Even before Donald Trump tapped him as his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had been universally described as a “safe” choice—especially compared to the likes of Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie. But the National Review's Rich Lowry very succinctly explained why that reasoning might get things exactly backward:
But Trump’s running mate will have to be extremely deft at explaining away and deflecting Trump controversies. There is no reason to believe that Pence will be good at this, and I’m guessing he won’t be. Christie (comfortable at defending anything) and especially Newt (one of the most glib politicians of the last 30 years) would be much better by this metric. They both have downsides. [...]
But I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump team thinks it’s getting a safe choice in Pence and then when he inevitably has trouble defending Trump (he has never operated on this kind of national stage), it won’t look so safe anymore.
Want to see a perfect example of what Lowry’s talking about? Watch this extraordinarily painful cut of Pence repeatedly refusing to answer George Stephanapolous when asked whether Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which Pence signed into law last year) permitted discrimination against gays and lesbians:
Any time Trump says something offensive, untrue, or unhinged—and that will happen, and happen often—Pence will be called upon to defend his new boss. And if his response is anything like his appearance with Stephanapolous, it’ll be a disaster.