Skip to main content

I was replying to the excellent diary currently on the spotlight entitled "Veepasaurs! Who Will Survive; Who's Teetering On The Brink Of Extinction?" and the comment began to get really long, and I realized I had a lot to say on this.

So I have expanded my comment into a full fledged thought and I would like to share it with you all. First you should check out the diary that inspired this. It contains a very useful list of possible GOP VP candidates, in Dinosaur form. It is geeky fun in every awesome way possible.

Go ahead and check it out, then come right back and look below the fold.

Okay, remember in 2008 when all of this VP speculation had started? Many of these current shortlist names were on McCain's list as well. Yet McCain behind the scenes was trying to persuade his own people to let him choose Joe Lieberman. Lieberman for his part was not on hardly anyone's list of potentials for McCain. In those few instances where he was listed, it was as a long shot.

Yet McCain was lobbying hard for him. He was the #1 choice according to behind the scenes books and interviews that have since come out. So perhaps we cannot know. Perhaps it is impossible. It could be somebody who has zero name recognition but can fill some niche segment of the voting population Romney needs to shore up.

I hate personally hate the thought that Romney's choice is as a matter of probability unpredictable, because I pride myself on being pretty good at predicting these things. I predicted Edwards would be Kerry's running mate. I predicted Obama's would either be Hillary or Biden. In fairness that one was kind of obvious.  

Personally I found McCain's selection of Palin very predictable. And I may have been the only one to do so.

Below are some excerpts from a Diary I wrote on August 18th 2008. In it I did profiles on all of the GOP VP short-listers but the largest segment was reserved for this still unknown, not yet announced, probably not yet even vetted Governor from Alaska. She was not on any shortlists in the media at this point.

I was amazed when I stumbled upon her that I had not heard of her before. I instantly knew that if McCain's people were aware that this woman existed, she would be on the ticket.

Here is the link to my old diary...

Sarah Palin: She's a very popular (80-90% approval rating), attractive, governor of Alaska. She has kind of an older Tina Faye thing going on.


The upside for us? She's a little inexperienced for the job since she's only been governor of Alaska since 2006. Other than that, theres not much. She's good on the Environment and good on Gay issues (though her hand was forced) she is however firmly "pro-life" which doesn't help McCain's case with woman at all.

The downside? Out of all of the VP choices for McCain she is the one who could really help McCain the most in my view. This woman is destined for higher office and McCain may be her ticket to the top. Hopefully she's smart enough to realize McCain's campaign is already dead in the water and will simply sit this one out. If so we will have dodged a bullet but one way or another we will have to face off with this woman someday.


She's the first Woman ever elected as Governor of Alaska and she would be the first Woman ever elected as Vice President. Which despite her views on abortion; her charm and her potential to break glass ceilings could siphon off a good deal of female voters.

I turned out to be dead on with that one. I nailed the comparisons to Tina Fey, the rising star phenomenon that would engulf the campaign, I knew the moment I found her that she would be a force in the GOP for years once she broke out.

I didn't know she would be a force for evil, frustration and annoyance. I didn't know she would be a champion of the stupid and proud wing of the GOP. I did not know how dumb she personally was. I did not know how unpredictable she was. How unstable she was. I also did not know that she would be so inept at being in the public eye that after losing she would sabotage any future political ambitions by quitting her job as Governor and spending her days on Facebook.

Apparently McCain didn't know any of this either. She looked good on paper. But his campaign should have done a little more research than just reading the same stuff my Google Search for "Female GOP Politicians" turned up.

Apparently they did not.

My point is John McCain's trouble with female voters (that 19 point gap that cost him the election) was obviously his top concern when choosing a Vice Presidential nominee. That made the choice of this (at the time) popular and somewhat populist female Governor, a no brainer. There was no other female politician who could fill the role and no male politician who offered something McCain himself didn't already have.

This time around I don't know what to think. More importantly I don't know what to Google.

Romney has screwed up so many issues that there really is no one candidate that could repair the damage done. If he chose a woman, and he won't for reasons I will get into in a bit, he would still have the huge gap in Hispanic support to bridge. Finding a female Hispanic politician in the Republican party is hard enough. Finding one that also fixes the other issues he has is impossible. Especially when you consider the hardline anti-immigration base would respond to such a candidate.

Which brings up even more confusion. Romney has backed himself into a corner on so many issues and matters of ideology that he's gotten to a point where every choice he makes will have the effect of simultaneously alienating one important segment of the voting population while he panders to another. For instance choosing Rick Santorum would satisfy his crazy tea party base to a great degree and certainly help him among evangelicals, but he can say goodbye to moderates. The opposite is also true, picking someone slightly more liberal than himself would score points with moderates but he'd lose a large segment of his base.

So I think Romney's choice is unpredictable because there is no easy solution. No one size fits all VP candidate that will repair the damage and solidify the base without alienating the center. You can't just look at a much needed swing state like Wisconsin and nominate Paul Ryan. States rarely swing over a Vice Presidential pick. This is especially true of VP candidates who are House Representatives. Congressmen have little state wide support and are really only well know and well liked in their own district. Adding Ryan to the ticket does not help Romney in Wisconsin. Nor does it help with the various gaps Romney must bridge. Gender and Hispanic being the largest.

So since Romney will not find that magic VP candidate who can solve all of his problems, he is going to have to decide which person has the most potential to help him in whatever area of policy or messaging he feels are most beneficial. Who can fix which Romney short comings, and which of those short comings does Romney feel need to be fixed?

I will get back to that.

First a process of elimination is needed. Call it the Palin effect but I am fairly certain Romney's pick will not be a female politician. I am also fairly certain it won't be an inexperienced person. You can also bet they will be someone who is not prone to gaffes or going rogue. Anything that can remind people of Palin is probably off the table. That eliminates the likes of Michelle Bachmann or any other female politician. It eliminates any first term politicians who are too inexperienced like Marco Rubio. It also eliminates the likes of Rick Sanatorium, Chris Christie, Rick Perry among others who are too prone to gaffes and unpredictable, off message responses.

The GOP as a party tends to reward second placers. For example George H.W. Bush was chosen because he was Reagan's strongest opponent in the primaries. McCain was the 2008 nominee because he was alternative to Bush in 2000 in a year when the GOP wanted to try and show they were not defined by George W. Bush.

Romney was not only the runner up in 2008 but he also views himself as Reagan's second coming so I can see him making a similar move and picking someone who ran against him. But who is left from the Primary when you eliminate the inexperienced, the the woman and the possibly insane? Newt Gingrich? Tim Pawlenty?

My point is we should be looking at Anti-Palins. Experienced, Boring Men.

The problem with this idea is the entire GOP is full of boring men so it doesn't narrow things down at all. The concept of experience is also a double edged sword when you lead a party obsessed with outsiders. Experience can be a bad thing. So what kind of experience is Romney looking for? What counts as an outsider? The other component which is hardly discussed is Romney's faith which is very big on surrounding yourself with other church members. John Huntsman is the only man we have heard of who would fit the role. He and Romney have a long, messy history of spats and general competitiveness but he should still be considered a possibility.

It may seem like a long shot but it's one I maintain as a possibility due to the immense pressure Romney must be under to put another Mormon on the ticket.

As for Romney's weak spots, the areas he probably feels he needs to shore up. I would say first and foremost is his bedside manner with voters. He caused this meme  that he is a robot. He brought that onto himself. If he can find someone who is more human, more charismatic and more principled than himself (shouldn't be hard) he can let the VP candidate do most of the talking, while Romney sticks to his prepared remarks where he does better.

I think that personality aspect will the biggest asset Romney is looking for.

For those looking for outside the box candidates my only suggestion is to look at Business Leaders close to Mitt Romney. If he picks from someone not on this list it will probably be a private sector businessman like that idiot from Papa Johns, maybe someone with some meager political experience, but a businessman none the less.

This would allow Romney to double down on the "You didn't build that" line of attack, spin his candidacy as a ticket of "Job Creators" and go to town talking about the economy. At least that would be my suggestion if I had the Governors ear and the inclination to help him.

Neither of which is the case.

If something comes to me in the form of inspiration and research bares intriguing fruit I will certainly share my results. But honestly I think Romney being a spectacularly mediocre candidate in a party full to the brim with not-ready-for-prime-time politicians to chose from makes this a tough call. Not one I would want to make.

There really is no good choice for Romney, though we all learned there wasn't really any good choice for McCain either.

Originally posted to DeanDemocrat on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:06 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, don't congratulate yourself TOO much (4+ / 0-)

    on Palin. You may have picked her but for all the wrong reasons and you completely missed who she was and what her liabilities (and assets) were. Even then, there were growing chinks in her popularity in Alaska. I guess it would be easy to describe her as you did because no one really knew much about her — but within weeks she was exposed as not anything near ready for higher office. And where on earth did you get that she was good on the environment and gay issues?

    Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

    by anastasia p on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:27:03 PM PDT

    •  Paul Ryan has no impact in Ohio because he (2+ / 0-)

      is from Wisconsin.  Ohio would be Portman, which I think is more likely than anyone else.  I'd love to see Ryan get picked for VP, so Dems could make the "Ryan Budget" the main issue.  We need to make the name "conservative" be worse than what the right has done to "Liberal".  In my view, there is nothing conservative about these so-called "conservatives".  Nazis maybe, fascists definitely.  We need to call them John Birchers and make that wose than it was in the 60s.  See if Rmoney uses flouride toothpaste.

      "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", George Orwell, "1984" -7.63 -5.95

      by dangoch on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:34:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good by GOP standards. (8+ / 0-)

      On Equality issues Palin's first veto as Governor of Alaska was used to block a bill that would've barred same-sex partners from receiving state employee benefits under grounds of the constitutionality of the measure. The move, effectively, granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples.

      Her hand was forced on overturning the ban but she was pretty mum on the issue as Governor.

      Since then more information has come out regarding her position against gay marriage but at the time of my diary that information wasn't available. Had she sort of stayed neutral on the issue she would have been head and shoulders above the rest of her party.

      On the environment she wasn't all "Drill Baby Drill" when she was in Alaska. She was known as a conservationist. A hunter, sure. But also an advocate for clean air and water standards. This also put her head and shoulders above the rest of her party as far as anyone knew.

      Of course being only a half term Governor means she was "known" in Alaska about as well as she was known everywhere else. She ran as a moderate, defeated an incredibly conservative primary opponent. She had all the indicators of a very "Mavericky" politician.

      I readily admit Palin was a disaster of a pick and would make a terrible Vice President, let alone President. My only very small claim to very minor fame is that I predicted it when she was not on anyone's radar. For someone who has never even been to Alaska, that's pretty good. I may have predicted her based on flawed information I found online, but apparently I was looking at the same information as the McCain campaign.

      Perhaps that says more about their vetting process than anything else. But hey when you come to the same conclusion as seasoned political strategists by just Googling likely terms, that's pretty neat.

      Of course she turned out nothing like the adversary I had presumed. Her reputation as Governor was no doubt based on some campaign imagery, not reality. But there was no way for anyone to know that... well McCain could have figured it out had he not rushed the vetting process, but that's beside the point.  

      Things could have turned out very differently if she was only as competent as the average politician. Which was my fatal assumption.

      In 2008 the dumbest character in the political theater was George W. Bush and even he knew enough about the issues to fake it. He knew when to shut up. He knew when to defer to others. He had a basic competence necessary to campaign and lead; even if his ideas and policies were terrible. He was capable of handling the likes of Katie Couric at least!

      As an elected Governor I expected Sarah Palin to have at least a George W. Bush level of intelligence and political skill. Had she done that, had she lived up to my meager expectations, had she been the Sarah Palin everyone said she was, she could have gone far. Hell McCain might have closed the gender gap. He might have become President. If he still lost you could bet your ass she would be the nominee this time around. She could have been all the things she was hyped to be if she had been properly coached, if she had experience, and if she had kept a more centrist and moderate message.

      Granted if you take away her vindictive tendencies, her ignorance on basic political issues, and her lame ideas, she is no longer Sarah Palin. She becomes the sort of candidate that doesn't exist in today's GOP.

      Which is why I said she could fit in as a Lieberman type Democrat if she were from a blue state, and would be a formidable opponent with a long future ahead of her in the GOP... I assumed this until she started answering questions.

      I think McCain had the same expectations and the same rude awakening.

      But looking back even now if you're John McCain going up against Barack Obama with a 19 point gender gap you have to bridge, no hindsight to guide you who else do you pick? Does Lieberman fix McCain's problem? Does Tim Pawlenty? Romney?

      The perfect answer if you do better, more detailed research on her before you jump in. But it was immediately before the convention and they had nobody. Poor management created a desperate situation. And when you find out she's kind of an inexperienced nut job you still have to weigh that against Joe Lieberman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

      It's like deciding which orifice you'd like sealed shut. Mcain, like Romney really had no good options. So he took a gamble and (thankfully) lost.

      We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

      by DeanDemocrat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:44:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you're the reason I was so paranoid when (7+ / 0-)

        I read that a plane had been dispatched to Alaska, picking up a little known but wildly popular female governor... I remember your comment -- and my heart just sank when McCain got all mavericky and made the bold choice.  

        I don't think Mittens will make a mavericky choice. They're a daily gaffe machine as is; he can't risk an unknown entity like Palin. There are so many holes in Mittens experience right now, I don't know how he fills them... I believe Pawlenty wants it more than anyone -- and his career is essentially over so he's got nothing to lose. But I believe that Mittens will go with Portman, trying to gain an advantage in Ohio.

        Mitt, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, cry, dance, they live and they die. Learn the difference. We don't run the country for corporations. WE RUN IT FOR PEOPLE. - Elizabeth Warren

        by theKgirls on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:30:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. My first thought was, "You got the who, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      but totally missed the what."

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:51:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you missed the point (0+ / 0-)
      I turned out to be dead on with that one. I nailed the comparisons to Tina Fey, the rising star phenomenon that would engulf the campaign, I knew the moment I found her that she would be a force in the GOP for years once she broke out.
      The diarist, in his or her own research,  saw Palin as a likely choice if the VP was to be woman. On paper, before anyone had seen or heard from her, she seemed to have all the right stuff. Obviously, someone in the GOP reached the same conclusions. And, in fact, the GOP base went nuts for her. I'd say that was pretty good call on the diarist's part.

      And, to whoever it is who arranges these things in the background, it seemed like an excellent call too, for a time.

      I didn't know she would be a force for evil, frustration and annoyance. I didn't know she would be a champion of the stupid and proud wing of the GOP. I did not know how dumb she personally was. I did not know how unpredictable she was. How unstable she was. I also did not know that she would be so inept at being in the public eye that after losing she would sabotage any future political ambitions by quitting her job as Governor and spending her days on Facebook.
      A pretty straightforward mea culpa, wouldn't you say?
      Apparently McCain didn't know any of this either. She looked good on paper. But his campaign should have done a little more research than just reading the same stuff my Google Search for "Female GOP Politicians" turned up.
      And here's the thing: Our diarist wasn't charged with finding the perfect candidate for VP. Rather, it was an intellectual exercise. I don't think it's reasonable to demand the same level of diligence that the GOP failed to muster.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:45:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blink some MORE, Rob Portman. (4+ / 0-)

    You make some GREAT points here, really calling for "draining the swamp" of corruption in Washington by focusing on failed solar company Solyndra, and for no government help on heathcare and simply hoping "competition" among the healthcare behemoths will improve access to healthcare in this country.

    < /sarcasm >

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:38:50 PM PDT

  •  The Palin of 2012 is... (5+ / 0-)

    Brian Sandoval.

    He's a Palin mainly because he's only two years into his first term as governor of a small state, but also because he would get buzz as being unexpected and not a boring white guy. He might win Latino votes in the Southwest.

    "Balderdash!" - Mitt Romney

    by Red Bean on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:04:48 AM PDT

  •  They can't find anyone. (4+ / 0-)

    It's taking so long to pick because no one WANTS to be on the ticket with loser Mitt!

    What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

    by kpelligra on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:04:57 AM PDT

  •  Huntsman?! That would be interesting to say the (6+ / 0-)

    least. He was the only one that scared the crap outta me. The dude is electable.

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:18:54 AM PDT

    •  He's electable, certainly (8+ / 0-)

      Hell, I actually kinda liked the guy. That said, I very much doubt he gets the nod. Everything I've read hints at the idea that Romney and Huntsman have mutual dislike for each other. I think we can safely rule out a Huntsman VP selection. Two Mormons on the ticket would be a huge red flag for the R base.

      •  I have the same reservations about Huntsman. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, subtropolis

        Him and Romney have butt heads a lot in the past particularly when Romney was in Utah for the Olympics. Like I said the church is probably pushing for it because Romney and Huntsmen are their golden boys. But I dunno if Eric F. would allow it.

        The other thing is I don't think Romney sees his religion as a liability. It is. And Eric F. has definitely made sure Romney stays as vaguely christian as possible. But I get the sense that Romney wants to have that argument about his faith.

        I think he wants to defend his beliefs and not hide from them. Again Eric F. will make the call at the end of the day. But I wouldn't rule Huntsman out completely.

        We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

        by DeanDemocrat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:54:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two mormons = Epic Fail (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Bottom line is the VAST majority of the religious right probably think better of Muslims than Mormons.  One they could laugh off.  Two and it the cult taking over the government.  

          If you are involved in Boys Scouts at all you know how deeply penetrated scouting is by the Mormons.  They control a HUGE percentage of Boys Scout troops and use them to evangelize - much to the dismay of many - both right an left.  If R-Money chooses Huntsman the Obama campaign should spend what ever it takes to run HUGE adds welcoming the first all Mormon presidential ticket encouraging them to make history as he did.  Then just sit back and watch the Fundies fall scream cult indoctrination conspiracies.  

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:48:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no ads necessary (0+ / 0-)

            The right would explode over a complete Mormon ticket. It'd be the fucking End Days. Epic fail, indeed. No way would the GOP do that. Romney's "choice" for VP is not his to make. McCain didn't get Lieberman, after all.

            I don't even think the elders would be pushing that. Putting their Bishop into the White House is enough.

            All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

            by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Only in the general (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge, subtropolis

      He can't get traction in the Republican primaries, even if he had spent time as a VP.  The only way he gets elected president as a Republican is if he is VP, his president dies or is removed, and he runs the next election as an incumbent.

      We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

      by nightsweat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:11:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huntsman is too moderate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly, BillyZoom, subtropolis

      Romney has a serious credibility problem with the wingnuts who are now the base of the Republican Party. They preferred almost anyone else .. Santorum or Gringrich or Perry. Huntsman wouldn't help at all with that. I think he's under a lot of pressure to pick someone to his right, just as Quayle served G. H. W. Bush as a sop to the religious right wing of the party. But he can't go too far in that direction, since full-on crazy is a hard sell to most voters.

    •  but he's another Mormon (0+ / 0-)

      There's no way in hell the GOP would do that to themselves.

      Besides, I've read that they hate each other.

      And Huntsman worried me, too. I should have realised that the GOP Circus of the Primaries would vote him off the island soon enough. The guy is way too sane.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:04:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  when it's this bad, (7+ / 0-)

    "This time around I don't know what to think. More importantly I don't know what to Google..."

    it's probably good.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:24:28 AM PDT

    •  It's pretty bad. (5+ / 0-)

      If you search for female GOP leaders you will come to the conclusion that their brightest star (or dimmest bulb) in that niche is definitely Nikki Haley from South Carolina speaking strictly from a gender gap point of view of course.

      But it would be Palin Part 2.

      Searching for Hispanic GOP contenders gets you a handful of equally inexperienced leaders including Marco Rubio and the aforementioned Brian Sandoval who incidentally reminds me ALOT of Mitt Romney. But then again you have the problem of little experience, and anti-immigrant sentiment inside the party and the potential for gaffes.

      As I said in the diary Romney's biggest problem is his personality. But searching for charismatic GOP leaders brings up a million search results for Ronald Reagan and a few laughable tea party bozos.

      The other thing he has to contemplate now in addition to the normal balancing act is the fact that the VP's tax records will likely be a subject of interest. So now he has to financially vett his VP just in case the issue comes to a head and he has to release the information.

      This becomes even more pressing when you think about all the ways a VP candidates past business dealings could spark interest in their records. Say some reporter discovers evidence that Tim Pawlenty screwed somebody out of a bunch of money (just a hypothetical example) the press is going to immediately want to see his financial and tax records.

      Those sorts of things have to be sorted out. He can't even have a candidate whose past dealings could bring up the issue.

      We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

      by DeanDemocrat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:07:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Rob Zorban people are pushing (4+ / 0-)

    Ryan for VP, thinking that would give them an edge.  

    I'm not a pop culture person, but wonder if that wouldn't that be a kinky Bat Man and Robin team?

    Like Scott Brown, Willard has gone far on his looks. His features seem entirely unaffected by his thoughts.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:10:27 AM PDT

    •  Lack of emotion = fewer facial wrinkles. nt (0+ / 0-)

      "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

      by Mayfly on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:50:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Susana Martinez (5+ / 0-)

    I'm a little surprised she didn't garner any mention in your piece.  She's stated pretty unequivocally that she won't accept a VP offer, but she's a female hispanic governor of a border state, pro-life, and anti-gay-marriage.  She's much better (read: more liberal) on immigration, but IMO Republicans have enough experience spinning to make her appeal to the base anyway - the fact that she's governor of a border state being the key component that would allow that, IMO.  Also, her background is as a DA, so it'd be easy to portray her as tough.

    The only real problems for her, as far as I can see, are (1) that she categorically refuses to be considered and (2) that a first-term female governor would be immediately reminiscent of Sarah Palin.  Which, objectively, is a bit of a shame.  I'm no Martinez fan - she's making a mess of the state over here - but she's a LOT better than Palin and I'd far rather have the GOP fawning after her than an Alaskan sociopath.

    •  Good post, BUT (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      non acquiescer, Mayfly, subtropolis

      Please tell me you're not one of the "I call them what they want to call themselves" people." Anti-choice, please, NOT "pro-life" (and if she supports the death penalty, she's not 'pro-life').

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:55:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, Dave & "forced birther" is apt also. nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave in Northridge, subtropolis

        "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

        by Mayfly on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:52:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I beg you to reconsider your position. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You've written this before and I cannot agree with it.

        "Anti-choice" begs the question.  With due respect I think the term is fundamentally dishonest and it dehumanizes our opponents.  It eliminates the grey area and pretends that all is black and white.

        While most people would agree that something happens at conception that sets into motion a process whose end result is a human baby a substantial percentage of the time and that the closer you get to birth, the more human that thing is, the language of "Choice" eliminates that area.  It makes a difficult and complicated issue simple and however politically desirable that may seem it is usually true that when nuance dies decency eventually follows.

        The truth is that any zygote or fetus in its initial stages is not even close to sentient.  That thing in there is no more self-aware than a minnow or in some cases, a protist.  But the truth is that babies aren't so sharp either.  They're actually kind of stupid.  Most adult mammals are actually far more sentient.  And yet we can, for better or worse, kill most adult mammals when it serves our purposes and we cannot do that to that miserable excuse for an intelligence that emerges from the females of our species, like Richard III, scarce half made-up.

        This is not really reasonable.  Indeed infanticide was widely practiced and accepted (or ignored) in the premodern world.  In medieval Japan a newborn was not considered to be inspired with a human soul until its fortieth day and midwives routinely asked new mothers if they wished to keep the baby or not.

        In our society this is unthinkable.  And it should be.  The reason for that is simple: We have the technology to terminate or even prevent unwanted pregnancies long before it ever gets to that stage  and there is a deep moral impulse to protect that half made-up thing because if there was not we should not have fared well as a species.  That probably-dumber-than-a-housecat thing that emerged from my wife's body the day before she turned 41 was the center of my world from the moment he first sucked on my knuckle (probably thinking to get milk from it--what a dunce!) and he will be forever more.  He was the center of my universe even before that.  From the time I saw him holding his little hand before his mouth he was the center of my world.  That was also when he got a clean bill of health from the amniocentesis that is recommended for all "elderly pregnancies".  If he had not gotten that clean bill of health (well, depending on how severe the problems) I would have advised my wife to terminate the pregnancy.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  I don't think so.  I think it just makes me human.  I consciously referred to him as "the blob" before that test.  Only afterward did he get a name.  I was being pragmatic.  Intellectually I knew that he was no more aware than the chicken I routinely eat are.  But I also had to have him at the center of my life because of what he could become.

        And we have to have that at the center of our thoughts.  It's one of the things that makes us human.

        I support legal access to abortion because I consider it a necessary evil that pragmatically considered is preferable to the evils attendant to outlawing the procedure.  But I do feel conflicted about it.  I think many people who support keeping abortion safe and legal do.

        What's more there are people who oppose abortion that do not do so absolutely.  They may draw that moral line at 3 months of pregnancy rather than birth.  But many of those people think the best way to avoid abortion is the wide availability of contraception and comprehensive universal sex education.

        A study which unfortunately is no longer available online found a great deal of possible common ground with those who call themselves pro-life:

           --Eight in ten self-identified "pro-lifers" say that women should have access to contraception.

            --Voters overwhelmingly support Title X, (the government public health program that funds state and local family planning agencies that provide contraception to low-income women), by a margin of 86 percent to 13 percent. Seventy-three percent of Republicans, 77 percent of "pro-lifers" and 64 percent of "very conservative" voters support Title X programs.

            --Eighty-six percent of voters and 85 percent of Catholic voters want the government to fund programs that provide contraception to women without health insurance.

            --Upon learning that the President's Title X budget proposal of $286 million would provide contraceptive services to only about half of women who seek them, 66 percent of voters, 54 percent of frequent church attendees, and 63 percent of Catholic voters support an increase.

            --Three in five voters (62 percent) do not think that support for Title X funding violates a lawmaker's pro-life position.

            --Three in five voters (60 percent), and 62 percent of Catholic voters think that improving access to contraception is a better way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. than enacting more restrictive abortion laws.

        And so I guess my question is, what do we profit by disparaging the motives of these people?  What do we gain by assuming (and that's exactly what the "anti-choice" frame does) that they are essentially liars, that they do not care a whit about human life but only want to hurt women.

        "Anti-choice" is the rhetorical equivalent of pissing on these people.  Why would we do that if so many of them would be on our side on a great number of issues?  Why would we do that when such language alienates them and makes them hostile and there are clearly ways that we can move our agenda forward with these people.

        "Anti-choice" is about as honest as their side calling us "pro-death".  Are you going to work with someone who calls you that?

        If you don't want to call them "pro-life" then call them "anti-abortion" and please don't tell me that you are anti-abortion.  "Pro-choice" is a formulation that necessarily indicates you are not.

        Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

        by journeyman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:11:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  damn! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          journeyman, subtropolis

          I'm a gay man, and, frankly, what a woman does with her body is none of my business.  It's none of anybody's business except for the woman involved and her physician.  "Anti-abortion" would be fine, although I thought there was a real effort in the "choice/life" terminology to keep the word "abortion" out of it for sensible reasons.  

          Considering how Bryan Fischer and the American Family Association talks about me, I see no reason why I shouldn't piss on these opponents of reproductive freedom.  "Anti-Choice" is a challenge to them to keep their religion out of the public sphere, and to stop making laws that chip away at a woman's right to choose.

          Since you say you've read me, you know I'm very careful about the words I use to describe things.  I don't care if I have common ground with people who oppose abortion because I don't intend to discuss it with them even if they bring it up, and the circles I travel in make it unlikely I'll meet any of them.

          Thanks for the lecture, and I'm not buying it any more than I did when it came up in my earlier diary.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:26:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see where you are coming from, but . . . (0+ / 0-)

            I  still can't quite agree.

            Bryan Fischer is not our target.  He's not going to be on our side no matter what.  There is no point in talking to him.

            Our targets should be people who are more like, well, some of my relatives.  I've got the full-Palin nut case right-wing Christians in my family tree (actually on the closest branch--but that's another story) but I've also got left-wing sermon-on-the-mount Christians in my family tree.  One in particular that I'm thinking of is pro-life, but also supports state-supported birth control.  This person supports universal comprehensive sex-education.  She's voted Democratic in every major election since 1980 and I think she's donated in those as well.  Truth be told, I'm not actually sure that she is for outlawing abortion.  But she does not like it.  She doesn't think it is nothing more than a "choice" as if it were a question of Pepsi or Coke.

            Nine times out of ten these people are going to be with us.  And they aren't "Anti-choice".  They genuinely are pro-life.  But they are uncomfortable with abortion.  We don't have to accept their point of view, but if we acknowledge and respect it, we just might get that extra one per cent that we need in a state where there is a referendum on personhood amendment.

            "Anti-choice" is boilerplate for the already committed.  We don't need to preach to the choir.  We need to appeal to Christians in the language of compassion.  Yes, many so-called Christians are just hyper conservative bigots.  I would say that most right-wing Christians are.  I would even go so far as to say that at present they are more influential than any other kind of Christian and are widely viewed as speaking for the religion.

            But there are millions out there that are not with them.  They may be a minority, but they are a substantial one.  And a little respect would go a long way with them.  "Anti-choice" presumes to know someone's heart.  As such it will never win them over.  And there are millions of them that can be won over.

            I think at heart, we basically agree on the big question.  I support the continuation of free, safe and legal abortion and you do as well.

            Where we differ is on tactics.  I don't ask that you necessarily adopt mine, but I do ask that you consider that not everyone who uses the phrase "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" does so unthinkingly or because of some quaint idea about civility in discourse.  At least please consider that that is the case with me.

            Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

            by journeyman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your tactics are your tactics (0+ / 0-)

              I don't know where you live or what you do professionally or even how old you are so I can't guess at your motives. It's fine with me if they are yours. Don't expect me to adopt them.

              -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

              by Dave in Northridge on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:34:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're arguing the wrong case here (0+ / 0-)

          Not to knock what you've written, but it seems to be addressing the wrong thing.

          But first …

          I support legal access to abortion because I consider it a necessary evil that pragmatically considered is preferable to the evils attendant to outlawing the procedure.  But I do feel conflicted about it.
          You and pretty much everyone else who supports free access to abortion. I hope you haven't been convinced by the the propaganda that abortion rights supporters are all thoughtless monsters.
          I think many people who support keeping abortion safe and legal do.
          Well, see? There you go. I'm glad we got that sorted out.
          What do we gain by assuming (and that's exactly what the "anti-choice" frame does) that they are essentially liars, that they do not care a whit about human life but only want to hurt women.
          The essential issue is whether women have the choice to abort a fetus or not. All women, regardless of their individual choices and the internal conflict that led to those individual decisions. As the law should be. People who would take that right away—regardless of their individual motives—are rightly named anti-choice.

          All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:34:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No means No and why... (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with you Susana Martinez would be an excellent choice for Romney and I think still had a future in the Republican party. But the combination of her Developmentally Disabled sister of who she is the Guardian and her Father who has Alzheimers makes it extremely unlikely she would accept the VP Candidate position. This isn't Biden's there are other things I'd prefer to do, this is if I take the job my family loses.

      If things were to sort out by 2016 (which unfortunately would probably equal her father passing away), she would be on everyone's short list for VP. I don't think imagining her as President of the United States in 2020 or 2024 is that far out of the question...

  •  My Best Hail-Mary Pick Tip for the GOP (10+ / 0-)

    For your consideration:

    John Claggett Danforth.

    He's white.
    He's a dude.
    He's boring.
    He's old.
    He's from Missouri.
    He's an ordained Episcopal minister who officiated Ronald Reagan's funeral.
    He has an unforced Hugh Beaumont/Andy Griffith-esque air of assurance and ease
    (okay, I must admit there's a good bit of Fred Gwynne in the mix too, but still, Its 'My Cousin Vinny' Fred Gwynne...that dog will hunt.)

    And he has this neat trick of seeming the embodiment of 'The Republican Establishment' old-school statesman, while simultaneously maintaining plenty of Dog-Whistle-Wacko-Right and 'Sensible Centrist' bonafides.

    In other words he is a more credible and compelling version of Romney than Romney himself (he had a similar rep in relation to Ashcroft, and others), yet no threat to Romney. perfect.

    In this sense, his advanced age is a feature, not a bug.

    With the image of Cheney (maintained in a pertri dish for 8 years) still fresh in many minds, Danforth seems downright spry.

    He appeals to a certain sort of middle-of-the-road older white guy and gal...including those once known as Reagan Democrats...who were so weary of legacy pledge Bush, shocked by the precipitous economic collapse or disgusted with Palin that they voted for the outsider brown guy in 2008.

    Lots of those folks. in Virginia, Ohio and Florida are on the fence about voting for the brown guy this time round. But maybe they are vaguely uneasy about the current polarized environment tone in D.C or Romney's ability to 'make Washington work'. Danforth's schtick plays in VA, FL and OH and may be the reassurance they need to embrace the old old guard. Danforth can help with this without scaring off the tin pot patriots or casually fanatical Clarence Thomas fans.

    He lines up well against Biden, even trumps him as 'Senior Statesman'.

    Meanwhile the younger generation of GOP poster boys (and gals) enthusiastically support Romney/Danforth, all the while licking their chops for the chance to step into the incumbent ticket in 3 or 4 years when Danforth inevitably resumes his cape act.

    That's if Romney wins. If he loses, Romney is swept off the stage with Danforth and the way is clear for the GOP young guns.

    My mom, if i understand correctly, voted for Bush twice and then Obama. My sense is that a Danforth sort would swing her back. I suspect there are alot of people like her in VA, OH and FL

    okay, i don't think Danforth is anything but a long long shot. i just find his place in the U.S. political firmament intriguing.
    but here are 2 more things he can bring to the table:

    1. Given his age, he is not fat by American standards.

    2. he was, by some accounts, "supposed" to be George W. Bush's VP pick in 2000 before Bush had one of his recurring bouts of spastic Jethro Bodine-like figurin' of the sort that would later bring us Alberto Gonzalez, John Bolton, Harriet Myers and whatever happened with that pretzel. So, in a sense, John Danforth was the very FIRST american thrown under bus by BUSH/CHENEY as we came to know them. That bit of history (real or imagined) would get alot of play during his roll out. It would make him relatable to everybody. It would be a way for Romney to say, "Remember George Bush? I'm not him. See?". And there would be a subconscious sense that a vote for Danforth would somehow serve as a karmic way-back machine reboot of the millenium.

  •  My money is on Mike Huckabee (8+ / 0-)

    You're right, you can't cover all weaknesses, and the most critical need is to bring the fundies and teabaggers back into the fold.  Huckabee helps immensely with these groups.

    Strategically, Romney will not try to erase the gender gap, but rather to neutralize it with an even stronger majority among the white guy blue collar so-called Reagan Democrats.  This demographic constitutes Huckabee's roots and strength, even as he is acceptable to the other elements of the coalition---plutocrats and neocons.

    Plus, Huckabee is a smooth, media-savvy political pro who does not need coaching and coddling. And, he won't obstruct Jeb's path to the presidency, whether in 8 years (should Romney win in 2012), or 4 (should he lose).

    •  Why would Huckabee want to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, Mayfly

      VP when he wouldn't make a run for the presidential nomination?

      "Balderdash!" - Mitt Romney

      by Red Bean on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:59:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Never going to have a ticket w/2 Mormons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly, subtropolis

      I'm pretty sure that JFK never considered naming a Catholic running mate, since he had enough of a hurdle to get over with a single problem religion on the ticket.

      For the same reason, I think we can safely assume Lieberman is off the list as well.

      •  Thinking of Huntsman? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mayfly, subtropolis

        Mike Huckabee is a Southern Baptist, and a minister to boot. Former governor of Arkansas, he definitely shores up evangelicals and social conservatives with whom Mitt has little credibility. He's also something of a salt-of-the-earth populist type, so he would help to offset Romney's "oblivious upper class twit" vibe. He's a good speaker, too.

        The only downside I can see is that he's so much more charismatic than Mittens, that he'd outshine him significantly. Also, the VP candidate has to play bad cop, and Huck really isn't credible in that role. He'd be nuts to take the job, but that objection applies to everyone.

      •  Lieberman takes the focus off Mormonism (0+ / 0-)

        It could work.

        All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

        by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:37:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I still think it will be Pawlenty (6+ / 0-)

    Though I heard Sominex is lobbying hard against him...

    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." - President Merkin Muffley

    by Farkletoo on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:34:45 AM PDT

  •  I can't see a CEO type... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, mmacdDE

    Too hard to control.  The smartest guy in the room syndrome.  No political instinct at all since they usually get their way.  The fundie wingnuts and military wingnuts wouldn't trust him and the fiscal guys think they're smarter than him.  There wouldn't be one chance in hell of picking up moderates and conservative Democrats with 2 CEOs on the ticket.  I just don't see it.

    However, the con/pub campaign is so whacko this time around, anything is possible.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:44:06 AM PDT

  •  A white male pick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, Red Bean

    A white male pick means Romney has lost hope of gaining any support beyond what he has now.  

    He'll lose that too if there's anymore truth telling from the Romney campaign.  

    Mitt should have learned this in kindergarten:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
  •  I still say Michelle Bachmann. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    Rmoney is going to pick somebody to shore up the base after his latest faux pas.

    If he doesn't pick her, I'm betting on some other complete wing-nut.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:23:43 AM PDT

  •  This is way too cynical but the second ammendment (3+ / 0-)

    solution crowd might just love them some Ryan for VP.

    If Ryan so activates the wingnutty 'brandishing and discharging' fringe that the ticket actually prevails in November,

     Mittens may face the fear of a 12 cent solution, ie lead poisoning by his own folks.

    Now there's  a bit of zero sum accounting to ponder.

    "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

    by jakewaters on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:33:02 AM PDT

    •  I think Ryan is too way out, (0+ / 0-)

      too secluded as a Congressman, too mouthy with his ideology. He already only reaches out to the locked-in Tea Party voters, and it is becoming clear that Mitt is starting to drift downwards in the polls.
      I don't know why finding a Republican  VP will be any easier than finding the Republican Presidential nominee. They all demurred this election in favor of 2016.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:07:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Under pressure to pick another Mormon? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanAnt, subtropolis

    I think not. Even the LDS Church would understand that one Mormon on a ticket is the most they could, or should, hope for, and that an all LDS ticket would completely freak out  the base.

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

    by revbludge on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:01:03 AM PDT

  •  David Petraeus? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Will that guy run? It would give Mitt a sense of gravitas and All Americanism, which I think he lacks, to rally the old-school Republican base. Mitt is starting to come off like an International Banker with no roots other than his own avarice. That meme is a virus that he won't be able to beat.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:03:48 AM PDT

    •  I was thinking of a military guy too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanAnt, Cobbler

      I don't think he would want it though. Too used to command, and the VP basically has NO power.

      But, if Romney really wants to appeal to the base, he'll pick...

      Chuck Norris.

      I think Jesse Ventura would be a much better pick, but he would likely punch Romney before run with him.

      •  Jesse Ventura is the answer! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I've heard him on a couple of podcasts, and he's completely insane but sounds like he might make sense if you ignore the words and just listen to his tone.

        Of course, that might all be too much of a feature (plus, he's a legit sports hero ;-), so perhaps we should be hoping for Boring White Guy (R - Wingnuttia) instead.

        •  And a Navy Seal (0+ / 0-)

          and a former governor. So the guy does have political experience.

          But IIRC, he was an independent, and I can't see him getting along with Romney at all.

        •  I like Jesse Ventura (0+ / 0-)

          And a lot less crazy than you might think. I heard him speak quite articulately about waterboarding and torture under the Dick Cheney presidency.

          "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

          by shmuelman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:16:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was impressed for a little while (0+ / 0-)

            Not having much respect for the whole wrestling thing, my reaction to his switch to politics was amusement. But once i had a chance to hear him out i thought he wasn't too bad at all. I liked that he was very outspoken about some things that i thought were important, and he certainly wasn't your typical pol. Eventually, though, he began to grate, and i found myself rolling my eyes more and more.

            And now he's gone way off the edge.

            All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

            by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:49:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Captain Conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

          I loves me some of that—UFOs, JFK. The classics. But he's way off in Trutherland and Birtherville. (I have no idea about the latter but it's safe to presume.)

          He'd be perfect!

          All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:42:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The thing you have to remember about Jesse... (0+ / 0-)

            is his wrestling experience is actually a plus in the modern Republican party.  He played the heel far more frequently than the face, and has an instinctive knowledge of what gets the rubes riled up.  IMHO, he was an even greater announcer than an in-ring performer, never at a loss for the perfect snarky comeback to McMahon, Monsoon or whoever else he was partnered with.  Sure, in his post-gubernatorial career he's become the King of Konspiracies, but once again he was largely playing to the crowd.  The Romnulans could do far worse--the Navy Seal stuff would give Mitt the toughness he so sorely lacks, the WWE background ensures raucous rallies across the nation, and the mere thought of Ventura presiding over the US Senate will have visions of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho filling the fantasies of every wingnut in America.  Romney/Ventura: the Bot and the Body!

            It ain't free speech if it takes cash money.

            by Uncle Igor on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:46:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  He HAS to pick a female. He is in the same boat (0+ / 0-)

    as McCain, and to win he will need to improve his standing with women.

    Probably someone like Kelly Ayotte. She's significantly more polished than Palin and could make NH more of a swing state.

    "Democrats have the heart to care."

    by jeepdad on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:14:24 AM PDT

  •  IMHO, Mediocrity IS Driving Rmoney's (0+ / 0-)

    VP pick...

    that's why it's got to be someone even more boring and white bread than Willard-- someone like T-Paw or Ryan.

    it's certainly not going to be Rubio the "rising star" in GOP'er land. he'd attract way too much MSM media attention-- away
    from Wiilard... that won't work

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:14:58 AM PDT

  •  I'm thinking (0+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking that Romney won't pick a VP to shore up his weaknesses because he can't admit to himself that he has any weaknesses, and he's surrounded himself with enough sycophants that there is nobody in the inner circle who would contradict that.  So he'll go for whoever he thinks is capable of taking the presidency in the event that something horrible happens to the Chosen One.

    In other words, he'll pick whoever looks the most clean-cut and kisses enough Romney ass.  If he had a son in politics it would be that son.  Otherwise, it'll probably be a surrogate.  Cantor or Ryan is my guess.

  •  I'm guessing Bobby Jindal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhubarb, mbayrob

    Romney will not pick a woman, because he cannot risk the media making Palin comparisons.  He cannot pick a white male because he has to try for outreach beyond "old white guys" as a voting base.  His offer will not be accepted by anyone who is still a political rising star, because this VP slot is very likely the end of the road for a political career.

    Bobby Jindal is not white.  He's a Republican governor.  He's not precisely popular in his home state, but his election percentage numbers make him look good.  He meets most of the key conservative litmus tests, especially being staunchly pro-life and supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.  He has a reputation for bipartisanship in state politics which could appeal to moderates.

    I think the question is whether he'd accept, if offered.  I don't think Ryan or Rubio would; I think they both see a bright future for themselves that would be cut short by a Romney VP bid.  But I think Jindal might.  He's in his second term as governor now, and his popularity is slipping.  There have been repeated attempts, unsuccessfully, to recall him.  He considered running for president in 2012, but said that his gubernatorial campaign would make it "difficult" to transition to a national campaign.  I think he really just looked at the burdens of a national campaign and decided that the stress and cost of being a presidential candidate was not for him.  But it's easier being the VP candidate.  And even if (when) Romney fails, the Republican political machine will get him a well-paying job somewhere.

    I may yet be proven wrong, but I think he's more plausible than some of the common suggestions, and more likely to go along with it than Ryan or Rubio.

    "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

    by Serpents Choice on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

  •  All i know (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deadinthewater, rhubarb

    Whoever it is, the media will fawn over him (or her, but who are we kidding it will be a him) like he just selected Abe Lincoln to be his running mate.  

    "I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking." Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by djbender on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:32:17 AM PDT

  •  Ayotte(NH)-Portman(OH)-Rubio(FL)-Martinez(NM). (0+ / 0-)

    I know, each has drawbacks. But I think Romney's overriding concern has to be the Electoral College, and each of these is from a swing state.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

  •  Liz Cheney is the "surprise" name floating now (0+ / 0-)

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:39:01 AM PDT

  •  Though I haven't heard her name come up (0+ / 0-)

    I have wondered if Romney might choose Kerry Healey again.

    It sounds like she learned to keep her mouth shut while she was his Lt. Governor and I honestly think that would be in her favor from Romney's POV. I don't think he wants anyone who might prove to be a loose cannon or a scene-stealer. With Kerry Healey, he gets a woman and he knows her well enough to know what to expect from her.

    The Last Romney Running Mate Pick Offers Clues For 2012 GOP Ticket is pretty interesting.

    "Ghosts," said in a half whisper. "I got ghosts." He went on to explain that he was a Vietnam vet and that he'd been on the streets 4 years. "And how are they gonna help all these guys comin' home now, if they haven't even dealt with Vietnam?" - Russ

    by BitterEnvy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:56:28 AM PDT

  •  Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Eric Cantor, Nikki Hal (0+ / 0-)

    ey  Just to name a few.

    •  Also Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Liberman.... (0+ / 0-)

      A VP acceptant might possibly resign to losing but seek the spotlight ($) and not intend another run at the presidency. The 2008 candidates may be the back benchers that the party nudges to accept. I don't think anybody who's serious about 2016 would accept VP on this ticket.

      Except on the D side, which would be HRC, but it seems she is not needed and is thank goodness being set up for 2016.

  •  Romney needs foreign policy clout. (0+ / 0-)

    He's basically a business man with a vanity term as governor and every time he tries to mention his sole achievement as governor his party puts him in the timeout corner.  Reagan chose Bush the mediocre because he needed some foreign policy cred and Bush had been ambassador to China and CIA chief.  Bush had his FP cred already and so he got away with a diasastrous pick meant to shore up his image with that portion of the party that Dean Acheson aptly dubbed "the primitives".  Dole had so much damned experience that it was almost a liability and no one cared when he chose a quarterback as his running mate.  Bush the Catastrophe chose Cheney whose experience, at least, was never in question.  John McCain had almost as much experience as Dole and almost got away with Malibu Barbie.

    Mitt proselytized in France.

    That's it.

    As far as I can tell no one being mentioned has any significant foreign policy experience.  CW is that this will not be a foreign policy election, but I imagine that Mitt is going to need more than a businessman if he's going to maintain even a semblance of credibility

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

    •  How could it help him? (0+ / 0-)

      The real problem here is that the GOP no longer has a coherent stand on foreign policy.

      He's got plenty of neo-con idiots advising him on foreign policy.  And I don't think there's any political percentage on advertising that fact to voters.  Even most Republicans have figured out that the Iraq War was One Zinger of an Idea.

      And frankly, I don't think there's any other stand on foreign policy he could take that wouldn't get him into trouble with his base, the press, or sane people.

      Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future as a harbinger of the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

      by mbayrob on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:36:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "...the choice was a... no brainer" (0+ / 0-)
    That made the choice of this (at the time) popular and somewhat populist female Governor, a no brainer.
    There's a bit of ambiguity here as to what exactly "a no brainer" is modifying.  I'm not sure if "the choice" was the "no brainer", though.

    I'm betting more on "somewhat populist female Governor".

    Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future as a harbinger of the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

    by mbayrob on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:32:52 PM PDT

  •  now that you mention it... (0+ / 0-) may be more right than you think. While all of the angst over who Mittch-A-Sketch might annoint as his running mate does point to a...plethora of mediocrity, in terms of his choices, that's not limited to the Republican Party's search for a V.P. Reflecting on the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, it could easily be argued that the ongoing theme has, basically, been party angst over the mediocrity of their presidential choices, too.

    Which is why it seemed that every three or four months a new "Knight on a White Horse" would be trotted out to try to help divert the party's attention from the blatantly mediocre field of choices.

    Unfortunately, all of those so-called "Knights on White Horses," from Bachmann to Gingrich to Perry to Cain...ended up...having rusted out armor, riding on old hags.

    When future historians reflect on the Republican Party of 2012, they very well might declare that "Mediocrity is thy name," and not just as regards the vice presidential contenders.

  •  Lieberman fits the bill (0+ / 0-)

    He's experienced (esp. foreign policy), an Independent, and the original anti-Palin, in a sense.

    And he's Jewish. From a purely strategic perspective, it wouldn't hurt that Lieberman's faith might take the spotlight off Romney's.

    For the same reason, i think there's no chance at all that they'll pick another Mormon, and i doubt Romney is under any pressure at all from the elders to choose one.

    In any case, regardless of my very low opinion of Lieberman, i think he'd lend the ticket the gravitas it has failed so utterly to develop. He could suck a few moderate votes away from Obama.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:27:53 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site