preventing McCain from getting the nomination in the first place, didn’t they?
A Romney VP selection wouldn’t be all that reassuring to social conservatives, and he’s too much a “big government conservative” to draw fiscal conservatives. There are reasons he lost aside from his religion.
Hollowpoint on March 3, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I’m voting for nobody at this point.
I am tired of having to always be the one to compromise. No more RHINOs!
If that puts Hitlary or Obomba in office, so be it.
opusrex on March 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I take it you’re not from New England. Romney managed to get within 10 points of Kennedy back when he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and distanced himself from the Reagan agenda (which was still fresh in the public’s mind at that point.) After his hared right turn, he’d have no chance in the general election anywhere northeast of West Virginia.
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 12:48 PM
choosing Huckabee would seal the deal as the worst republican ticket since Nixon/ Agnew.
He needs to pick a conservative that can articulate the conservative position…somebody who has not been a lifelong politician so as make to help make the outsider argument…an extremely successful person…that would Mitt.
But, it aint gonna happen. And, thus, I am not voting for McCain.
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Thar should be hard turn right. D’oh!
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I don’t vote for the VP, don’t know of anyone who does. In my family there are four generations of voters, we are all very underwhelmed by the choices given. All saying will vote third party ticket for POTUS.
calgrammy on March 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Besides, McCain needs a good looking dude to offset the fact that McCain looks like a mummified crusty old p*ssed off great-grandpa whose best days are behind him….that would be Mitt.
ooops, sorry…I know we arent allowed to criticize war heroes even if they have been lousy senators.
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM
It is not the job of “Talk Radio” to pick candidates any more than it is the role of the blogosphere. You, like Allah, clearly don’t understand the concept.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Well then, looks like we are moving in the right direction. Now just stay where you belong.
Zetterson on March 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Nope. My guy won, to the victor goes the spoils. Karl Rove should worry more about getting indicted that what Mav’s going to do to clean up Washington. Lindsey Graham will be the VP. Maverick thinks too highly of America, to let a phony like Mitt be second in line to the Presidency.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 12:56 PM
My money is on his buddy Lindsay.
luckybogey on March 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
No way. Crist messed up Florida as Insurance Commisioner, and his Ammendment 1 as Gov. will be a disaster.
Fires1 on March 3, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: talk of who should be VP is irrelevant until someone has been officially (not presumptively) nominated for P.
McCain won’t get the nomination. Huckabee will.
That said, my preference for Huckabee’s VP is this man. :-)
Red Pill on March 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM
My money is on his buddy Lindsay.
luckybogey on March 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Somebody pay this man his money. Smartest guy in the room.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM
This past Saturday we held the second Republican meeting in our area. All but one of the delegates who spoke was for Huckabee, even though he can’t win. I mention this as the sentiment still seems strongly against McCain. A few people stood up and said, “Vote for the Candidate, as anyone on our side is better than Clinton/Obama!” But even those who said that preferred Huckabee.
I wanted Romney, but I will follow the party line just to keep the Dems out of the White House. Veep doesn’t matter to me.
Doug on March 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Romney is the best pick no matter how many words you use.
Huckabee’s track record is not a conservative whereas Mitt’s is. Besides, we need someone to take over in case Juan Pablo has a stroke, etc.
Christine on March 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM
If you have any desire for people to actually believe your writings, you ought to keep your feeble hope in Huckabee’s–chuckle–nomination to yourself.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I seem to remember originally being attacked for saying I’d vote 3rd party before I’d vote for McCain. It’s apparently acceptable, however, to threaten to vote 3rd party if you don’t get the VP you like.
amerpundit on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 PM
That’s because your guy got his ass handed to him everywhere he and his warchest went. When your the LOSER, you get no voice. All you get is the chance to get in line and support the WINNER.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:09 PM
And by the way, I’ve also said before that Huckabee will win the “do-over” in Florida.
1) You can’t have a Democrat “do-over” in Florida without doing a “do-over” on both sides. Otherwise, you would be allowing certain Democrat voters to vote twice: once in the 1st Republican primary (as cross-overs voting for McCain), and a second time in the 2nd Democrat primary.
2) Huckabee will win the “do-over” in part due to support from large numbers of people in Florida with family ties to Cuba. Huckabee is the only candidate with the wisdom and foresight to have taken a stand on Cuba long before Fidel Castro announced that he was stepping down.
Red Pill on March 3, 2008 at 1:11 PM
The primaries are decided by the base. The base chose McCain & rejected Romney because of his recent conversion to conservatism. If Romney stays a conservative, he might have a future.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:11 PM
It is certainly arguable to say that “the base chose McCain.” Most of the base voted against him.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The base rejected Huck long before it rejected Romney.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:12 PM
If you’ve got 10 candidates, no one will win a majority of votes. But the one who gets the most votes, month after month, wins. Get it?
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Red Pill: I disagree with everything you said EXCEPT Michael Steele. As of this moment, I want McCain to pick that fine man as his running mate. It will help him even if Shelob wins but more importantly it will smack Obama right where the sun don’t shine.
We can turn this country around with someone like Steele on our side. Let’s get the message out, shall we?
Christine on March 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I see that this thread has revived the Latter-Day Saints.
I welcome the debate.
:-)
Red Pill on March 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM
If McCain puts Mitt on the ticket, I just might be able to vote for him.
If he puts Charlene Crist on,,,, NEVER will I vote for them.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 1:17 PM
McCain had the moderates and the crossovers while “the base” was splitting it’s vote between Romney, Huckabee and others. McCain was only getting tallies in the low 30 percent ranges, meaning most Republicans were voting AGAINST HIM.
By the nature of how delegates are chosen, McCain won because there was no other candidate to unify the conservative base. Most REAL CONSERVATIVES voted against McCain. McCain was winning in states that the Dems will carry in the fall, which is of little help.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Enlighten us then. Explain how talk radio is so influential that the candidate they almost universally opposed is winning.
Hollowpoint on March 3, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Yeah I do get it, you don’t seem to. You can win primaries without winning “the base.” You said the base put McCain in, the record is clear that they did not.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM
William Amos on March 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Which is why I think he should do the party a favor and pick another RINO out of the Senate, like Arlen Spector. Its a catch 22, he needs to show that he is serious about leaning conservative, yet I don’t want him to destroy any prospects for that conservative. Do the right thing McCain, take Arlen.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Your true colors are shining through again. BTW not voting for McCain because he picked Romney is the dumbest reasons I heard. There are plenty of reasons to not vote for McCain.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM
How about the governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour. Dude showed how to handle a crisis after Katrina and he’d help carry every southern state.
Sugar Land on March 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I agree Big S. The only problem is that you won’t find anybody with an R in front of their name who shares the same stances on the issues with John McCain. I think what McCain will have to do in order to maintain his authenticity is to pick a lifelong military guy who has very little (if any) connection to the specific issues. They need to own the issue of the war, look at the American people and ask, who do you want to steer us to victory? Us or the other guy with zero experience? We are at war ya know.
Zetterson on March 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM
As an example the Huckster playing to the stupid, he is still running for president even though he has already lost. Everybody knows it…and so does he.
I loved it when Sean Hannity mentioned to the Huckster on Friday that he was still behind Mitt on delegates. Given how the evil Huckster hates the good Mitt, you could see the anger in his eyes when it was brought up that he is still losing to a conservative that bowed out a long time ago. What a fool.
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM
And with your attitude towards people who are trying to justify a vote for liberal mcAArp, he will NOT win in November and YOU, my friend, will be a LOSER !!! Got it.
Just take a look at the Republicans fund raising now and tell me exactly how McAArp is going to beat any Democrat.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM
McAArp is going to put Joe Lieberman on the ticket.
Lindsey Graham will be Attorney Gen.
How many people has McAArp promised the VP nod to? Interesting question.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You all realize that Romney STILL has more delegates than Huckabee.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 1:23 PM
If you want to lose the election, put Romney on the ticket….if McShame wants to win he’s going to have to put Huckabee on thhe ticket. Without the evangelical vote Mcshame is dead in the water, (and BTW he’s already lost the evangelical vote).
SaintOlaf on March 3, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Hawhaw. You really think everyone who opposes Huck is a Mormon? You’re hilarious.
Mormonism is a cult.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Romney was getting nearly as many evangelicals as Huck was, sometimes more. James Dobson endorsed Romney.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM
How do you define “base”? The base is the folks who are devoted enough to vote in primaries & caucuses.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen (Mon) McCain 47, Obama 42, Und 11 McCain +5
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I would hope that Romney has the foresight to know that the S.S. McCain is a sinking ship. Romney instead should take the reigns of the RNC and start fundraising for our congressional candidates.
spmat on March 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I would vote for Romney if he wasn’t such a recent convert to conservatism. Let’s see if he can be consistent for a few years.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Well let’s start with the obvious here. A Southern evangelical social conservative is a hell of a lot more than a Mormon-hater and not all social conservatives are Southern Evangelicals. It’s very typical that you’ve lumped all those you disagree with into one giant ball of hatred without any understanding of the issues. ROMNEY WOULD PROVIDE Triceratops with some of the credibility he’s lacking. That this rumor is even around proves that McCain’s people are beginning to realize that they made a big mistake when they told the base to f**k off.
Secondly, Romney would provide more than cash and credibility to McCain’s sputtering campaign. It would prove that he’s willing to listen to social conservatives by putting one on the ticket. Romney unlike Sanford or Pawlenty is somebody that the voters know and could support without qualms that McCain is just trying to put another toad like Lindsay Graham on the ticket to be a mini-McCain. This would go a long way to mend the fences that McCain has burned during the run up to the primaries.
That being said, I don’t think it likely.
highhopes on March 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM
“Sinking ship”? McCain will beat Obama easily.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I define “the base” as the “conservative base.” Moderates, Independents and crossover Dems who voted for McCain are not part of the base and cannot be counted on to stay with him or work to get him elected in the fall.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Southern evangelical conservatives, by definition, don’t hate anyone. But we do hate some belief systems (as you obviously do also).
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Mitt sucks. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM
And I think McAArp sucks.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Don’t mind Allah, sometimes his atheism clouds his judgment. He seems to think that religious folks are simple minded and unwilling to vote for someone who does not share their beliefs 100%. James Dobson endorsed Romney and the exit polls show he was getting as many evangelical Christians as Huck was. I know these are inconvenient facts for some on this thread, but there they are. That said, sure there are people that dislike Mormons, Allah is probably one of them.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Huckabee may bring more social cons than Romney, but I would say he engergizes the opposition more with his theocrat rhetoric*. He also adds negatives to McCain for those of us who are aware of his record and may further supress conservative turnout that could offset the social con/evangelical support the Huckster has.
*I say this as a pro-life, politically conservative Christian, in case any huckbots assume I’m a liberal atheist.
aikidoka on March 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I have never voted for crist for state wide office and there is no way that I ever want him near the White House. If he is the VP there will be no difference between the tickets and I will for the fascists. That way at least the republicans will put up a fight for the first two years and we can hope Americans wake up by 2010 and put the republicans squarely in control of congress. crist as vp will be the worst thing for America.
peacenprosperity on March 3, 2008 at 1:39 PM
In celebration of the news, Mitt’s takin’ the boyz out for a shopping spree of italian sports cars, diamonds, and argyles.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Ah yes, Roger Waters…the Mormon/Latter-Day Saint(LDS) who said such loving things here and here.
Red Pill on March 3, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Get jealous much, chosen one?
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Instead of running for Congress, Josh Romenee has been recalled in hopes of an appointment as Ambassador to Utah.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Allah is not one of them, it seems your own bias toward his religion is clouding your judgement.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 1:42 PM
From this I gather your biggest problem with Romney is his money, sad…you are in the wrong party.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Redpill,
who you calling a latter day saint you jack*ss?
I live in socal…where there is lots of them. therefore I dont have issues…like you do.
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Romney has been out of the race for several weeks, and yet he still creates more passion than McCain or Huck.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM
McCain couldn’t be knocked out of the nomination by social cons. Also, they can’t deliver the general against Obama. McCain is going to have to work from the middle against Obama to win the general. Trying to rebuild the Bush coallition and run for W’s 3rd term isn’t a formula for victory.
dedalus on March 3, 2008 at 1:51 PM
That was my point. There is no magic bullet to victory if Triceratops gets a so-called Southern Evangelical social conservative on the ticket. I’d argue that the social conservatives are among the most “picky” about what exactly that means. Huckabee, for example, calls himself a “Southern Evangelical social conservative” but he’d never get my vote because he is soft on amnesty and crime, iffy on abortion, and full of big government reforms that would increase taxes.
While there may be some who vote elsewhere because of Romney’s faith, aren’t we being told to shut up and vote for Triceratops because he isn’t the Democrat (proof not withstanding)?
highhopes on March 3, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »