Must have been tough for him to campaign for Perry after it became apparent he backed a horrible candidate – takes a little luster off the Jindal shine.
#3……..Mitt’s not coronated yet…..he’s smart enough to not look past the mark, altho he must be encouraged……but I’m thinking Jindal’s NOT on the VP list anymore for some of us hardcore Mitt supporters. After backing Perry……..uh……he could’ve been wiser to assess the field better before endorsing almost immediately after Perry jumped in….
I don’t think Jindal’s support of Perry should be a negative for purposes of whether he should be Mitt’s running mate, at least not as long as he hasn’t bashed Mitt. Ronald Reagan chose one of his opponents for the nomination as his running mate, so just endorsing one of the opponents should be even less of a concern.
Jindal wouldn’t be taken off the vp short list because he endorsed someone else. In fact, that is often times seen as a positive, because it can help rally the party around the nominee. Jindal would be a wise pick. It would be hard for someone to not vote for a romney/jindal ticket. On the other hand…a romney/christie ticket would send me in the arms of a 3rd party. Mitt needs to play nice. He could pick someone from the more libertarian wing of the party to be vp. Demint would be a great pick….of course i don’t like demints support of NDAA…but no one is perfect.
Can we all agree that Romney’s VP needs to meet the following criteria:
* Not a Yankee — must identify with the South (or possibly the west)
* Must be identified as either libertarian-leaning (so as to invite in the Paul electorate) or a social conservative (to appease the ABR crowd)
Maybe. Depends. Christie is the only person I see who might make a good running-mate and yet wouldn’t fit those criteria. The True Conservative base wasn’t all that keen on a possible Christie run, when it was floated, but Christie is sort of like Huckabee: polls continually show that tons of Republicans love him even as the activists types are lukewarm (ok, they’re lukewarm about Christie: they hate Huckabee). Christie gets on the list. How high on the list is a different question. I also think Toomey, who is decidedly libertarian, could make the list despite being “a Yankee”. Other than that, those two criteria make sense. I don’t buy any of the Ayotte talk. Nice lady. Not running-mate material.
January 13th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Must have been tough for him to campaign for Perry after it became apparent he backed a horrible candidate – takes a little luster off the Jindal shine.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:05 am
jindal didnt have a shine. look at the mans face, no offense but thats an ugly man.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:24 am
So with Mitt already coronated, now the discussion shifts to VP candidates?
January 13th, 2012 at 10:27 am
#3……..Mitt’s not coronated yet…..he’s smart enough to not look past the mark, altho he must be encouraged……but I’m thinking Jindal’s NOT on the VP list anymore for some of us hardcore Mitt supporters. After backing Perry……..uh……he could’ve been wiser to assess the field better before endorsing almost immediately after Perry jumped in….
January 13th, 2012 at 11:13 am
I don’t think Jindal’s support of Perry should be a negative for purposes of whether he should be Mitt’s running mate, at least not as long as he hasn’t bashed Mitt. Ronald Reagan chose one of his opponents for the nomination as his running mate, so just endorsing one of the opponents should be even less of a concern.
January 13th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Jindal wouldn’t be taken off the vp short list because he endorsed someone else. In fact, that is often times seen as a positive, because it can help rally the party around the nominee. Jindal would be a wise pick. It would be hard for someone to not vote for a romney/jindal ticket. On the other hand…a romney/christie ticket would send me in the arms of a 3rd party. Mitt needs to play nice. He could pick someone from the more libertarian wing of the party to be vp. Demint would be a great pick….of course i don’t like demints support of NDAA…but no one is perfect.
January 13th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I maybe like him better on paper…
January 13th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Can we all agree that Romney’s VP needs to meet the following criteria:
* Not a Yankee — must identify with the South (or possibly the west)
* Must be identified as either libertarian-leaning (so as to invite in the Paul electorate) or a social conservative (to appease the ABR crowd)
January 13th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
#8 Ryan: Those sound like reasonable criteria to me, except that running mates from the Midwest should be considered, too.
January 13th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Ryan,
Maybe. Depends. Christie is the only person I see who might make a good running-mate and yet wouldn’t fit those criteria. The True Conservative base wasn’t all that keen on a possible Christie run, when it was floated, but Christie is sort of like Huckabee: polls continually show that tons of Republicans love him even as the activists types are lukewarm (ok, they’re lukewarm about Christie: they hate Huckabee). Christie gets on the list. How high on the list is a different question. I also think Toomey, who is decidedly libertarian, could make the list despite being “a Yankee”. Other than that, those two criteria make sense. I don’t buy any of the Ayotte talk. Nice lady. Not running-mate material.