As I perused the political blogosphere this evening, I found myself wondering just when SurveyUSA would release another one of those nifty 50-state polls detailing the approval ratings of all of our nation’s governors.? Upon researching this issue, I discovered that SUSA had in fact released their latest?gubernatorial polls just hours ago.? DaveG: prophet?? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Anyway, one of the most interesting numbers in the SUSA collection is the approval rating of Mississippi’s Republican governor, Haley Barbour.? During a year in which Republicans took a licking in all regions of the country, and at every level of government, Gov. Barbour remains afloat at?a hearty 59%.
This only serves to reinforce my belief that Barbour would be an ideal running mate for whichever of the Big 3 (Rudy, Romney, McCain) ends up garnering the GOP presidential nomination.? All will need to shore up the south, which makes Barbour, along with other popular southern governors such as Jeb Bush and Mark Sanford, that much more attractive.? But unlike Jeb, Barbour wouldn’t threaten to drag down the ticket with the Bush fatigue attached to his surname.? Further, Barbour’s CV is impressive; he brings to the job more gravitas than the young, green Mark Sanford, which is important in this post-9/11 world.? Finally, Barbour’s record is that of a politician who would likely be highly amenable to getting back to a conservatism that looks more like that of the Reagan years and less like that of the Bush years.
The political grapevine has suggested in recent months that Barbour may in fact endorse McCain, which would unfortunately pretty much take him off the table as a veep choice for Rudy or Romney.? At present though, Barbour needs to be at the top of every ’08 contender’s vice presidential shortlist.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Many people fail to realize that is was Haley Barbour, in his position as RNC Chairman, who funded the 1994 Contract With America (since the NRCC certainly didn’t have the money to do it even though it was their idea). So Barbour’s stewardship of the RNC is seemingly not given enough credit for the historic congressional gains made under his watch.
But, having said that, I am not sure he makes much sense for the GOP ticket in 2008. If the GOP cannot hold the Deep South regardless of their ticket then they are in real trouble. And it just seems to me that the Republican vice presidential candidate is more likely to be someone who ran for president in the primaries or someone from the battleground region of the midwest or someone who can minimize GOP losses in the northwest.
It would also be difficult for Barbour to take a position on the ticket given that he has said publicly he won’t run for president in 2008 because he needs to remain on the job as governor to see Mississippi through the process of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.
I think Haley Barbour may well wind up on a GOP national ticket one day, but not in the 2008 cycle.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
I agree. The Balance I think you have to look for is out West. Perhaps a couple years out of office will allow some of Bill Owens problems to calm down and will take away the CO for the dems who will be holding their convention there.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Although I am not officially backing any candidate at this time, I see Governor Haley Barbour as the perfect veep fit for Mayor Guliani. I believe that after 9-11, Mayor Guliani catapulted himself from “America’s Mayor†to “America’s General.†I think that if you combine Guliani’s strong leadership skills and military knowledge with Governor Barbour’s equally strong leadership you could have quite a team – the man who rebuilt New York combined with the man who rebuilt the Gulf Coast.
The only perceived weakness of Gov. Barbour that I have ever heard of was his supposed support for casino gambling in Mississippi and how that might play with some conservative evangelicals.
I actually heard Gov. Barbour address this question once on a news show, stating in effect that he was personally against gambling and casinos and had tried to curb and limit them as much as possible but felt that ultimately it was a private sector matter for which the government should not be involved – an explanation that as a conservative I can totally respect.
In short Governor Haley Barbour if he would so choose would be an excellent V.P. candidate if not a POTUS candidate somewhere down the line.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
“If the GOP cannot hold the Deep South regardless of their ticket then they are in real trouble.”
Well that’s a good point too. As we saw this year, the deep south and the plains states vote GOP even when no one else does. So by that logic, the country’s “Conservative L,” with its base in Texas and its legs in the deep south and plains west, becomes our base region, and one of the side effects of that, unfair as it may be, is that those states should strategically get a lot less attention than everywhere else.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Barbour is almost certainly backing McCain, unless something drastic has occurred in the past 6 months. I really like Haley a lot, but I don’t think he’d be that ideal as a veep candidate. I’d much more favor someone like Pawlenty, who not only has a great record as Governor, but he’d definitely bring Minnesota and most of the Midwest into play. I agree with Republius, the South is going to go red in most cases regardless of who we nominate for President, we should work to turn the increasingly blue north back into their rightful color.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:35 am
“…we should work to turn the increasingly blue north back into their rightful color.”
Amen to that, LJ!
Though a part of me would like to take OUR color back as well! Blue used to be the GOP color; during the ’80s, Reagan’s electoral landslides produced seas of blue on all of the news channels. I think it was due to some formula where they would switch the colors off every few years. Probably can’t switch them again due to the way they’ve been burnt into the American psyche, but still, I’ve always felt that blue — regal and restrained — was a far more conservative color than red, a color symbolizing aggressive action, the traditional color of collectivism.
Anyway, back to more substantive topics. You’re right about the north. The Dems swept everything in libertarian NH this year. I mean everything. They took the state legislature for the first time in over a century. NH to me is a bellwether. It’s the true “leave me alone” state, representing the best of Americans’ inherent skepticism towards government. When it goes against the GOP in such a bold fashion, that’s a sign that something ain’t right with my Grand Old Party.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Pawlenty wouldn’t carry MN for the GOP, and most certainly wouldn’t put the midwest into play. He was reelected because of a gaffe by Mike Hatch and the fact that Peter Hutchinson took about 6% of the liberal vote. If Mike Hatch didn’t explode, it would have been a DFL sweep.
A person like Tommy Thompson or John McCain could carry MN on their own. I wouldn’t read much into NH. It has been trending liberal because of the MA expats. I mean Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley were both pro-choice and they were both defeated. So even “so called” leave-me-alone Republicans couldn’t win in NH this year. The GOP should look to FL as to how to rebuild the party. The FL GOP was both socially conservative (Schiavo) and economically conservative (they cut taxes even though FL is one of the lowest tax states). You didn’t see a Schiavo backlash in FL this year, and that was because the FL GOP sticks to its principles. Unlike OH.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:13 am
“I wouldn’t read much into NH. It has been trending liberal because of the MA expats.”
When the entire state congressional delegation goes from GOP to Dem, and when both houses of the legislature go from GOP to Dem for the first time in over a century, sorry, but I’m reading lots into that.
Florida remains a success story. Unfortunately, the one Bush who would’ve made the best president (Jeb) will never get a shot at it.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:31 am
I think Barbour is quite problematical as a VP. In addition to being MS Gov. and RNC chair, he was, of course, an uber-lobbyist in DC, with lots of work done for the tobacco industry. No doubt the opposition will focus on precisely that, in order to characterize him to the masses, and it will stick. Not a good qualification for the ticket.
I also agree that shoring up the South is unnecessary. If needed, then the election is already lost. IF not needed, then, not needed.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:07 am
Hi, guys. First post here… I’m sort of a politics junky, and I’ve really enjoyed the news and commentary on this website. Anyhoo, about Haley Barbour… It would seem that his association with Hurricane Katrina, right or wrong, would be problematic for the 2008 presidential campaign. I figured that would be an issue that the GOP candidate would choose to avoid entirely.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Hunter:
I hadn’t really thought about that, so you might have a point. Keep in mind, though, that Mississippi was techically hit much harder than Louisiana and suffered less economic damage and loss of life (although it suffered plenty by any objective calculation), and also avoided the descent into social anarchy suffered in NO. Also, part of Rudy’s appeal was how he managed a situation that had the potential of sinking into chaos on a level far eclipsing NO, so I think its fair to say that the Democrats will bring up Katrina at every opportunity as a means of undermining Giuliani’s appeal no matter who Rudy nominates for Veep.
As far as Barbour’s drawbacks, I had heard that he had some relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which could make him radioactive as a VP nominee, if true.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
In defense of Haley Barbour. . .a Giuliani/Barbour ticket does have it’s plus side. Industrial/Rural state, City/State, North/South, Moderate/Conservative, and both outside Federal govt. Now I realize this describes a number of possible tickets, but there’s one more thing. Both came out looking very good after two events (9/11 and Katrina) which, fairly or unfairly, don’t place the GOP in the best light. Much of the same could be said for a Romney/Barbour ticket as well – and it would help attract the Evangelical wing who may be questioning their support for the Gov. Personally I always liked Barbour. I’m not nominating the guy for VP, just pointing out that the GOP could make much worse choices than Barbour.
Does geographic location really matter in an election anymore? Look at the last few elections. On the GOP side, we have Cheney – from a three-electoral vote state in the GOP’s strong western region – no benefit there. Before him – Jack Kemp didn’t bring NY (or PA or any other Northeast state) to the GOP fold. On the Dem’s side, they didn’t get any help from John Edwards in the south, Joe Lieberman in the already liberal Northeast, or Al Gore in the south (Clinton was already the required Southerner on the ticket, and it didn’t help much anyway). I think the VP, whoever he or she is, needs to balance the ticket in more important ways than geography, especially in an age of the internet and youtube and Foxnews/CNN/MSNBC.
Maybe we should start a VP Power Ranking?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
…the VP, whoever he or she is, needs to balance the ticket in more important ways than geography…
Yup. Like ideology or politics, for starters.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Great idea about VP Power Rankings!
November 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I always found the VP choice process to be a fascinating, and underated part, of the campaign. I think the VP choice could get real interesting this year within the GOP. There’s plenty of choices out there. What will be neat to watch is what happens to McCain, Giuliani or Romney if/when one of them wins the nomination. (I only named them because they are the big three as we stand now.) Will we have a pick like JFK/LBJ, where the number 2 in the primary races gets chosen as VP, or do we have a Bush/Quayle ticket, where the number 2 comes from nowhere and poses absolutely no threat to the number 1, or do we have a Climton/Gore ticket, where the number 2 I think complemented the #1 pretty well, or do we have a Bush/Cheney ticket, where the number 2 fills in the gaps of what the number 1 is lacking, or do we have. . . . .
Of the big three, I can see a McCain/Giuliani ticket moreso than a Giuliani/McCain ticket, although that would never fly with the conservatives. I’m not sure I see McCain as anyone’s VP. I can see Romney as a good VP choice for anyone (I’m really liking a Giuliani/Romney ticket).
If we follow history, Jeb Bush or Elizabeth Dole will be the GOP VP nominee – every ticket since 1976 had a Bush or a Dole on it.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Gotta say Pawlenty is the logical pick. Maybe T. Thompson if he doesn’t go after Rudy hard in the primaries. A double northern ticket could be just what the Rx ordered for the GOP — kinda like the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1992. Gov. Owens or some such from the West would be a good balance unless McCain wins. Still, the main battleground this cycle will be the great lakes states; a veep from one of those states makes the most sense.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Jake — are there any Nixons around? Because that takes us back to 1952, save 1964!
November 28th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Wasn’t Nixon’s son in law running for NY Senate earlier this year? Does that count?
November 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Tommy Thompson is a great pick. He gets the midwest vote, as well as the rural farm state vote. He balances Giuliani, McCain and Romney quite well. I’m not as familiar with his stances on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but I’ve never heard any complaints from the right so I assume they like him so far. Thompson would definitely be near or at the top of a VP Power Ranking list.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Speaking of 1964, I remember hearing a story in a poli-sci class back in college that Goldwater chose Bill Miller, the head of the Republican Party at the time, as his VP choice because, in Goldwater’s great way of putting things, it would drive Johnson nuts. If that isn’t a great reason to pick a VP, I don’t know what is. Maybe the GOP should pick Bill O’Reilly for VP.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
xmogaztq
sumjcvulm ojkldpps oyfszgfbs vgszkvbqfu