Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
The McCain Veepstakes Rules
Please Consult This List Before Touting Your Favorite Choice
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Condoleezza Rice | John McCain | Mark Sanford | Mitt Romney | Tim Pawlenty | Veepstakes — Comments (297) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The hottest topic in Republican circles, ever since John McCain iced the nomination, is who he should pick as his running mate. There are many interesting names floated, and McCain will have good reason to make a show of talking to a bunch of candidates for the job, as a way of courting different groups and party leaders and feeling out people who might end up with other jobs in his Administration.
But realistically, there are a number of constraints on what kind of candidate McCain can or should pick. The Vice Presidency isn't like other appointments, since he or she is independently elected and can't be fired. And McCain's choice will be of particular significance for a few reasons. First, because of his age, voters will want more assurance than usual that his running mate is ready to step into the job at a moment's notice. Second, also because of McCain's age, he's seen as less likely to serve two terms; his running mate, win or lose in 2008, will have a leg up to be the heir apparent in 2012. And third, many conservatives are unhappy with McCain as the party leader, and want to see that the moderates have not taken permanent control of the party.
Let's start with the Don'ts, which will be especially important in this process. I'm not saying that McCain will necessarily follow these rules, but he should and I suspect he will. And I'm not saying that it's impossible that he will take someone who breaks them, but it will be a very heavy burden to overcome, and probably fatal for anyone who violates more than one of them. (This list is not necessarily presented in any particular order of importance).
More below the fold...
1. No Senators: In every presidential election year, many Senators don the red shirt and run for the White House, but only two sitting Senators have been elected President, Harding and Kennedy, for a variety of reasons - Senators aren't executives, they vote too much and govern too little, and they tend to speak their own arcane language ("I voted for it before I voted against it"). With approval ratings for Congress at or near all-time lows (Congress, with a 13% approval rating, is less popular even than President Bush, at 34%), putting a Senator on the national ticket would be a bad idea. It's too late, of course, to avoid the fact that both parties will nonetheless be nominating sitting Senators in 2008, but at least McCain can take someone who isn't yet another Senator to balance out the ticket. Also, with the Senate's partisan balance so delicate, taking an incumbent out of the Senate - even one who can be replaced by an appointed Republican - will force the GOP to work still harder to maintain its foothold in the upper chamber.
Could McCain choose someone from the House? Possibly, but it still means the downsides of a Senator's association with the current Beltway conditions, and without the gravitas and name recognition the Senate enjoys.
2. No Bushies: After 8 years of any president, the public wants a new team in place; with Bush's approval ratings in the dumps, and particularly given that those low approval ratings are driven so heavily by unhappiness with Bush's executive management during his second term, especially Hurricane Katrina, the management of the Iraq War and lower-level screwups such as former Attorney General Gonzales' mishandling of what should have been a routine decision to remove a number of U.S. Attorneys, McCain needs a clean break from anyone seen as being part of Bush's management team. That means no Condi Rice, whatever her other virtues as a candidate - McCain's been arguing for five years against parts of the Administration's approach in Iraq, and regardless of the merits of those arguments he couldn't well turn around and pick Bush's single closest foreign policy advisor. It also means no Chris Cox, even if he'd be a fine pick for many of the reasons Quin Hillyer identified in early March; with the collapse of Bear Stearns, Cox has also had a recent education in why being the SEC Chairman is a better way to become a scapegoat than to advance to higher office. And it probably means no Rob Portman, either; while the former six-term Congressman's popularity back home in Ohio will earn him a serious consideration, and while his tenure as Bush's Trade Representative and then Budget Director hasn't made him a high-profile Administration figure, and while most of the grievances with Bush's spending policies predate Portman's tenure at OMB, the simple fact of haling from the Bush White House probably counsels against taking Portman.
3. No Old Retired Guys: McCain's age is a double-edged sword, as it does help him connect with older voters, while alienating young voters who are more interested in "cool" and "change" than understanding the actual requirements of the job. Either way, it would be folly to exacerbate the old-graybeard image by adding a candidate who is old, bald and recently pulled out of mothballs like Fred Thompson or Phil Gramm. An active governor like 66-year-old Don Carcieri might not have the same problem, but I'd still bet on someone with some non-white hair left.
4. No Rookies: On the other end of the spectrum, a large part of McCain's argument, especially against Obama, will be that McCain is experienced, battle-tested, and ready to take the now-proverbial 3 a.m. phone call. But as I noted above, given his age, he'll be undercutting that argument if his running mate doesn't also clearly pass that 3 a.m. test - and that means no first-term Governors or Senators, no Lieutenant Governors or state legislators, no business people without government experience. It has to be someone who has more experience and credibility than the Democrats' presidential nominee.
5. No Novice Politicians: This is a similar but related issue, and trips up people like Rice and Colin Powell who might pass the test for foreign policy credibility: the Obama campaign of late has been yet another illustration of why and how inexperienced politicians get in trouble trying to run national campaigns - there's too much new stuff to come out, they don't do damage control well, they react badly when people throw rotten fruit and the kitchen sink at them. McCain will need someone who knows how to stand in and take it in the closing months of a tense campaign.
6. No Pro-Choicers: McCain, unlike Rudy Giuliani, has been able to pass all the minimal-acceptability thresholds for social conservatives, particularly pro-lifers. But social conservatives remain uneasy with him, and he can't afford significant defections from his base if he is going into a difficult fight in the fall. The one thing that's certain to set off a huge and ugly battle within the party is taking someone who supports legal abortion.
Rudy, had he won the nomination, would have needed an especially vigorous pro-lifer as his running mate; McCain doesn't have to go that far, but he does need a running mate who is at least meets the same minimal standards of trust with pro-lifers. That rules out open pro-choicers; it also rules out people whose views on this crucial issue are simply unknown or not fully formed.
7. No Iraq War Opponents: McCain's signature issue in this campaign has been his steadfast support for the Iraq War. McCain can and possibly should take someone who has criticized aspects of the war-fighting strategy and tactics employed over the past 5 years, as he has; but it would create an impossible muddling of McCain's message to have a running mate who opposed or came to oppose the war.
8. No Democrats: I like Joe Lieberman as much as the next guy, and would trust him to be the next Commander-in-Chief...but the presidency isn't only about foreign policy. McCain still needs Republican votes to win, and - again with the age factor - while many Republicans would be happy to see a Democrat like Lieberman in the right job in a McCain Administration (i.e., in a job whose responsibilities are limited to his areas of agreement with McCain), the Vice Presidency has to go to someone Republicans could get behind as a president.
9. No Closeted Gays: There's not a real good way to say this, but...well, if you look at the publicly floated lists of potential running mates on both the Republican and Democratic sides you see some people who have long been rumored to be gay. I have no inside insight or information about any such people; I can only know the rumors, but I assume the people vetting the candidates are better suited to get at the truth. I do know this: whether or not you believe America is ready for an openly gay candidate on the national ticket, it would be a complete political catastrophe for either party (albeit for different reasons) to pick a closeted candidate who then gets forcibly 'outed' during the stretch run of a national campaign - and you'd be a fool to bet against that happening (I discussed a similar issue here). For the GOP in particular, after the Larry Craig and Mark Foley fiascoes, this would be the equivalent of sticking your face on a land mine and hoping nothing bad happens.
10. No Lobbyists: As a general rule, "lobbyists" is one of those words that when you hear a politician use it, you can be sure that the entire sentence containing the word is utter baloney. That said, this campaign season has seen more than the usual blather about lobbyists, and McCain and his more likely opponent, Obama, both like to posture about separating themselves from the whole DC lobbying scene ... I just can't see McCain choosing a running mate who has actually worked as a lobbyist at any point, like Fred Thompson or Haley Barbour.
11. No 2006 Losers: You sometimes see people throw around names of various Republicans who got voted out of office in 2006. To be blunt: give it up. When you start trying to figure out how to turn around the GOP's setbacks in the last election and how potential running mates could help McCain, you're not going to choose anybody who lost their last election, especially not just two years ago.
12. No Perennial Short-Listers: This might be called the Jack Kemp category - there are certain people in Republican politics (mainly former House members like Cox, John Kasich, and JC Watts) who have been mentioned continually for years and years for higher posts: Senate, Governor, Vice President, federal judge, high Cabinet posts - and somehow never end up in the race. There's usually a reason for that. Sometimes, it means the guy has skeletons in the closet, sometimes it means he lacks the "fire in the belly," ... whatever the reason, discount rumors about people who have been passed over many times before.
13. No New Mothers: OK, this is a one-candidate category, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave birth less than a month ago, and her fifth child has Down's Syndrome - even leaving aside her relatively short resume in office, no way you take a new mother, let alone one with that family situation, and put her on the national campaign trail a thousand miles from home. She'll have to wait for the next cycle.
14. No Dynasties: No Jeb Bush, no Liddy Dole. The American people are just ready to move on, at least for now; McCain needs a second different name on his ticket, after the GOP running a Bush or Dole on the national ticket in every election since 1976.
15. No Affirmative Action Candidates: With Obama or possibly Hillary as the opponent, there will be a lot of sentiment for McCain picking a female or minority-group running mate. All things being equal, that would be a great idea, and indeed the GOP has a number of candidates who at first blush would seem to meet one or another of the job requirements - but when you start ticking off the list above, most of the possible candidates fall by the wayside, at least for this election cycle until the next generation of candidates is ready.
If voters vote on identity politics instead of qualifications, McCain loses. His argument has to be that you don't vote for groups, you vote for people who can do the job. I'd love to see him with a non-white-male running mate, but if it's someone who doesn't seem to be qualified for the job, he'll just look like he's desperate to mimic the other side. And that's always a losing strategy.
Now, the Do's - none of these are as litmus-test critical as the Don'ts, but they are also important considerations:
1. Executive Experience: Successful presidential candidates almost always have it - but McCain doesn't. It will help greatly if he has a running mate who can demonstrate the ability to run something larger than a Senate Committee.
2. Outside the Beltway: Like #1, this points to a Governor: Washington's unpopular right now, moreso even than usual; bringing in someone untainted by the current mess in DC will help, even if it's someone like Mark Sanford who was once a Congressman years ago.
3. Swing Stater: Historically, it's hard to measure the impact of a VP choice, but it's generally thought that a candidate who is popular in his or her home state can help deliver that state, and in a closely divided election, swinging a single mid-size state can be a big plus. That argues in favor of Portman (Ohio) or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and against Sanford or against candidates from deep blue states like California or Rhode Island. On the other hand, while I'm in the camp that thinks the GOP has had trouble with the perception outside the South that the party has become too Southern, I think McCain is sufficiently non-Southern himself that he doesn't need to avoid a Southerner (and might even benefit from one).
4. Yes, It's The Economy: Historically, McCain hasn't been at his best addressing economic issues; it would help a lot to have a running mate who can talk about bread-and-butter issues with credibility and persuasiveness, rather than taking another national security professional.
One odder consideration that has focused attention on Mitt Romney in particular is the issue of money, of which McCain has far less than Obama. But as Brad Smith has explained, with public financing McCain should actually be in good shape for the general election campaign after the conventions, so the money issue is more time-sensitive - he needs cash now.
I'll get back another day to who this leaves as alternatives, but if you are guessing that I think Sanford and Pawlenty remain the logical frontrunners, the only two guys who really sweep through all the check boxes unscathed, you are right - but while I wasn't ready to back Romney as a presidential candidate, he also should not be ruled out of the veepstakes, as there's no one consideration that really knocks him out, either.
« The Netroots Are Angry — Comments (80) | Three words. — Comments (1) »
The McCain Veepstakes Rules 297 Comments (0 topical, 297 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Portman
by Dan McLaughlin
Well, being budget director is something; it's not the top job but it does involve him to some extent in supervising basically the entire federal government.
If it was my pick, I think I'd take Sanford, but he's not the only acceptable candidate, is my main point. And I'm certainly not a fan of taking Romney, I just think he's one of the people you have to consider. The average voter may believe Romney's more qualified than Sanford just because they've heard of him.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
hmm
by Pentagon16
shocking that if you follow all your rules you come up with ONE guy:
Tim Pawlenty
Seeing as how Romney would have lost in 2006 if he had run again, and his ties to lobbyists/Bain Capitol and his religious beliefs being back under the microscope in going up against Obama. Romney brings many negatives which would be exploited by the media. If he was simply an Episcopal businessman of a company he would be a great choice, but the media will make him into Jeremiah Wright and take away our strongest card.
Pawlenty
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."
I think you're right.
by Caiwyn
I think you're right. I wouldn't mind Romney as veep, myself (it might actually be pretty awesome), but I'm afraid that he'll alienate the socialcons the same way that a pro-lifer would.
No closeted gays
by Brandozilla
I assume you are referring to [name edited out]?
Where did those rumors start?
Let's not name any names here
by Dan McLaughlin
that will send us to a bad place.
Suffice to say that between the two parties' fields I'm talking about more than two people. And that I'm doing so solely on the basis of rumors that may have no basis in fact. But people closer to the process will have better facts, and that may end up influencing the process.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
if you can't apply it to anyone.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
You can apply it. Just bring facts.
by Neil Stevens
Idle speculation about a person's character is uncalled for.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
unless we have un-closeted gays in contention for VP, idle speculation is all that can be brought.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
2 points for the longest post.
by NC_Ocon
Stranded in a blue section of a red state.
Good piece - Romney is the best choice.
by WY Cowboy
Pawlenty is a good pick, but, quite frankly, given McCain vulnerability on the economy - and this is an economy election, period - I think the best and obvious choice would be Gov. Mitt Romney. He matches the dos and avoids most don'ts.
Romney certainly brings much more to the ticket than he takes away. For example, all if his misstatements and skeletons have already come out during the primary process. He shores up the conservative base to some extent as he became the late choice for most conservatives. And he is good in debates and an eloquent speaker. He is a good campaigner and looks good on TV.
TraunerWatch.com
Wyoming people deserve the truth!
Just another Bitter white-boy clinging to guns and God!
economy election, period?
by absentee
I disagree. This is a war election and a change election, it's a global terror election and an idealogical election. It's not "an economy election, period." I see that as a major overstatement.
"The AP points out that their recent poll, while indicating a huge increase in the relative importance of the economy as a campaign issue, does not seem to indicate any effect on who people are deciding to vote for. In fact, among those who have recently become extremely concerned about the economy there is no significant voting preference difference from other voters. Also, among those who show the most concern about the economy, the poll reports they are slightly more likely to vote for John McCain now than they were to favor a Republican at all in November's poll." from my post here
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
The Iraq issue won't win it for the GOP
by MadHatChemist
Iraq didn't help the GOP in '06 and I don't see it helping in '08. If things go well, the MSM ignores it, and if it doesn't, then the MSM will play it up with everything they got.
In large part, the emphasis on Iraq and led many in the GOP to abandon their Conservative principle's over "unity" for Iraq.
The economy (at least people's perception thereof) will probably be a domination factor, along with the need to change from the Bush/GOP status quo.
If the GOP doesn't embrace change from their past, the Dems will sweep.
Sigh...
the TReason Media would LIKE it
by E Pluribus Unum
to be an all-economy election, since facts on the ground make the GOP winners in any discussion about war, terrorism, the borders, and ideology. And for that matter, most fiscal matters like pork (thanks to McCain and not the general GOP establishment) favor us too.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Romney is too "elitist"
by sinz52
If Obama is the Dem nominee (or even if he's Hillary's running mate), then you do NOT want a gazillionaire CEO like Romney anywhere near the GOP ticket.
The GOP is getting a lot of mileage out of the charge that Obama (and maybe Hillary too) is just too "elitist"--culturally and sociologically out of the mainstream of blue-collar "Reagan Democrats." But Romney comes off as just as much of an elitist.
Romney won't be seen as an "average Joe" that the "Reagan Democrats" can identify with.
He's too wealthy, he's a corporate CEO (which in today's economic climate means the guy who has blue-collar workers by the throat), and he's a Mormon.
Huckabee's line still makes sense: Don't nominate someone who reminds voters of the CEO who laid them off.
I disagree
by WY Cowboy
Ronald Reagan was never an "average Joe." Reagan Democrats just trusted him to handle the economy and national security. That's what we are looking for. Romney fits that bill.
TraunerWatch.com
Wyoming people deserve the truth!
Just another Bitter white-boy clinging to guns and God!
The key word there is "trust"
by Adam C
I'm not sure that is Romney's selling point.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Romney's not the nominee
by WY Cowboy
They need to trust McCain on the economy and national security - not Romney. Romney would be someone McCain could point to and say, "This is the type of guy who will help America's economy turn around." Given his personal success and his knowledge on economic issues and his eloquence, Romney is a net plus on helping McCain sell his economic credentials.
That's the selling point.
TraunerWatch.com
Wyoming people deserve the truth!
Just another Bitter white-boy clinging to guns and God!
I'm not following
by Adam C
You said: "Reagan Democrats just trusted him to handle the economy and national security. That's what we are looking for. Romney fits that bill."
I thought you meant Romney should be VP because Reagan Ds could trust him on economy and national security. What did you mean?
As I said upthread, in the primary voters concerned about the economy voted more for McCain than Romney. And in general election polls, McCain already does better in the "who do you trust on the economy" question.
I don't see what Romney adds in this regard.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Reagan was so
by Dan McLaughlin
He came up from humble origins, the son of an alcoholic Midwestern shoe salesman. He always had the regular-guy touch.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But that is not the same as being an average joe
by WY Cowboy
He was a staunchly conservative, pro-American, movie star who knew what he believed and who believed in the greatness of the American people. He was not an "Average Joe." He appealed to the average Joe becaue the average Joe shares many of the same belief as Reagan - still does. Reagan was never considered an average Joe.
TraunerWatch.com
Wyoming people deserve the truth!
Just another Bitter white-boy clinging to guns and God!
Reagan's humble beginnings
by sinz52
What I meant by "average Joe," was that Reagan came from humble beginnings. (Not that Reagan had average talents.)
Reagan knew what it was like to live in poverty. And that helped him relate to the working-class "Reagan Democrats."
Romney is a gazillionaire corporate CEO, whose corporate restructurings at Bain caused a lot of layoffs. During Romney's campaign for the Massachusetts Senate against Ted Kennedy, Kennedy trotted out worker after worker to tell the news media that "I got laid off by Romney's corporate restructurings." The ploy worked, and Romney lost.
Republicans like to defend corporate restructurings as a good thing for the economy as a whole. But then don't expect the workers who get laid off in those restructurings to vote Republican. All they care about is that THEY are unemployed now.
If Romney is on the ticket, the Democrats are going to be using that same charge of "Romney laid off American workers" all through the campaign, and McCain will be constantly on the defensive having to explain it.
One more thing: I've already seen posts from Leftists that say "If only Romney had been the GOP nominee. We could have gone after his Mormonism just like the Republicans are going after Wright."
They have a point. Romney's Mormonism was a non-starter with a lot of socially conservative Americans.
Romney is not acceptable: Too elitist; too many corporate restructurings; too Mormon.
In many ways Romney at the national level resembles
by JSobieski
Michigan's last Republican candidate for governor--DuVos.
Very pro-business and knowledgeable about the economy.
His opponent kept talking about his moving jobs to China, and he never recovered. Even though the Chinese jobs were limited to serving the Chinese market, his campaign hit the skids.
Very true...
by rstreu
But we all know how bad DeVos's opponent turned out to be... this may actually be a positive comparison to make.
-streu-
Insert relevant witticism here
She's managed to move loads of jobs out of Michigan simply by
by Tim Schieferecke
being an uber-lib. We need people who have actually ran successful private businesses to become national leaders. They usually don't want to because of the paycut.
Tim Schieferecke
Except
by mikefisk
DeVos also couldn't really defend himself. He proved himself to be an awful debater, and got picked apart by the eloquent (yet insipidly vapid) Granholm.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
disagree
by Pentagon16
Personally I like Romney. But this is an ELECTION and the fact that Mitt turned off a LOT of diehard Republicans despite his 100 million dollar campaign says it all.
He in truth is not an elitist- but he will be painted as one. And he is not a bigot, but the media will portray him as one. He simply brings huge negatives without delivering any states at all. He would bring a weakness against Obama's weakness when we should be picking a strength against the opponents weakness.
Pawlenty is the man- or I am starting to really like Don Carcieri of Rhode Island as well!
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."
Voters don't like Romney.
by asleep06
That's kind of important in an election..
Now, if our elections were replaced by 50 state caucuses, then I could see how Romney would be a good pick =D
and looks good on TV.
I laughed out loud at that comment. I sure am glad that wasn't one of the requirements to run for president in the US Constitution. Have you seen the pictures of some of our former presidents? Contrary to what some have reported; not all women base electability on looks. Some of us research before voting.
It's a Living Constitution
by birdmojo
The "looks good on TV" part is covered by the 4th Amendment.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Uhh, almost every "rule" you
by RandomGuy
Uhh, almost every "rule" you lay down is wrong.
That said, I agree with your overall assessment of who are the most likely candidates at this point.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
No Rookies covers that
by Adam C
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Good run down
by Adam C
I generally agree with almost all the points made.
The top of my list is the same as it has been since McCain won the nomination: GOV Sanford, GOV Pawlenty are 1, 2. I put Cox at #3 and I think his tie to Bush is lessened b/c he isn't tied to the foreign policy side of things which is what kills Rice's chance.
I want to challenge one bit of received wisdom here. For reasons that I don't understand, McCain polls very well on economic issues. Questions like "who do you trust more on the economy" have McCain beating Obama and, usually, Clinton. In the primary, a plurality of R voters who put the economy as their #1 priority always went to McCain. It seemed odd at the time, but it is strong evidence that people want someone they can trust on economic issues and the trust is the emphasis, not the economic issues.
Thus, while I think there are reasons Romney should be on any list, I don't see him helping with "economic issues" in a political sense. When given a choice between McCain and Romney, economics voters choose McCain. Throw in the white working class Dem segment of the population (that McCain will try to win over if he's against Obama), and I'm not sure how putting a rich CEO-type helps win votes.
I think Romney is very good on economic policy and I'd love to see him have his hands on Sec Treas or some similar policy wonk position. But as far as winning votes on economic issues, I don't see any evidence that Romney will do so.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It's all about spending.
by Caiwyn
For reasons that I don't understand, McCain polls very well on economic issues. Questions like "who do you trust more on the economy" have McCain beating Obama and, usually, Clinton. In the primary, a plurality of R voters who put the economy as their #1 priority always went to McCain. It seemed odd at the time, but it is strong evidence that people want someone they can trust on economic issues and the trust is the emphasis, not the economic issues.
I think this is because of McCain's record on spending. Bush is strong on lowering taxes, but not on cutting spending. Liberals are quick to blame the Bush tax cuts for the past eight years of minimal economic growth, but conservatives are more willing to believe that spending is the problem. McCain's record of voting against the Prescription Drug Benefit and the Bridge to Nowhere, as well as not accepting earmarks, makes him a perfect fit.
I think that's a good part of it.
by asleep06
My guess is that it's also due to the more general logic of choosing the lesser evil playing itself out.
We need to remember that one of the consequences of the Republican primary was a demonstration to Republicans of the deficiencies of the entire field of candidates, which forced them to switch their logic to "who is the lesser evil."
So the economics question became not so much "who do we trust the most on the economy?" but "who do we distrust the least?"
Economic libertarians blew Huckabee out of the water. Romney was overwhelmed by his image as a slick corporate type. Which left... McCain.
In addition to explaining the "trust" in McCain, this perspective change from "greatest good" to "least evil" caused by the heated Republican primary also shows why there are still many Republicans who are refusing to vote at all. They understand that if they are to vote, it must be on the logic of the lesser evil, but they reject that logic on principle. So they will not vote.
If many people are doing this (we should take polls), Republicans might find that they will have to persuade the abstainers instead of dismissing them. This, of course, is something that will be hard to do.
As a follow-up...
by asleep06
It's clear that the Democrats do not suffer this problem. For them, the mentality is still "the greatest good" so you hear very few Democrats saying they're going to sit out the election (even if they threaten to in order to support their chosen candidate).
This is a significant advantage that Republicans will probably need to nullify either by making the Democrat primary be about the lesser evil and causing the purists/betrayed to stay home, or by persuading Republicans to vote rather than sit it out.
You know, I was playing a
by RandomGuy
You know, I was playing a game the other day and came up with an interesting possibility.
I was thinking: Everybody REALLY wants Jindal or Palin, but they haven't been in their respective offices long enough. So what we REALLY want is someone who can serve for 4 years, do some good, and then be dropped off the ticket for Jindal or Palin.
Then, I figured out who might fit that mold based on the following criteria.
1. Had to be likely willing to be a 4-year VP.
2. Needed to have no future political ambitions.
3. Needed to have ties to various swing states/groups.
4. Needed serious economic cred.
And I came up with: Sec. of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez!
He doesn't seem to have any political ambitions, would probably be willing to be VP for 4 years, has ties to Florida, Michigan, AND hispanics (particularly Cubans), and is instantly credible on economic issues! He's perfect!
Except for one minor detail:
He's born in Cuba. Didn't get here till he was 7.
Oh well.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Narrows it down
by justatron
Those qualifications, which I agree with, really narrows down the field of contenders.
It seems like that the only ones I can think of that fit the majority of the rules are Pawlenty, Romney, Sanford, and (can I say this without being shouted down?) Huckabee. I think the first two have a much stronger shot at the nod than the last two. And I know that there is great disdain for Huckabee amongst certain circles...I supported the guy during the primaries, but I'd rather not see him as McCain's running mate. I'd rather see Huck do what he is currently doing and push conservative candidates for state and Congressional offices.
Sanford would probably be my favorite choice, but I would be satisfied with Pawlenty or Romney, though I do think that Romney, for better or worse, has the "elitist" air about him that might damage him a bit.
I could not disagree more with #3
by horaceox
The best picks don't compliment a candidate, they reinforce him. See Al Gore 1992 (We're not Northeastern liberals) and Joe Lieberman 2000 (I won't bonk interns). I think McCain's basic message this time needs to be "the grownups are going to run government in my administration, and a Carcieri (or Powell/Lieberman/Ridge) could help reinforce that message.
I disagree with 6 as well, in that I don't think that McCain needs to worry about the conservative base for the same reason that Hillary doesn't need to worry about African Americans should she defeat Obama.
Along those lines, Romney is a terrible, terrible pick. He's generic Republican, and generic Republican isn't faring too well. McCain needs something different for his veep, which is why Pawlenty isn't such a bad choice.
NO MITT ROMNEY ...
by KYJurisDoctor
... Yes, Fred Thompson!
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
No closeted gays
by nycconservative
I guess that eliminates [Names removed. We're not speculating on that here, sorry. – Neil Stevens]
He should pick Crist or Pawlenty.
Oh My n/t
by Joliphant
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Wow n/t
by jdub19
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
The no profanity rules really cramp my verbiage n/t
by Joliphant
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
this won't even get a :ka-klick.... n/t
by jdub19
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
No names. Like I said, these are unsubstantiated rumors nt
by Dan McLaughlin
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Member for 57 minutes
by Mason617
Only 3 possible choices
by Thomas Hauber
After considering the rules above you realistically have only three possibilities:
1) Romney
2) Huckabee
3) Ridge
If McCain is smart he will take Ridge. Even though Ridge is pro-choice he is a governor from a big state who is well respected amongst all conservatives. Plus the added benefit of putting a large and crucial state into play. This race could really come down to OH and PA again.
Romney would be okay, but for reasons stated above he is too slick and corporate and plus the GOP won't win MA anyway in the general election.
Huckabee is a good choice except for the fact of how many skeletons will the dems bring out of his closet? And the fact that AR is not a big state.
Pawlenty in my opinion is not worth the effort it would take to sell him to true red conservatives. Frankly I never understood what he brings to the table? Being young? He is a mediocre governor at best and is too moderate to help with the base.
Romney appeals to me....
by Limited Government
...since I voted for him on Super-Tuesday (Fred was already gone).
People don't vote for Veep (generally), but Romney could help shore up the appearance of economic credibility for McCain.
On the Mormon issue, I actually think this is a BIG plus in favor of Romney. Most voters will not vote against McCain because Romney is Mormon. However, you can bet that Mormons will turno out HUGE if Romney is the VP. This is a big plus in close western states of New Mexico, Nevada, maybe others. Note: This effect worked for Gore with Lieberman. Jewish vote went big for them and almost won them Florida.
Overall, I think Romney is a solid KNOWN choice.
What about black voters
by Granny T
Are there enough Mormons to make Romney worth while? (that is a serious question I really don't know) I've read comments from some conservative blacks that if Romney is on the ticket they can't vote for it; because of the Mormon religion's history of bigotry toward blacks. If Hillary wins; there will be a lot of disgruntled blacks. If Obama wins; we need someone that appeals to more conservative blacks.
No
by RandomGuy
Mormons are 2% of the population, and are overwhelmingly present only in safe red states anyway, i.e. Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, etc.
The only swing state they have a serious presence in is Nevada.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
You forgot Colorado.
by NightTwister
If Obama is the nominee, there's a very good chance Colorado goes blue. If Romney were on the ticket with McCain, it would definitely go red. He has that much influence here.
And I'm against Romney as the choice (for reasons stated elsewhere in the comments).
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Mike Huckabee
by gregtherepublican
Strangely, Mike Huckabee seems to fit every criteria you mentioned.
The entire time I was reading this post I was thinking you were talking about Huckabee and I am surprised no one has mentioned him.
The don't list:
1. He is not a Senator
2. He is not a Bushie (in fact I believe he endorsed McCain in 2000)
3. He is not old and retired (52 years old I believe)
4. He is not a rookie (he has gotten his share of whipping in the media, plus he's been in gov't for 10+ years)
5. He has been a politician for over a decade.
6. He is definitely pro-life AND pro-lifers have no doubts about believing him
7. He is not an Iraq war opponent
8. He is not a Democrat
9. He definitely is not gay
10. He is not a lobbyist
11. He did not lose in 2006
12. He is not a perennial short lister
13. He is not a new mother (or father)
14. He belongs to no dynasty
15. He is not an AA candidate as he is a white male
Then for the DO's list
1. He has 10 years of experience as governor (more executive gov't experience than anyone else who ran)
2. He is definitely outside the beltway
3. Arkansas may be a tossup this election especially if Hillary wins. Also a lot of the south may be competitive because McCain isn't that popular there (Huckabee on the other hand has PROVEN that he can deliver the south by winning many of the key primaries there).
4. Huckabee has good economic sense. He talks in a way to appeal to voters and has some good ideas (like the fair tax).
So Huckabee basically meets every single criteria mentioned.
Huckabee...maybe
by Thomas Hauber
Huckabee certainly fits the criteria, but I don't think he is ideal.
What else will his opponents in AR dig up and release to the media? I feel that it would be like the death of a thousand cuts. Every week some other little detail will be revealed to the distraction of the bigger campaign issues.
I still think Ridge would be better. He has the experience, the vetting and puts a LARGE state into play. What more could you ask for?
Ridge = Bushie, and DHS debacle
by E Pluribus Unum
The DHS is universally reviled all across America as a bloated, toothless bureaucracy whose sole purpose it to cause airport delays. And Tom Ridge's name is inseparable from it.
No way in hell.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
On paper, I agree
by Dan McLaughlin
and I had the same thought. Huck's problem is basically sui generis - he's deeply mistrusted by two factions of the party (the economic conservatives/tax cutters and the national security hawks) who collectively make up a very large segment of the base.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
And even more so by everyone not in the party n/t
by Joliphant
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
He was axed for many conservatives before Huckabee could win them over. Now he has to spend his time undoing all the damage and getting out of the pigeon-hole, which, to be fair, he could have done more to keep himself out of.
Huckabee won't and shouldn't be picked.
the "hacket job" on Huck
by Adam C
was his 10 years as Governor and his economic record. It will be hard for him to "undo" that damage without running for something other than President. But since he passed up the chance to run for AR SEN and acquire a fiscally conservative record at a national level, he made his "undoing" effort harder.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Huckabee would turn Mormon's into democrats. Huckabee's anti-mormon actions makes him impossible to be a VP pick.
Well, almost anyway.
by NightTwister
On the don't list #8 (ok, so he's not a democrat, but he's certainly a populist which carries many of their characteristics).
On the do list...you're kidding about number 4, right?
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
And an Oh My to the Diary on the rule 9
by Joliphant
I understand the sentiment on rule 9 and even agree with it but couldn't that have been phrased more delicately ?
Our party has an unfair and undeserved reputation, why do things that give the enemy ammunition.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I hated to have to say it
by Dan McLaughlin
but it's political reality and it's been the elephant in the room in a few of these discussions.
It's not the gay part, it's the closet.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
3 choices - Sanford, Sanford, and Sanford
by E Pluribus Unum
I came to this conclusion quite some time ago. Doesn't fit every criteria (indeed, no one person actually does) but possibly the best. Most notably (in my opinion)
--Successful executive experience, and a DC outsider
--decent national name recognition (not super, but then very few guvs have all that big a name)
--young, star is rising
--his conservative bona fides would quiet the notably skittish base
--very articulate and aggressive, need not run around holding McCain's briefcase all the time but can campaign actively and cover twice the territory. Additionally, he's able to hold his own in VP debates with Dem VP candidate Bill Richardson.
--neither bald nor gray
On the downside:
--SC was always in the bag - indeed, the only state he'll help us with in terms of regional pull is FL.
--there are rumors regarding temperament and harshness.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Too conservative
by Thomas Hauber
Remember McCain only needs to shore up the base not baby them.
Sanford would be a small minus in the general. Plus what you have already mentioned, SC is pretty reliably GOP.
who you want working, supporting, and voting for you?
That would seem an odd way to run an election campaign.
Too conservative?
by E Pluribus Unum
Honestly, you are not pulling my leg, are you?
McCain is a worthy candidate, but he is BADLY in need of balancing in a number of ways: his age, his 24 years in the Beltway, and :pay attention to this one: his notable propensity to cause members of the Republican base engage in primal screams.
Barry Goldwater would not have been too conservative to balance this ticket.
And I'd sure like to know the downside of a guy who could take Bill Richardson, pull his pants down (rhetorically) and give him a good public spanking (rhetorically) in VP debates.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Don't forget
by Thomas Hauber
This election will not be won by how many die hard conservative turn out. It will be won by who turns out the Reagan democrats and soccer moms.
You only need to bring someone onto to the ticket who is a good conservative not a raw meat conservative! That will only push the general electorate away from McCain. He has their attention now, because of his personality and record. The last thing he needs is to make them suspicious of his motives, by putting a ultra-conservative on the ticket.
It is a fine balancing point between not pissing you base off and appealing to majority of voters. Hillary knows this, but Obama does not. I would rather McCain not make the same mistake as Obama does and will do.
So is a ground game of no importance?
by E Pluribus Unum
On paper this 'appeal to the mushy middle' thing looks alright. But if groundwork, advertising, campaign posters plastered all over America, phone banks, well-managed and well-attended rallies make any difference at all - then these 'die hard conservatives' matter a great deal more than their individual votes.
Squishy moderates and feel-good voters contribute not one little bit to the hard work that is needed. You pick Sanford or Palin, these hard-working base people show up in armies ready to work. You pick a squish like Pawlenty, they don't. The work won't get done, McCain won't win.
I'm not sure why you think Sanford would drive the middle away from McCain. McCain is the middle's rock star.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
will continue to do so regardless of VP pick. Sure the VP pick could help assuage worries, but if someone is refusing to help McCain beat Obama now then the VP choice isn't changing that.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Up to a point
by Dan McLaughlin
but I think if you have activists & donors who are voting for McCain but not working, and you get a VP pick who excites them, some will come off the fence. Doubly so if it's a young candidate who then becomes the heir apparent.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I really, really disagree
by E Pluribus Unum
The Republican fence-sitters are sitting on their hands for a specific reason - that being McCain's perceived lack of fealty to the Republican (not even wholly 'conservative') base.
A VP candidate which excites them will, IMHO, bring them off the fence. In droves. In large droves.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I agree with this. n/t
by rstreu
-streu-
Insert relevant witticism here
I hope to be wrong
by Adam C
I suspect he will choose a conservative like Sanford/Pawlenty not a Crist/Lieberman moderate. So hopefully we'll see.
My prediction is a couple days of diaries that say "YAY!!!! MCCAIN DID SOMETHING GOOD!!!!" And then when he and Pawlenty announce their Plan to Fight Global Warming, we're right back with the whiny "MCCAIN DID BAD, I WONT WORK FOR HIM!!!" diaries.
I really doubt it will change people's willingness to work and their attitude toward the race. McCain's embrace of Enforcement First hasn't changed the attitude. His anti-tax platform hasn't done it. His small government views haven't done it. His pro-2nd amendment rights stance hasn't done it. So I really doubt the VP choice will actually change things permanently. It will bring short term excitement but that will fade within days.
Pawlenty
by Dan McLaughlin
isn't really a rock-ribbed conservative anyway. He's more conservative than McCain, but I would not lump him with Sanford.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I have to disagree Adam.
by aaronbg
For myself, a conservative, I still find it hard to trust McCain on those issues. He has changed his attitude, but we still haven't seen proof of that change. I believe that if a conservative gets the nod for VP that will be a sort of proof of concept, as far as the attitude change goes. The VP pick is a choice that can't be changed, unlike an attitude. A conservative pick will help conservatives trust that McCain's attitude change is for real, and with that conservatives will start to work for McCain. Or McCain can test RandomGuy's theory about how us crazy fringe conservatives aren't really the base of the party and aren't needed. Either way I am gonna vote for McCain...but a spoonful of sugar sure does help the medicine go down.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I completely agree
by Adgedomin
I consider myself an Ultra-Conservative right wing nut job and proud of it. I won't be holding my nose when I vote for McCain in the fall, I will be in a haz-mat suit; but it sure would be nice if I didn't have to. If he picks a conservative I trust like Thompson, Gingrich(who no one talks about, and who could run in 2012 if McCain doesn't), or Sanford, I could just hold my nose and it wouldn't be that bad. I certainly would get more fired up about McCain if he picked a conservative. If he picks a moderate I will be voting against Obama/Hillary not for McCain, if he gets a serious VP then maybe I can vote FOR McCain.
Gingrich for President 2012
Gingrich left the conservatives.
by NightTwister
Quite frankly, I never considered him any more conservative than McCain.
In any case, the commercial with Pelosi re: AGW is enough to turn my stomach and never want to see him in politics again.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Nah, Newt's a solid conservative.
by St. Louis Conservative
I think he feels that conservatives need to actually be in the debate (I happen to disagree). If you follow what Newt proposes, it's absolutely nothing like what Pelosi/Obama/Gore want to do. He doesn't call for energy taxes, ethanol, wind farms and the like.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Gingrich is siding with the druids
by XinTX
He's taken up the "Glow-bull warming" voodoo science. He's becoming a druid.
I heard it on the X......
True.
He could pick Ronald
by RandomGuy
True.
He could pick Ronald Reagan's clone and they'd still sit on their hands.
They are utopian idealists, not people interested in politics.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Love your "signature line" quote
by Granny T
I've heard Huckabee refer to "Arkansas' yellow dog Democrats." Have you thought about adding "I'm a red dog Republican" before your "signature line" quote?
No, I just wanna keep it as
by RandomGuy
No, I just wanna keep it as is. It's what Clarance Thomas's mom said after watching the Democratic Senators savage her son. She had previously been a lifelong Democrat, as most blacks in the south had been, and, unfortunately, still are.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
A large number of conservatives
by jyalai
are sitting on their hands just hoping McCain will throw something their way to move them toward him. He isn't doing it. How many percantage points will he lose because he is not conservative enough? I don't know, but in a tight race it will matter. Can he win enough independents to make up the difference? Maybe, maybe not.
Selecting a conservative VP may be enough of a nudge to help those conservatives who think the party has left them to rethink supporting and working for McCain. Conservatives feel they voted for a quasi-conservative when they voted for Bush. McCain is worse.
For many conservatives who have been in the fight for a long time, they are losing hope that our government will ever get it right and disengaging from politics. I see this disengagement happening on the local level already.
I agree
by machapman
Every time I think I can hold my nose and vote for McCain he says something that completly turns my stomach. If he picks Pawlenty or any other moderate I will write in my canidate, and if McCain loses he can chalk it up to throwing conservatives under the bus. I don't trust McCain at all. He has proven that he loves to be a maverick against conservatives and loves to work with democrats. He believes in the Global Warming Hoax. The way I figure it is any one the 3 that are still standing will bring down the country. McCain will just take a few months longer. I also happen to live in "Racist North Carolina.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
which is why the VP needs to be pro-life
by JSobieski
From my limited ground game participation, it would appear that pro-life activists make up about 75% of the volunteers.
The pro-free market economics/pro-choice ground don't tend to volunteer in large numbers.
Sanford and Pawlenty are probably two of the best choices. Personally, I favor Sanford because I feel his conservative credentials are more solid, and he has a very strong background as an earmark opponent and as a government reformer.
I've also thought of Haley Barbour, although he might be disqualified because of his lobbying days, and I also liked Bob Ehrlich, but he is a 2006 loser and he might be pro-choice too. Rob Portman would be good, but I don't think he has any executive experience in government.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”