Geraghty source: It’s down to Romney and Pawlenty
posted at 5:27 pm on July 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In which your humble correspondent searches frantically for anything new to say about this increasingly tedious veepstakes soap opera. Two nondescript Republican white guys enter, one nondescript Republican white guy leaves:
I urge readers to take this with the requisite caution. Neither man’s schedule has had any last-minute changes or cancellations, which to me is a leading sign of an announcement being lined up. Pawlenty is still scheduled to speak before the American Legislative Exchange Council tomorrow, and Romney is on vacation in New Hampshire until next week. (Or so the media is told.) He’s also scheduled to attend the Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Beijing.)
I thought of posting an online poll, but why bother? Even conservatives don’t know enough about Pawlenty to make a judgment vis-a-vis Mitt, which is the whole argument against him. If you’re going to gamble on a septuagenarian president, you’d better know what you’re getting if the gamble doesn’t pay off, especially when one of the GOP’s strongest arguments against Obama is that he’s too untested yet to trust with so much power. (Needless to say, that reasoning would also eliminate Palin, although she has compensating qualities.) The question, I guess, is whether voters would rather have an unknown quantity at number two or a known quantity whom they, er, don’t particularly seem to like. And Pawlenty does, after all, have more gubernatorial experience than Romney.
Anyway, easily the second-most fascinating veep tidbit I’ve heard all day. (Okay, third-most.) Exit question: McCain’s looking for a conservative with national name recognition and a reputation for competence, preferably under age 50. Are there any?
Update: For what it’s worth, it’s abundantly clear that the pick who would generate the most excitement among HA readers is Palin.
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 Next »
No? The closest would be Jeb Bush, but he’s over 50 and out of the question for obvious reasons.
DaveS on July 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Jindal’s close, but hasn’t built up the resume enough yet.
sachsen on July 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Jindal has no name recognition.
DaveS on July 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Oh cripes. Just pick Palin and cement all the disillusioned Hillary types straight into McCain-o-crat territory I say…
Hey, a guy can dream!
Citizen Duck on July 29, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Palin has executive experience, & she’s got a history of taking on corrupt, powerful people. BO has no exec exp & pals around with the corrupt & powerful.
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Im to the point I wouldnt mind Fred Thompson as VP. He is qualified and gets along with McCain. Forget the age issue Fred isnt boring just lazy :)
William Amos on July 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Well, we know whom McCain wants to pick and we know why.
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Might as well have a known quantity whom we don’t particularly like in the second spot. After all, that’s what we have in the top spot. Might as well be consistent.
AZCoyote on July 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM
If it one of two men count me out this sucks
thmcbb on July 29, 2008 at 5:38 PM
If this is true (and I doubt it) you have to go with Mitt. Hands down. Even if you just look at the raw numbers, Mitt brings more EVs to the table than Pawlenty. Sure, it’d be great if we won Minnesota and Wisconsin, but it would be a devastating blow if we lost Nevada and Colorado.
malan89 on July 29, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Feeling deflated and tired. Again. I was really hoping there might be a reason to get genuinely excited again, but I have no real reason to doubt this report. It probably really is between Romney and Pawlenty. Sigh. I think I’ll slip into a coma from boredom and disappointment by November. And then we’ll get stuck running whichever lackluster guy he picks as our next de facto candidate when McCain is done. Yay. Thanks, Mac.
aero on July 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I’m thinking Palin should stay off the ticket and make a go of it in 2012 – regardless of who wins in 2008.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM
That question assumes “facts” not in evidence.
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM
McCain should pick Palin, because that would move the issues of Energy Supplies and Natural Resources to the center of the debate. This is a debate the Republicans can win, and win big.
The Democrats are too tied to the enviro-extremist wackos to tack to the center on this, and a Palin nomination for VEEP will make it impossible for them to ignore it.
McCain/Palin means the top two issues in the Fall will be National Security/Energy. The Republicans could not ask for more favorable ground.
gridlock2 on July 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Still saying Crist.
He’s been making more national TV appearances lately. But so has Jindal. Haven’t seen as much of Romney or Pawlenty.
JetBoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Why is Mitt going to the Opening Ceremonies in Red China?
Chakra Hammer on July 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM
BTW, Palin’s favorable rating in Alaska is 80%. Is there another politician in the US who has such a high favorable rating?
gridlock2 on July 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Because Mitt has done business with the Chinese government before ?
/Ducks backlash
William Amos on July 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Where does the idea that Mac is looking for someone who is “preferably under age 50″ thing come from?
And why would one want that anyway? Barry’s under 50 and I’d hardly put that in the plus column.
Buy Danish on July 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM
If McCain wanted to throw the Obama campaign off a bit, perhaps Michael Steele [former Lt. Governor of Maryland] might be worth consideration?
Unfortunately, we have McCain…and though I honestly hope he wins in November…the GOP has done a p*ss-poor job over the past eight years grooming a new stable of electable candidates.
So, after a lacklusted primary season, we have McCain…and his VP pick is going to make or break his electability. Nixon picked Spiro Agnew as personal insurance…not a whole lot of Republicans relished the thought of a possible Agnew Presidency should anything happen to Nixon…and a lot of Democrats likewise, I might add. Bush senior almost killed his chances with a very young and inexperienced Dan Quayle, chosen primarily to pander to the “younger crowd” though G.H.W. Bush didn’t understand the disconnect with Quayle, and probably still doesn’t. McCain had better look for a VP who can be in an instant position to run the country tomorrow morning…and not try to pander to any demographic. Pawlenty may be a decent guy…but who is he? Romney is a good guy, but the beating he took for being a Mormon and the fact that in many circles he outshines McCain, still.
McCain better put some serious thought into this process or we can look to a guaranteed Obama/”some Dem” victory in November.
Any experienced serious Conservative with solid federalist credentials would be a good thing for VP.
coldwarrior on July 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM
As cool as it would be to see Palin get the nod for McCain’s VP, I personally don’t want her to get tangled up with McCain if he loses or even wins. And she’ll have all the more experience if McCain is only a one-termer and to challenge Obama after he spends four years screwing up the country.
Palin in 2012!
Vatican Watcher on July 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM
What’s an EV? Environmental Viruses? Engineered Vibrators? Surely you don’t so easily dismiss EVangelicals?! I’m one of them…I went to bat for Romney, but let me tell you, there are plenty of evangelicals that are bigoted against Mormons.
kirkill on July 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Mitt for VP!
davenp35 on July 29, 2008 at 5:49 PM
…but there are far more that aren’t but are still denounced as such. (see the Mitt thread)
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:49 PM
kirkill…EV=Electoral Votes, perhaps?
coldwarrior on July 29, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Please wake me when it’s over.
On second though, check that.
thirteen28 on July 29, 2008 at 5:50 PM
But that’s really just the lonely internet guy constituency. I agree with Newt – no boring white guys. Both of these guys are that. But I dunno who to pick. The R bench is pretty shallow right now.
lorien1973 on July 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Could anyone educate me on this Jim Geraghty’s cred? NRO online.. is it anything close to what Bill Buckley would have wanted? Just curious, I mean no argument. I’m just sadthat Pawlenty is even in the mix….. he just isn’t Presidential. And yes, I remember Kennedy.. didn’t like him when I was a teenager and I don’t like him now.
MNDavenotPC on July 29, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Electorial Votes.
I think Romney would be suburb dismantling Obama’s policies and inconsistencies on TV. Pawleny, not so much.
ParisParamus on July 29, 2008 at 5:52 PM
If McCain is looking at Palin for VP, his people are managing to keep it a whole lot quieter than they’ve kept all their other vetting, speculating, and trial-ballooning. It really has gotten annoying, and I have long since grown weary of the VP tease game. I’m trying to brace myself now for him to pick someone I can’t get excited about at all. Unfortunately, I allowed myself to get excited about Palin, so I’m apparently doomed to disappointment regardless.
I’m on board to draft Palin for a 2012 run, though.
aero on July 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM
The under-50 criterion is arbitrary, and is being used by proponents of Jindal and Palin to arbitrarily narrow the field of “acceptable” candidates. Heck, Obama’s barely under 50 (he’d be 47 at his inauguration), so this is a bit of a silly standard.
Big S on July 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM
How about /Ducks false statement?
Bain Capital was founded by Mitt, but he left Bain in 1998 to rescue the Utah Olympics, so while Bain had a deal in the works with China recently, it had nothing to do with Mitt.
Oh, and that Olympics thing in his resume’ just might explain why he’s going to Bejiing for the opener.
Buy Danish on July 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM
allahpudit, you have issues dude. Romney has experience far and away better than anyone else in the running. For you to dismiss a person who has accomplished so much more in his life than say, you have, is petty. You are entitled to do so. But it must be pointed out that is is hot air. Capt. Ed writes much better.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Palin
kerrhome on July 29, 2008 at 5:54 PM
WHy is Mitt going to the opening ceremomnies in China?
Because he was CEO of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002. He was credited with cleaning up the disruptions leading up to the Olympics and for the overall success of the games. Mitt succeeds in most things he undertakes. He would have to swallow pretty hard to take VP after McCain and Huckabee ganged up on him in the primaries. I still hope he would take it. He is probably the most qualified of both fields. Obama definitely the most unqualified.
volsense on July 29, 2008 at 5:55 PM
If you think the hillary backers are one issue voters and will jump ship to mccain if he picks Palin I’ve got some swampland I’d like to sell ya.
peacenprosperity on July 29, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I’ll take a shot at a poll
Who should McCain’s VP be ?
Sara Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Charlie Chris
John Kaisch
Chris Cox
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John Bolton
William Amos on July 29, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Get over the Palin mania. It’s not going to happen. Like Jindal, let her get some experience and name recognition.
Also, Fred would be a disaster. It’d be the Sunday brunch at the Golden Corral tour- the campaign would grind to a halt for afternoon naps.
brak on July 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Charlie is staying here Jet Boy, where we can keep an eye on him.
Squid Shark on July 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM
The “Romney is strong in Colorado” argument is not a good one. Colorado held caucuses, which Mitt won with 60% of the vote. However, his margin over McCain in that hardcore-activists-only event was only about 30,000 votes. For reference, over 2 million voted in the 2004 general election. Also, the Mormon argument is silly because they only make up 2% of the state’s population, and vote (R) overwhelmingly anyway. Picking Mitt to try to hold CO is a poor idea.
Big S on July 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Honestly I don’t know anything wrong w/ Romney. If the X coalition wants some religious test for office, they can kiss my devil tail. Don’t underestimate the value of having run for so long for national office already as Mitt has. That experience is golden. People may not want him as prez, but he’d be a fine veep. And practically speaking, he very well may take over the prez during McCain’s 1st term if he falls ill.
Paul-Cincy on July 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM
How about stagnant pool. Shallow has been around for a while. i think the fish in this pool are dead. But then godlfish have the 3 second memory.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 6:02 PM
how much experience does a vp need? None. So the comparison between a vp’s experience and Obama is laughable.
And who said it has to be government experience anyhow?…I think most people would rather vote for a regular joe who is honest and has a solid platform than any bozo currently running.
Conservative Voice on July 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I think he’s circulating these rumors and then will pick a woman:
either C. Crist or SARAH PALIN !!!
That would remind everyone that he is a maverick.
stenwin77 on July 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM
As a hardcore Romney supprter, and a non-white-man, I have to say I hope it’s not another white guy. It’s hard to keep arguing that the GOP is not racist or sexist when all we put forth are white males. I want some diversity this time around, and I’m gonna spell it P-A-L-I-N!
nazarioj001 on July 29, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Crist is a dress is scarey as hell.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 6:08 PM
If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Tact, thy name is Allah.
fourstringfuror on July 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Add Eric Cantor?
Wethal on July 29, 2008 at 6:17 PM
When was that statement made? I always find it interesting when statements made 30-40 years ago are so applicable today. I am a Christian first and foremost, but this is a nation that is founded on theistic, but not christian, documents. Everyone should remember that this is not a theocracy nor should it ever be one. The founding fathers had the wisdom (and I would argue Divine given insight) to give us a country where we could become what we wanted to become with out demanding we be anything other than free.
jdog on July 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I am not going to guess. I prefer to wait and see what really happens.
Does anyone know if Palin wants the job? Just askin. I really was not sure she had shown any interest. She might be the pick of AH commenters and I would be happy with her myself. But I am not sure how the rest of the country would respond. She is so unknown, and there are some problems in the Republican party in Alaska right now.
I dunno.
Terrye on July 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Um, because they might him to save the day!
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM
PREDICTION:
it WON’T be Romney OR Pawlenty
McCain is ‘teasing’ the press, just like he did with meeting jindal in LA…. i’d like palin, might not be her, but i bet the rom-lenty boring choices are just smoke-screens
i mean, seriously… “you guys will like pawlenty” — who in their right mind would leak that out if serious? and this was what, overheard at a party?
SMOKESCREEN!
battleoflepanto1571 on July 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Um, that would be because they might need him to save the day!
Sorry.
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Apparently Goldwater didn’t know history or the Constitution when he said that. As a fellow Arizonan, I watched him turn against social conservatism in his latter years.
I don’t, but many of the founding fathers prescribed a religious test for public office. And there is no separation of church & state anywhere in the founding documents.
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM
I don’t believe that’s true. It’s just that the Palin advocates post alot and won’t listen to any argument for anyone else. You can’t have a debate with them so the rest of us tune out.
The only thing I have against Palin right now is that she is not seasoned enough. She needs more experience overall.
Please, upinak, do not start screaming at me.
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:41 PM
No, I don’t think so.
terryannonline on July 29, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I’m a Palin supporter, one of those who “won’t listen to any argument for anyone else.”
I’ll refer you here.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic there. I think Palin would be an exciting and smart pick, but I’m open to considering others. I am firmly on the “not a boring white guy” bandwagon, though, with one qualifier: “if possible”.
DaveS on July 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Dear Vintage:
Please, I didn’t mean to cast aspersions. And I should have clarified that by “supporter” I meant those who are advocating her for VP 2008.
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Perhaps when governing the country was a walk in the park, and youth vs. age was not a campaign issue, experience wouldn’t matter. I think Bush benefitted from his choice of Cheney, for the most part.
Because of the difficult times, and the medical history and age of our candidate, the choice of an experienced and tough person is important.
I don
eaglesdontflock on July 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Among other statements capable of easily winning support of the majority of HA readers:
1) Meteorology professors from Harvard ain’t shit.
2) Bible is historically accurate.
So I’d look for other advisers.
freevillage on July 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Okay. What I was primarily responding to was whether Palin was the pick of most HotAir readers.
And you have to admit, we do see lot of posts that run along these lines:
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
or
P
A
L
I
N
These are meaningless to me as arguments from which to support her.
BigD on July 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM
No offense taken. I think Palin would be the best choice, but I would rather her run for President in 2012 than run for VP in 2008 and not have much of a future afterwards.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I don’t like the sound of Pawlenty at all:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?cat=3
Watcher on July 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Results of my poll so far
Who should McCain’s VP be ?
Total Votes: 44
Sara Palin (19) 43%
Mitt Romney (13) 30%
John Bolton (7) 16%
Fred Thompson (4) 9%
Duncan Hunter (1) 2%
Tim Pawlenty (0) 0%
Charlie Chris (0) 0%
John Kaisch (0) 0%
Chris Cox (0) 0%
Mike Huckabee (0) 0%
William Amos on July 29, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Sept. 15, 1981.
When you come right down to it a lot never changes much.
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Z-z-z-z-z.
whitetop on July 29, 2008 at 7:17 PM
I actually LOL when I saw that.
I am to tired to scream, it has been a long day concerning Ted Stevens and I am going to guess more to come. Expect it.
They will name the veeps when they name them. I am just waiting as I said. no worries…. you caught me at a good time. Been up since 2 AM, and it is now 3:15.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM
To the Sarah Palin posters:
Has she even endorsed McCain?
sheryl on July 29, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Sarah has supported McCain and will not endorse Obama, but ifyou want me to come up with something like youtube I won’t be able to due to this PC.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM
malan89 on July 29, 2008 at 5:38 PM
If you are referring to evangelicals, I beg to differ. I lived in Georgia oveer 30 years; the evangelicals seemed to have distrust of Mormons hardcoded into their DNA. Heck, I’m Presbyterian and I couldn’t get the local Baptists to leave me alone ;-)
McCain is not the choice of most conservatives; most evangelicals are VERY conservative. McCain likes to think he can get elected without conservatives/evangelicals, but he can’t. IMHO Romney might cost McCain a few southern states if McCain chose him.
I think Romney is OK, but let’s face it he was the first out of the gate in the primary race…he spent a ton of money…..and still couldn’t close the deal. The goobers in the US will never support Romney (they would support Huckabee – go figure).
Religion shouldn’t be the deciding factor, it shouldn’t even BE a factor at all, but it is what it is.
The other evening I received a call wanting to know if I had a couple of minutes for a survey. I said yes when the fellow said it was regarding the VP choice for McCain. We were chit chatting as he went thru his list. He was impressed that I even knew who Pawlenty was ;-) When we got to the end I asked him if I might suggest someone who wasn’t on his list…….I suggested Michael Steele. He said I could consider him impressed; and then said he was not among those of the caucasion persuasion.
poodlemom on July 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Oh I didn’t think she was going to endorse Obama. It’s just that I haven’t seen or read that she endorsed McCain. Or that she has done any campaigning on his behalf. And I would think she would if she wanted the job.
sheryl on July 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Yes, on February 5.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM
“Religion shouldn’t be the deciding factor, it shouldn’t even BE a factor at all, but it is what it is.”
I’m so sick of this argument. It’s so childish. If the hardcore evangelicals are more comfortable with Obama who supports abortion, higher taxes, more government spending that will sink this country into 1930’s style depression then let them sit in their churches, live with their “it is what it is” and their Mormon hatred for four years.
In the meantime, the people who love this country will try to get McCain elected and support his choice for VP, even if it isn’t their selection.
sheryl on July 29, 2008 at 7:49 PM
FWIW: That link of Vintage’s shows that Palin has a nearly 40-point lead over Romney in the WSJ’s Veepstakes – and we our on-line organisation is nothing compared to the likes Romney’s.
In fairness, here is her lead before we Palinites saw it at the Palin for VP blog.
Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Just caught Palin on Youtube. Bottom line, her laugh trumps Obama’s smile. But seriously. She’s got 3 teens, a 7 year old, and a newborn with Downs Syndrome. Being the VP would be tough. She appears to have a great outlook, but what if that’s due to living in Alaska? Living in DC would have to depress the heck out of her.
Paul-Cincy on July 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM
thanks It’s Vintage Duh!
sheryl on July 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM
ROMNEY! Please please please, Romney Romney Romney.
eucher on July 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM
McCain is a liberal good ole boys establishment republican.
If he gets elected, he will be a liberal republican in office. His Veep, whomever that may be wont have any effect on how Mccain governs at all. If you want to elect a conservative with truly conservative values, then why don’t you vote for the only conservative running for president?
paulsur on July 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM
http://www.bobbarr2008.com
paulsur on July 29, 2008 at 8:15 PM
The exit question assumes that McCain is looking for a conservative, which is not a given.
Ignoring that, the closest things to a conservative under 50 with national name recognition are a pair of rookie governors; one of whom was just eliminated from competition because of Ted Stevens, and the other self-eliminated himself because of his sense of duty to his state. Beyond that, there are those with regional name recognition (Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan come to mind).
I’m still preparing to be exceptionally disappointed with the VP pick.
steveegg on July 29, 2008 at 8:26 PM
EVs=Electoral Votes
I thought everyone knew that!
malan89 on July 29, 2008 at 8:30 PM
If it has to be one, please let it be Mitt. At he’s well-known and well-beloved by the conservative base who was so frusturated to see McCain and Huckabee oust him from the primary process. He’d make a terrific veep.
Jockolantern on July 29, 2008 at 8:32 PM
The only things vice presidents do are:
1. Vote tie breakers in the senate.
2. Go to state funerals.
Given that democraps will overwhelingly win in the senate and house, this veep will have to hope for a lot of funerals or die of boredom.
paulsur on July 29, 2008 at 8:35 PM
A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right.
I look at these religious television shows and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million. They brag about it. I don’t believe in that. It’s not a very religious thing to do.
You don’t have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Michael Steele. Oh my, the dems heads would explode!
jewells45 on July 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Lest we forget, Goldwater was an Episcopalian. ‘Nuff said.
(And BTW, religion should have nothing to do with opposition to abortion and everything to do with human rights.)
Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM
My vote’s for Bruce Willis as VP. He’s solid on national defense, and he’s got better aim than Cheney.
McCain/McClane 08!
(okay, maybe not. Bruce might insist on giving his Bruno persona too much time at the mic, and there’s only so much harmonica a man can take.)
sulla on July 29, 2008 at 10:07 PM
This may have been covered already but…McCain is a likely one-termer by choice or for health reasons. His VP has to be able to carry the party in four years. This is not the year for a wallflower for VP. Mitt has the leadership ability along with the best resume of the bunch. Palin is governing more Caribou than people, Crist is not sure what side of the energy issue he wants to be on, Pawlenty is who again?, Bobby Jindal needs to get some experience, the Huckster is just that, Fred is loving life back in LA…My two cents…
Nozzle on July 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Pawlenty could be very helpful in the MidWest in attracting working class voters. He is one of them. His impact could be very beneficial, but will likely be under the radar, so I doubt he’ll provide any excitement to the national campaign. However, he could be very important on a regional level, and considering the dominance of Obama over the national media, this might not be a bad tactic.
Romney on the other hand is far better known, and sends a strong signal of economic competence to match McCain’s foreign policy competence. This plays up the fact that Obama is lacking in any experience in either the economy or foreign policy. He will generate some excitement, but also runs the risk of alienating a small faction of evangelicals- which might be just enough to endanger some of the border states. Romney will however, shore up support in the West, by reassuring Mormons that they really are welcomed and valued in the conservative coalition (something that the primary left some Mormons concerned about), probably changes Nevada to lean McCain, and possibly moving Oregon closer to a toss up. Furthermore, Romney might help in NH, and has a very good possibility of flipping Michigan if it is played right. (Have Romney go to Michigan and say that if he’s Vice President, he can at the very least promise that Michigan is not forgotten- I think many in MI feel forgotten by the rest of the country.) There will also be some extra free press if Romney is the VP candidate if only because the press is trying to stir up conflict with in conservative ranks over him.
Pawlenty is the safer choice, as I think Romney has a bigger potential payoff, but also a bigger potential downside.
I’d pick Romney if only because I think McCain can’t win this election by playing safe.
Sackett on July 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM
from last year, but a harris poll nonetheless:
“We asked adults if they would be more likely to vote for “Mr. Smith”, a 48 year old male, married, Presbyterian, with a Business Management degree, or “Mr. Jones”, a 54 year old male, who is married and has a law degree, if they were both equally qualified to be president. The difference is that for one half of our respondents, Mr. Jones is a Baptist and for the other half, Mr. Jones is a Mormon. In the race between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, the Baptist, Mr. Smith wins 41 percent to 18 percent, with 42 percent not sure. In the race between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, the Mormon, over half (52%) say they would vote for Mr. Smith with only 9 percent voting for Mr. Jones. Two in five were not sure.
In other words, everything else being equal, 11 percent more would vote for Mr. Smith if he is running against a Mormon than if he is running against a Baptist.”
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=747
battleoflepanto1571 on July 29, 2008 at 11:31 PM
(and let me add to the post above, i am NOT in favor of ‘bigotry’, or a ‘religious test’, or whatever… i don’t care if romney is bah’ai. what i DO think is that in a year that the south could see insanely high black turnout, and with southern gopers already lukewarm to mccain, WHY would you put a guy on the ticket that could flip Virginia, NC, maybe Ga or heck Florida based on the northern florida tepid gop reaction.
WHY do it? i know the romney kool-aid drinkers salivate that he’s “so qualified and can take over as president when necessary”.
if he’s so perfect as president, why was his campaign a dismal failure?
why the the one-man-band-CON MAN huckabee, who spent in the hundred-thousand range, get more delegates than romney, who spent in the hundrred-MILLION range, in all 50 states?
note to gop: do NOT pick romney as gop. you would be picking someone that INSTANTLY alientates millions in important states. i don’t like it either, but that’s how our electorate is right now)
battleoflepanto1571 on July 29, 2008 at 11:35 PM
“Right to Life” comes from the first document the founding fathers produced.
Abortion kills children (& leaves a lot of would-be moms tormented for decades).
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 11:39 PM
27 of the 56 founders had seminary degrees.
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”–John Adams
I don’t have a religious litmus test, but many of the founders did.
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM
95% of evangelicals don’t like the junk that passes for Christian TV either. But according to your quote, Goldwater throws out the baby with the bath water–we’re all guilty.
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 11:50 PM
“In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”–John Quincy Adams
jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM
“In other words, everything else being equal, 11 percent more would vote for Mr. Smith if he is running against a Mormon than if he is running against a Baptist.”
All that proves is a generic bias. Mitt Romney is more than his religion.
BTW, it would be interesting to see if those polled were Republicans or Democrats. Because I think the bias is plainly with the GOP as I don’t think Mitt’s Mormonism came up during in either of his politcal campaigns in MA.
Geez and we wonder why the Repubican brand is tarnished.
sheryl on July 30, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Anybody catch the Today Show yesterday? The MSM could profile a hundred potential VPs and Palin wouldn’t be among them.
What can we learn from that?
Mr. Wednesday Night on July 30, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »