« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Advice On Picking a Vice President

By: Morton C. Blackwell (Diary)  |  June 20th, 2012 at 05:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Discussion of the vice presidential nomination, while a topic useful to journalists and commentators who have deadlines to meet, is quite often a waste of time, if discussion is meant to influence the actual decision.

It’s in every presumptive nominee’s interest to keep as many influential people as possible believing they are on the future presidential nominee’s short list.  That leads them to do all they can to benefit the future nominee before he makes his pick.  Understanding that, Gerald Ford held many Delegates he would otherwise have lost to Ronald Reagan in the close contest leading up to the 1976 Republican National Convention.

My favorite example of useless discussion of who will be picked to run for Vice President is Richard Nixon’s choice in 1968.  I was a Reagan for President Alternate Delegate from Louisiana that year, so I hoped somehow we would nominate Gov. Ronald Reagan for President.  But I followed avidly the rampant speculation about who would be Nixon’s V.P. choice if he, as generally expected, won the presidential nomination.  After months of commentary and advice, when he had to pick someone, Nixon picked Spiro Agnew.

I had heard no predictions or even any speculation that Agnew would be chosen.  The stunning, unexpected choice led me to immediately create and affix to my coat lapel a large, neatly lettered, round button reading:  He Was My Choice All Along.  During the rest of that day at the Miami convention, a great many people burst into laughter when they saw and read my button.  The nominee’s choice showed that he had completely disregarded all of the news media’s advice.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.freedomslighthouse.net nelsa

    I agree with your premise that the VP choice is secondary. But, in today’s instant information world, the choice has more clout.

    Romney’s VP pick will be instantly vetted by both sides. For good or bad it will dominate the news cycle leading up to the convention.

    Will the choice sway a certain demographic towards or against Romney. Perhaps.

    Romney’s main reply to questions about his VP selection is, “I want someone who is qualified to be president.”

    With the election of Obama, that bar has been lowered. So take a number and pick your favorite. Everyone qualifies.

  • gekster

    I pick Patrick. he would obviously be much more better than Obama,
    and wouldn’t have to prove he’s smart.

  • greyeagle

    is Col. Allen West. I had the opportunity to hear him speak at grandaughter’s college graduation. He was awesome. Romney would get someone articulate, lots of executive experience courtesy of the Military, extensive military service, block Obama from playing the race card, and a true patriot.

  • stumpy

    Speculation, that is. Jindal is my hope. Thune is my prediction. The VP is only good to: 1) shore up/excite the base, 2) balance the ticket, stylistically (Clinton/Gore), regionally (Kerry/Edwards, Kennedy/Johnson), ideologically (Reagan/Bush), experience (Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden), image (McCain/Palin). Look at the picks. No candidate picks a VP for swing states. The other reasons are all more important. Jindal is a good blend. He fits into the campaign themes, complements Romney’s age, adds diversity to a party needing some on its front page for the uninformed masses, solid conservative to balance Romney’s moderation, should excite the base without too much risk, interesting but not to the point of overshadowing Romney. The only criteria he doesn’t have is the swing state. Swing state is the most talked about and definitely most overrated criteria.

    My interest in the VP resides in the fact that the choice is likely to be the next nominee and hopefully President after two Romney terms. Cheney not running left the party without a way to affirm or reject the end of the Bush years.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Just to watch the left’s collective heads explode…

    (then pick whoever he really wants)

  • mikeymike143

    although a southern conservative like jim demint would be my first choice.

  • http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php kralizec

    …but the main point is Mitt has to choose someone who can fire up the conservative base. Having reasons to vote for a ticket are as important or more important than voting against the other ticket!

  • renl57

    …and lots of other Obama disasters, the GOP conservative base is fired up already. They don’t need any more reasons to work hard to get Obama out of the White House.

    Romney needs to look at states that give him the roadmap to 270 electoral votes. He has two alternatives: Go West and find a running mate who can help him with Nevada and Colorado; or go North and find a running mate who can help him win Ohio and perhaps even Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    I favor the latter course. Ohio is a must-win state for Romney. And if he picks up another Midwest state or two, Obama is toast.

  • stumpy

    the swing state pick strategy is always talked about but way overrated. A VP pick doesn’t help significantly in any state. All you have to do is look at the recent VP picks on both winning and losing tickets. In the absence of everything else, pick a swing stater, but there are far more important criteria. I personally believe adding someone other than a white male would be beneficial. I know that the diversity is fine, but it would be beneficial to put a face on it for the uninformed masses.

    Obviously there are a multitude of factors, but swing state residency isn’t one of the top ones. The VP doesn’t help. The VP only gives a temporary boost around the convention and will help shape people’s opinion of Romney and balance him out. The importance is only in the reflection on Romney, not the VP himself with the possible exception of the base. The base can be motivated by the VP or at least given an excuse to go full steam for a nominee they trashed during the primary.

    Balance is good. You can overcompensate as McCain did. He got the temporary boost and the base excited, but it faded. At the end it looked rather despirate and highlighted McCain’s problems rather than balancing them. No insult intended to Palin. I like her, but she was not ready for the attacks from the Obama media. I don’t however think any pick McCain made would have helped him win. He was trapped between the economy, Bush fatigue and history and powerless to stop it. A more Reagan-like personality (a motivated Fred Thompson for instance) would have had a shot.

    Palin was young, conservative, woman, outsider, principled, new and fresh. This was too much contrast with McCain who was old, moderate, man, insider, king of deal making, well-known to a national stage. Instead of complementing him, Palin highlighted his insider status, age and people’s view of him as an old white man when he was competing against the first black nominee. Again, I think the problem was with McCain, not Palin.

    Fortunately, Romney doesn’t have as many problems to highlight as McCain (general election only, problems with conservatives are numerous and real). His two big issues are the perception of “rich and priviledged Mitt, out of touch with the common man” and his unrelatable campaign style. What I mean by the second one is that Mitt had a hard time connecting with voters, in 2008 and 2012. In 2012, he basically drove down his opponents more than himself and squeaked out a win (Florida being the turning point). I intentionally used “had” above, because through the rest of the primary, as Mitt built sucess, he continued to improve. I would rate his personal appeal as average now, where when he started on 2012, he was well below average. A long primary and the state of the economy have helped Mitt in this area. The first problem (electability problem, not problem because of his wealth), can’t be discounted. It is the chink in Mitt’s armor during a bad economy and a President that wants to play identity, blame-game politics anway. However, Mitt can turn it into a strength, by counterattacking head on. Here how you do it Mitt: Don’t try to chew tobacco and go to a tractor pull. You will look like a dufus. G.W. Bush could have done this, you can’t (see John Kerry in his NASA suit and Michael Dukakis in the tank). Don’t try to pretend your average Joe. Highlight your sucess and ability to turn things around. Don’t be arrogant, but stress your sucess. You have to make people see the hard work, sucess and knowledge rather than the rich and priviledged side of the same coin. Highlight Obama’s incompetence. Along with the scandals, this is his weakness everyone can see. He has a dangerous mix of intentional sabotage to remake America into his image, incompetence and arrogance.

  • rabun1016

    With Rand Paul or John Thune or Paul Ryan, i think you have zero chance of a personal scandal which is important. I would favor Paul as he has the intellect and smooth without the goofiness of his father. I am sure with Marco Rubio they have some old girlfriends lined up to malign him. Jindal looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman to have a shot unfortunately. Old funny looking people are more plausible as national candidates than young ones in my experience. (Humphrey) Maybe 2028 for Jindal. Christie and Pawlently are polar opposites. Christie looks like he has no charisma but does, and Pawlenty looks like he has lots of charisma but doesn’t. Mitch Daniel is just too boring. Rob Portman, maybe.