I was reminded by some that all of my posts recently have been anti-Obama, and there is a reason for that; McCain had the ability to win his nomination early, and the dems, with all of their plotting and scheming, is where that action is. They are getting all of the press, and thus McCain can quietly shore up his base and raise money. Hopefully, one of the things he is doing is honestly assessing his weaknesses and figuring out a way to address them. I hope that for at least two hours every day he is in a room with outstanding economists doing “econ 101” to build up his credibility. I hope he is doing electoral math. And I hope he is considering what I am about to propose.
One unexpected, or at least not often talked about, advantage of the dems inability to choose is it makes voters forget about the Republican primary and focus on what appears to be significant bad blood between Obama and Clinton. At least this is what I hope is what is happening, because if that is the case Mitt Romney should be the next GOP vice presidential candidate.
Mitt Romney, first and foremost, has been vetted. By running through the primaries the press has taken their shots, and he has more or less come through. In terms of “would he be ready to lead,” the most important of VP characteristics, Romney has it.
Romney has the conservative street cred that would motivate the base, which McCain supposedly lacks. He also is not abhorrent to the independents and liberals that McCain attracts, the way Huckabee might be, as demonstrated by the fact that Romney was elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the country. In terms of policy, Romney has the strongest economic background of any of the candidates, Republicans and Democrats. While I was looking forward to seeing how Clinton or Obama would challenge McCain on economics when their own background in that area is just as bleak and devoid of experience, this would shore up for McCain what is probably going to be THE policy issue. When I watched the debate, I think Romney had the most coherent health care policy answer of the Republicans, so he could help bring strength to that issue. And Romney is the only one with executive experience of the candidates being mentioned on either side. Again, that has to count for something. Romney is also ten years younger, to help calm the “McCain is too old argument.” Combine that with McCain’s experience, foreign policy background, and an actual history of bipartisanship as opposed to the mere promise of it, and this could be formidable policy platform and ticket.
In terms of the math, Romney shores up McCain strength in the non-Arizona western states. If a Republicans are going to do well, I think a good place to start would be to sweep everything west of the Mississippi and east of the California border. Romney would strengthen McCain in Minnesota, Nevada, and Colorado. Romney would take Massachusetts from the “never in a million years” column and put it in to “legitimate shot.” I think Romney would also strengthen McCain in Pennsylvania. McCain is already doing fine in Ohio, and the democrats snubbing of Florida and Michigan in the primaries should help the GOP in the general.
The thing is, two months ago, this can’t happen. There would appear to be “too much bad blood” and there would be no way that this could happen. However, thanks to the Democrats dysfunction, now it can. In comparison to Obama-Clinton, McCain-Romney doesn’t look that bad. A stronger GOP ticket combined with a bloodied opponent with less cash than they might have had otherwise all goes to help the Republicans in a race that was supposed to be a democratic blowout.
One unexpected, or at least not often talked about, advantage of the dems inability to choose is it makes voters forget about the Republican primary and focus on what appears to be significant bad blood between Obama and Clinton. At least this is what I hope is what is happening, because if that is the case Mitt Romney should be the next GOP vice presidential candidate.
Mitt Romney, first and foremost, has been vetted. By running through the primaries the press has taken their shots, and he has more or less come through. In terms of “would he be ready to lead,” the most important of VP characteristics, Romney has it.
Romney has the conservative street cred that would motivate the base, which McCain supposedly lacks. He also is not abhorrent to the independents and liberals that McCain attracts, the way Huckabee might be, as demonstrated by the fact that Romney was elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the country. In terms of policy, Romney has the strongest economic background of any of the candidates, Republicans and Democrats. While I was looking forward to seeing how Clinton or Obama would challenge McCain on economics when their own background in that area is just as bleak and devoid of experience, this would shore up for McCain what is probably going to be THE policy issue. When I watched the debate, I think Romney had the most coherent health care policy answer of the Republicans, so he could help bring strength to that issue. And Romney is the only one with executive experience of the candidates being mentioned on either side. Again, that has to count for something. Romney is also ten years younger, to help calm the “McCain is too old argument.” Combine that with McCain’s experience, foreign policy background, and an actual history of bipartisanship as opposed to the mere promise of it, and this could be formidable policy platform and ticket.
In terms of the math, Romney shores up McCain strength in the non-Arizona western states. If a Republicans are going to do well, I think a good place to start would be to sweep everything west of the Mississippi and east of the California border. Romney would strengthen McCain in Minnesota, Nevada, and Colorado. Romney would take Massachusetts from the “never in a million years” column and put it in to “legitimate shot.” I think Romney would also strengthen McCain in Pennsylvania. McCain is already doing fine in Ohio, and the democrats snubbing of Florida and Michigan in the primaries should help the GOP in the general.
The thing is, two months ago, this can’t happen. There would appear to be “too much bad blood” and there would be no way that this could happen. However, thanks to the Democrats dysfunction, now it can. In comparison to Obama-Clinton, McCain-Romney doesn’t look that bad. A stronger GOP ticket combined with a bloodied opponent with less cash than they might have had otherwise all goes to help the Republicans in a race that was supposed to be a democratic blowout.
I pretty harshly criticized your last post, so I just want to give credit where credit is due even though I don't have anything particularly interesting to say: this was a good post. Well done.
I want Romney to win and blow the Michigan Democrats out of the water!
I've heard that McCain and Romney don't get along. Actually, I've heard that McCain really dislikes Romney. If that is the case, do you think a McCain-Romney ticket is realistic?
Katie -
Thats a fair point. But as Tom and others have reminded us on other points, JFK and LBJ could barely be in the same room with each other. They say the last time Adams and Jefferson saw each other during Adams presidency was at the inauguration. But in all fairness, while there may be personal animosity, the question is whether they can work together, which I think they would be able to do, although I admit that may be more faith on my part than anything based on observable evidence. Also, while I did write a post describing how Clinton could win, Obama is obviously the front runner, and if he is the candidate the GOP is going to need every advantage they can get. I think for the good of the party and for the sake of the presidency, McCain and Romney will come to some sort of agreement as to how a ticket would work. They may not hang out together at parties, but they'll learn to work with each other.
Adams and Jefferson didn't run together; the 12th amendment hadn't been enacted yet.
That having been said, I'd agree that personal rapport among running mates is hardly obligatory.
I knew about the 12th Amendment...I guess I was just talking about the ability of the Veep and Pres to work together and be cohesive.
I understand the "taking one for the team" mentality, and it makes sense, to a point.
However, a big part of the GOP's ability to govern effectively will be the public's perception of their work. Especially after Bush's tenure, the Republican party has a lot to prove. If the VP and Pres don't get along, I imagine it would impact that ability.
I don't think that Adams/Jefferson is a good comparison because it doesn't take into account the huge impact of the media in modern society. The President can barely sneeze without CNN knowing about it. Tiffs between the Pres and VP would make great stories.
Likewise, JFK and LBJ governed together for only two years, and with more limited media prevalence.
It seems like it would be in the GOPs best interest to find a running mate that McCain can stand.
First off, nothing I have seen suggests to me that Romney is ready to lead. Yes, the press, “took their shots,” but I would not say he has “more or less come through.” He got stomped…big time. If the press or the Democratic party were worth two pulls of a dead dog’s dick right now, picking Romney would be the political equivalent of going for an unguarded stroll in an Iraqi marketplace with a giant bull’s-eye on your chest. However, since they’re busy squabbling like second-graders, any criticism will likely be deferred, if they have the balls to raise any criticism as all.
As for the economy, Romney’s litany of Ronald Reagan and tax cuts won’t do much for him. He’s big on ass kissing, lean on substance. As for Romney’s age, it can hardly be seen as a plus for Romney when anyone McCain might choose has to be significantly younger than him.
If anyone has genuine conservative street cred, it’s Huckabee. His populist message resonates with the rural poor, although it frightens the bajesus out of Wall Street. In addition, his religious rhetoric and background, to say nothing of his charismatic and outgoing personality, make him popular with the religious as well as the I’d-like-to-have-a-beer-with-him demographic. The only thing Mitt Romney can be relied on to do is jerk off the electorate with one hand while holding up a picture of Ronald Reagan with the other. Furthermore, Huckabee is more likely to draw in younger voters. Again: Huckabee – colorful, animated, funny; Romney – stiff, uncomfortable, automaton. Top all that off with Romney’s leaving-office favorables of 43%.
Massachusetts is by no means in play. Romney got 51%. In his home state, where he should have wiped the floor with the opposition, (IL: Obama 65%-33%, NY: Clinton 57%-40%) Romney managed a ten point win over McCain. Furthermore, a little over 250,000 voters turned out for Romney, with another 200,000 for McCain. Contrast that with 700,000 for Clinton and 500,000 for Obama. I assure you, Massachusetts is by no means in play. If anything, Romney is a strong, hard crowbar to the knee in Massachusetts. It’s only been two years. The Bay State still remembers this guy, and that will not help McCain.
As for Pennsylvania, it’s been twenty years since a Republican carried that state, President George H.W. Bush being the last to take it in 1988, and with good reason. The steel industry, big business once upon a time in Pennsylvania, has been eviscerated by globalization. With the importation of cheap steel from India, the steel mills that provided a significant number of solid blue collar jobs have disappeared. Pennsylvania is in no way GOP friendly, especially after the Bush administration promised to protect the Bethlehem Steel industry only to reverse itself a week later (the WTO shot that idea in the head). Today the Bethlehem Steel plant location is set to become a Sands Casino. There’s even going to be a museum dedicated to the history of steel industry in the area, which strikes me as a slap in the face to all the unemployed steel workers in the area. “Remember when you used to do this? Now you can give tours about it! And at a fraction of the wages you used to make. You’re welcome!”
Romney, who made truly sick piles of money doing the pump-and-dump with Bain Capital, is not exactly seen as the friend of the working man. Far from a solution, he is, quite literally, the problem for the working man, and he’s going to have a hard time making any other case to the people of Pennsylvania.
I think Huckabee would be a much better choice save for one problem…I don’t think he’d take the job. That being said, I don't know who McCain should choose for the number two slot, but to my mind Romney is less of an advantage and more of an albatross.
Somebody better tell the GOP that Pennsylvania is not friendly to them. Specifically the Senior Senator from the state, 8 of the 19 reps, and the State Senate (the republicans hold the majority).
Your presidential history lesson on Pennsylvania is also misleading. Clinton in 92 took the state by 9% in a year when conservative Ross Perot got 18% of the Pennsylvania vote. In 96, Dole lost by 10% to the incumbant, but Ross Perot who ran again had 10% of the popular vote. In 2000 Bush lost by 4%, and in 2004 Bush lost by 2.5%. That 2.5% loss by Bush was after the Bethlehem Steel Plant closing, by the way, so your whole "steel workers unite to strike down the republican bastards by overwhelming numbers" is hardly compelling. So the only true blow outs have been when the conservative vote was split, and has been decreasing in margin since then. While that hardly guarantees a Republican win in November, that is hardly a "no way in hell is a republican presidential candidate going to win...its been 20 years."
As for Huckabee, he was a one trick pony; end the income tax (which, by the way, hadly makes you a populist). He had no other substantive ideas beyond that one issue, which showed when he was ritually slapped around at the republican debates. Although I do find it interesting that you criticize Romney for being an asskisser and priase Huckabee for being a good ole boy, when all that is is ass kissing with a southern twang. Also, last I checked, merely appearing on the Colbert Report with lines being fed to you doesn't make you charismatic, but a punchline or a prop.
Huckabee doesn't shore up any of McCain's weaknesses in terms of policy, cause again its just lower taxes reduced to its most base level. He only ran strong in the South and will hurt McCain everywhere else. He lost any chance he had when he said "I don't believe in evolution," because most people do believe in evolution and distrust people who don't. Huckabee would actually decrease If Romney is an albatross, Huckabee would be a blight and would alienate all the independents McCain would bring in.
Good luck with that search for an honest man thing, though.
I don't mean to suggest Huckabee IS a populist. Just that he talks like one. And while his policies may not run too hard in that direction, his speeches did. To paraphrase Eddie Izzard: 70% how you sound, 20% how you look, only 10% is what you actually say. As for him being a one trick pony, do you really think the electorate looks that closely at the VP? To say nothing of the media, which has the attention span of a stoned teenager?
Also, most people want out of Iraq but McCain gets points in the press for saying what is unpopular, ie-that he wants (or is willing) to stay. You don't think Huckabee gets the same credit for saying what he believes to be true even though most people don't?
As for the steelworkers, I'm only putting that forth as one of many ways in which the people of PA have been royally screwed by this shift toward a cancerous form of capitalism endorsed primarily by the GOP. The GOP has come close, but I don't think the last four years have done them any favors in PA and I think the GOP would do well to spend its money elsewhere.
That being said, you make a fair argument regarding the state senate, but the house is essentially even (1 seat democratic majority), the senators are split one each way and 8 out of 19 reps isn't exactly what I would call friendly territory.
Bottom line: save your money. Spend it elsewhere. You'll do better in Ohio than PA.
For a moment there, I found an honest man, but it turns out they don't last long in this game. Back to work.
The Senior Senator from Pennsylvania is a great example of a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I would not use him as an argument for how strong the GOP is in the state.
Tom