No Consensus Favorite For VP
Just No Mitt
By California Yankee Posted in Archived | John McCain | vice president — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While Republican presidential nominee to be, Senator John McCain, is compiling a list of potential running mates, Gallup finds Republicans have "no "consensus favorite."
Mike Huckabee (18%) and Mitt Romney (15%) are most frequently mentioned when Gallup asked Republicans whom they would most like to see as McCain's vice presidential running mate. Five of the top six names mentioned are former candidates for the Republican nomination:
It is common for candidates who come up short for the presidential nomination to be strongly considered for the vice presidential spot on the ticket, and John Edwards in 2004, George H.W. Bush in 1980, and Lyndon Johnson in 1960 are some of the former presidential candidates who accepted the vice presidential spot after losing out for the presidential nomination.
Read on, there's more.
Gallup didn't find much difference between conservative and moderate Republicans. The main difference is that moderates are less likely to name a favored vice presidential pick. There are differences by religiosity:
Republicans who attend church weekly rate Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, as the top choice, with 29% choosing him compared to 19% who choose Romney. Among Republicans who attend religious services less often, Romney gets slightly more mentions in the poll than Rice, with Huckabee getting the third most.
Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, discusses the results in the following video:
Gallup may not have found any "consensus favorite," but a group of more than 20 "social-conservative leaders" warn McCain against picking Mitt Romney as his running mate in ad to run an Arizona paper:
The open letter to Mr. McCain, which focuses on Mr. Romney's record on abortion and gay marriage and calls him "unfit to be a 'heartbeat away'" from the presidency, runs in tomorrow's editions of the Prescott Daily Courier. It's dominated by block type words "No Mitt."
[. . .]
"For us the bottom line is this," the ad states. "The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a Vice Presidential running mate. A very large (and growing) number of social conservative voters who have become aware of that record are likely to abandon a GOP presidential ticket on which Romney's name appears."
The letter, which suggests the GOP is not yet entirely unified behind McCain, is music to the ears of Democrats. The 26 signers include Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, J. Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, Peter LaBarbera of Republicans for Family Values, Sandy Rios of the Culture Campaign, William J. Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition, and several leaders of Massachusetts and other state chapters of pro-family groups.
In the meantime, as can be seen in the following video, Rudy Giuliani made an appearance on "Hannity & Colmes" and talked about the possibility of being McCain's running mate.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Friday Afternoon Open Thread — Comments (50) »
No Consensus Favorite For VP 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Charlie Crist. I expressed a concern (talk to Jeff), but my wife said that Crist was a good governor who would make a great veep.
Case. Closed.
Crist has been a "good governor" for just a year, and with very few exceptions, he likes to play both sides of the fence on controversial issues. Not the type of guy that would make a good presumptive-next-nominee.
Frankly, I still think Chris Cox beats the pants off this field.
----
I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.
- Barack Obama, 11/04/04
Given the "wrong track" polling numbers (i.e., about 80% of Americans report that the US is currently on the "wrong track"), it doesn't take much to see that this is going to be a "change" election. McCain's reputation as a maverick and prior opposition to Bush help him here, but it would be useful to think about a running mate that also has independent cred & can open a new electorate to McCain.
That probably excludes Giuliani: unlike McCain, has support for the war is not tempered by either experience or a positive record on the surge. I have to view his crossover appeal to independents as minimal, and he will also annoy a sigificant portion of the base.
Rice is similarly problematic. I don't see that working.
Romney doesn't provide any boost that I can see with the base, and doesn't fit with McCain's theme.
My preferred choice is Colin Powell. Powell can help support McCain's existing "steady hand" v. "inexperience" theme and provide genuine crossover appeal, while not being viewed as too linked to the Bush White House. (This would leave a perceived weakness on the economy, but if the election is about the economy Republicans have already lost it IMHO.) I doubt that Powell would agree to it, however.
Huckabee would also be a good choice and, unlike Powell, could provide some crossover appeal on economic issues. (Yes, I know his economic policies are for crap, but it's appealing crap to swing voters.) N.b., (1) I acknowledge this fact as an "anyone-but-Huckabee" voter and (2) my prior comment that, if the election is about the economy, Rs lose no matter who is on the ticket.
Lieberman would be a bold choice, but doesn't help with the base & doesn't help on economic issues.
Fred makes it a battle between the old white guys and the young outsiders, adds nothing on defense matters, doesn't help on the economy, and provides little crossover appeal. He does help with the base; given his experience during the primary, however, I question whether that help would translate into anything real.
Paul, Crist, and Gingrinch either don't provide the right kind of help or will drag the ticket into areas that are not helpful for a general election victory in a "change" year (Crist fits in category 1, Gingrinch in 2, Paul in 1 and 2).
I don't know enought about Pawlenty to make an informed judgment -- which is the first problem with having him as a VP candidate (no name recognition whatsoever outside of already-for-McCain circles).
Finally, WTF with Edwards? Richardson I can barely understand being an acceptable (although not possible) VP choice: he did have a serious moderate streak for a time. But Edwards?
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Perhaps Gov. Palin would be a good choice then if this is a "change" election. She took on a sitting governor of her own party and took him down. Now she and her Lt. Gov. are aiming for the house seat. Having a Veep candidate who is willing to push change for the BETTER will help McCain big time.
He is best known for being a moderate and pro-abortion, so the right isn't crazy about him, and his early support for the war means the left doesn't care much for him.
He might pick up a few moderates, but not enough to make up for what he would lose from the base.
to our party. Fortunately McCain has a great track record of completely disregarding the advice of what he calls "agents of intolerance" These people drive me into the arms of global warming McCain more everyday. If they keep this up, I might even send him money.
Or is he perceived as too much of a Dan Quayle choice at this point in his career...
We need to get Louisiana on a more solid foundation, and he's moving us in that direction. If he suceeds here and we need a Presidential nominee in 2012, he'd be perfect.
And even if he wasn't as great as he is, his replacement would be Mary Landrieu's little brother, the current Lieutenant Governor. Not what we're looking for.
Good grief. I don't mind them opposing Mitt, he wouldn't be my first choice, but this "utterly unacceptable" stuff is just silly.
"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 know, during the heat of the primaries, I thought that if Mitt were named VP, that I wouldn't vote for the ticket. Now that time has calmed down the emotions of the primaries, I wouldn't have a problem voting for a McCain/Romney ticket. However, I still think that McCain will pick a VP that did not run for president this go around.
Rudy VP or Ridge or Rice? It makes no sense & hurts their credibility and thus their cause. I think it's unfortunate because the social cons are an important segment of the party but they insist on marginalizing themselves with stunts like this.
Romney's potential as a VP candidate is more visible than Guiliani vis-a-vis his publicized openness to it. Simple as that...
Do you really think that conservative group wouldn't be up in arms over Guiliani?
Rice is pro-choice and has no economic, executive or elective experience. The word around DC is that she's been campaigning hard for VP since last year. But her negatives would cause an uproar.
Same for Ridge: pro-choice and his economic and national security records are far from conservative. I don't see him getting past first base.
Giuliani is the more interesting question. His economic and national security credentials are impeccable and he has executive experience. And McCain likes him.
His problem is the abortion issue. I have raised the hypothetical in other threads that if he adopted McCain's position on the life issues, as did Bush when he joined Reagan's ticket in 1980, would it be enough? My guess is that some social conservatives would be upset, but that many other SoCons would embrace the conversion. I'm not saying Rudy will be the nominee, only that among the four pro-choice (Powell, Rice, Ridge, and Rudy), he's the only one I see as even having a shot-and only if he switched on abortion.
to Romney is that he became prolife for political expediency. But it would be OK for Guiliani? I don't think so.
is that the petitioners are not the whole SoCon movement. I would guess that folks like Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh would embrace a pro-life Rudy. There would not be unanimous opposition. Nor can the petitioners stop Romney if that is McCain's choice. BTW, I think McCain wil pass on Romney-but more because he doesn't like the guy than because he cares a fig about Paul Weyrich says.
Spot on. Of course, there is only one logical explanation to explain the discrepency. I prefer not to believe it, but I am left with no other conclusion that the Morman issue. What else can explain the level of vitriol directed at this man and not all the others.
McCain doesn't like Mitt because of his deep and abiding phoniness. The guy reinvented himself as a conservative just so he could get to the right of George Allen and picked up a lot of Macaca's voters once Jim Webb sent Macaca packing.
McCain will NOT run away from the War. Democrats are expecting him to try and distance himself from the war. McCain will refuse to. He will argue that this is a Victory vs. Defeat campaign. That's why he will pick Rice. She was one of the architects of Petraeus' rise and helped the Surge come about.
I've also heard good things about Tom Ridge, but I'm not sure that he carries PA and can counter the influence of an Eddie Rendell. He's Mr. Bland.
A couple of things help Condi. The decision has been made to definitely boycott Durban II with the Israelis. Obama's position on gun rights is clearly an assault on the Second Amendment and Rice is known (or should be known) for her "absolutist" position on RKBA issues, given her father's use of firearms to defend his home against the Klan back in the early Sixties.
Lastly, McCain wants someone who can pass the Dick Cheney test: can this person Be President. Rice passes that test easily in ways that no other candidate, save Powell or Jeb Bush, and possibly Romney, can answer in the affirmative.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I disagree: Rice is too tied to President Bush and his policies, and can easily be portrayed as offering "more of the same."
Again, this is a "change" election. Bush has extraordinarily high negatives and we're facing an 80% "wrong track" number. McCain cannot wed himself to Bush with his VP choice -- he needs to go outside, either to a nonpolitical figure (e.g., Powell) or to an outside-the-beltway person (e.g., Huckabee). Choosing the sitting secretary of state and a Bush loyalist is a bad move, whatever Sec. Rice's personal merits.
I also think that the chances that Sec. Rice would accept such an offer is about zero.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Polls like that and "social conservative leaders," remind me again what issues will be facing voters come November?
The ONLY issues where Huckabee beat Romney (social) will be a long, long way down the list of concerns. And no one thinks McCain has a need to buttress his social credentials.
I haven't seen analysis that says Romney on the ticket puts red states in play but, Huckabee would put Colorado and Nevada as at least lean Dem. Further, what states, that aren't solid red, does Huckabee bring to the table? None.
... think McCain has a need to buttress his social credentials.
But he has a greater need to buttress his economic credentials, in so far as folks generally think the presidency influences the economy more than it actually does...
"The letter, which suggests the GOP is not yet entirely unified behind McCain, is music to the ears of Democrats. The 26 signers include Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation,"
This Paul Weyrich signed an anti-Romney letter?
Flip-flopper.
__________________________________________
Delaware Politics
If the name of Huckabee crosses McCains llips when he picks his VP, I'm gone. For the first time I will be casting a vote for the Libertarian Party if they start printing up McCain-Huckabee bumper stickers. This is rediculous-in an election thats going to be about the ecnoomy we're going to abandon the guy with the best economic policy for the clueless guy who downloaded a FairTax pdf in his double wide. They don't call us the stupid party for nothing-I guess I'll be voting for Barr or RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul! if slick Huckster gets tot hektopof the ticket. Too bad-I was going to max out my contributio for McCain...this will change everything if it plays out.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.
For all the talk of how McCain needs to unify the party, the SoCons are alwasy the ones pulling this type of cr8p, and they are alwasy goign to abandon the party or stay home if theior personal favorite isn't chosen. They did this with Rudy, and now they're doing it with Mitt. I can garuntee that I will be voting for someone else if McCain picks a hard right SoConand I can imagine I won't be the only center right, or right leaning person to do so. I'm tired of being bullied by the Christian Right-again. I can only hope that McCain gives them the finger and picks Mitt anyway.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.
Is Sanford the equivalent of a Thompson, then, in this race, in that the people who like him really like him, but everyone else just doesn't know about him? (Yes, it's a little twisting of how Thompson went, but it's close enough.) He's mentioned often enough here and in news articles I'm surprised he's not in the list.
I'm glad you put "social conservative leaders" in quotes. It's more like a list theocon zealot wannabe leaders.
Gee maybe we can start with people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingraham. Of course, the yare not social conservatives to you becasue they are not two-issue bible wielding zealots.
Why don't you google all those so called PACS. I live in MASS and can tell you that "Marriage and Family Massachusetts" and "Massresistance" couldn't lead twenty people to a picnic.
I will not automatically assume that Make Huckabee is part of this smear campaign. If he does not come out immediatly against this kind of of politics that tears the party apart, then we as a party should run as fast as we can from Mike Huckabee and his supporters.
The effort to completly control the party through the use of black-mail tactics will hurt Mike Huckabee more than anyone. His days in the Republican party should be over if he does not condem this type of behavior. We see daily what identity politics is doing to the Democrat party and we as Repulicans need to turn our backs on it.
Whether you like Mitt Romney or not, we can not allow this type of devisive retoric in the Republican Party.
In order:
GOV Sanford
ex-REP Cox (now SEC Chair)
ex-REP Portman
GOV Palin (I don't care she's newly elected and pregnant, she's the future of the party)
SEN Coburn (declare war on the earmark establishment, but too many fireworks in this announcement)
Tiger Woods (if it's about change, let's go all the way!)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Coburn is creeping up my list-if he was Governor Coburn it wouldn't even be close. I think we need someone to light a fire under the [redacted] of the GOP. I like Sanford but I think he's boring, and I think we need someone exciting.
1.Rudy
1a.Mitt-Mitt
2.Coburn
3.Crist
4. Palin
5. Bobby Jenks (White Sox closer)
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.
None of the others who ran in the primary will really do, with the possible exception of Thompson, but he's already indicated he doesn't want it. Romney is too hard to pin down (and as noted above, has some factional problems). Giuliani would make me personally happy, but would also drive away SoCons who are already antsy about McCain. Huckabee would make a lot of SoCons happy, but would drive away moderates and FiCons. (And probably me -- I like McCain, but given his age, the odds of Huck ever gaining the Presidency are just too high for me to risk it... ::shudder::)
Rice has never worked for me in either President or VP positions -- she's got the wrong background and experience, IMHO. Powell would be a decent choice, and fairly popular, but he probably won't take it. I'd be happy with Gingrich, but he's too polarizing for the general election. I'm not particularly fond of Crist.
Which whittles my short list down to Tim Pawlenty and Mark Sanford. I *might* be convinced to add Sarah Palin to that list.
Karl Rove
http://www.boxxet.com/Mitt_Romney/Novak_Rove_Peddling_Romney_As_VP.1lt7z...
Fred Barnes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/opinion/main3936762.shtml
Andy Card
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/romney_vp/2008/03/31/84290.html
Bush Family
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/03/11/mitt-for-veep/#cont