With Rick Santorum’s February surge now sputtering and with Mitt Romney poised for a number a victories in the coming weeks, we again take a look at the upcoming race for Vice President.
1. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
This choice seems to be the most obvious on paper. Sen. Rubio is uniquely both the darling of the Tea Party and a rising star in the GOP establishment. Groomed for years as the protégé of Gov. Jeb Bush, Rubio became a Tea Party sensation in 2010 with his defeat of moderate Gov. Charlie Crist in both the GOP primary and general election. Rubio has gone on to meticulously manage his national image in much the same way Sen. Hillary Clinton did prior to launching her presidential bid. Rubio’s youth, Cuban heritage, popularity with the base, and home state are all seen as adding significantly to the GOP ticket’s potential. However, his lack of experience, similar to Sen. Barack Obama’s back in 2008, could be the only speed bump on his road to the Vice Presidency. Despite his public protestations to the VP job, I have no doubt that if asked, Marco Rubio will be accepting the vice presidential nomination in Tampa later this year.
2. Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
The brash New Jersey governor has become one of Mitt Romney’s most trusted and powerful surrogates. In some cases, he seems to make a better case for Romney than Romney has himself. Christie’s attitude and tough talk have earned him rave reviews among both establishment republicans and conservatives. However, in many corners of the conservative movement, Christie is viewed as a moderate, and pairing him with Romney could turn off these voters. But a Romney-Christie ticket could potentially realign the map, putting into play states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey that have not gone to the GOP since 1988. Christie’s greatest strength, his tough talking personality, is also possibly his greatest weakness. Will his brashness wear well on the national level? Will his personality acclimate well the role of number two? Or will he overshadow the nominee and become a distraction? Time will tell if Christie’s positives prove too tempting to resist for the Romney campaign.
3. Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia
The Virginia governor is currently one of the most popular politicians in the country, hailing from one of the key general election states, and carrying with him a solid record on jobs and the economy. A strong social conservative with the ability to attract independent voters and Reagan Democrats, McDonnell has positioned himself strongly for the VP nomination. Along with his statewide experience in the legislature, the attorney general’s office, and now as governor, McDonnell also brings 21 years of military service, which would make him the only veteran on either ticket. The one roadblock to the governor’s potential would be the concern in the party that a ticket of two white males may not be as viable as a more diversified ticket. But given his popularity, McDonnell has proven he can appeal to a wide swath of voters of varying backgrounds and would make a solid running mate.
4. Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from Ohio
The junior senator from Ohio is a proven vote getter in perhaps the nation’s most important swing state. Democrats in Ohio have become energized in the state due to the unpopular reforms of Gov. John Kasich, and the more popular Portman may be needed to hold down the Ohio fort. Aside from the importance of his state, Sen. Portman is an incredibly accomplished man in his own right. Elected to seven consecutive terms in the U.S. House, Portman would go on to serve as both U.S. Trade Representative and OMB Director under President George W. Bush before becoming a senator. His extensive knowledge of policy and government and his popularity in his home state make the Ohio senator a solid, safe choice for the Romney campaign.
5. Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
The young Louisiana governor has been a rising star in the GOP for a few years now, despite his fumbled State of the Union response speech. Jindal, at just 40, has amassed an amazing resume of varying experience; governor, congressmen, state secretary of health and hospitals, and president of the Louisiana University System. He has reformed and revitalized one of the most corrupt states in the country and has impressed many in both the establishment and the conservative movement with his brilliant grasp of policy. And he has proven a capable leader in times of crisis, handling natural disasters in his state with all of the competence that his predecessors lacked during Hurricane Katrina. As the nation’s first Indian American governor, Jindal would also bring diversity to a republican party in great need of appealing beyond it’s white, southern base. An early supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, it has yet to be seen if Romney world is willing to look outside of their more loyal supporters for a running mate. If they do, Jindal would have to be at the top of the list.
6. Cathy McMorris Rodgers U.S. Representative from Washington
Emerging as maybe the biggest potential dark horse candidate, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has built significant clout behind the scenes on Capitol Hill. As vice chairman of the Republican Conference, Rep. McMorris Rodgers is the highest-ranking Republican woman in Washington D.C. The 2008 campaign showed that a Republican woman could add a boost to the ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin’s early surge began to lag when it was discovered she lacked gravitas and policy knowledge, qualities Rep. McMorris Rodgers has in large supply. McMorris Rodgers earned a BA in Pre-law from Pensacola Christian College and earned her Executive MBA from the University of Washington. With the GOP under assault over contraception and middle-class economic issues, having a woman who grew up on an Oregon farm, with an advanced degree in business, and is one of only 8 women to ever give birth while in office couldn’t hurt. Married to retired Naval Commander Brian Rodgers, Rep. McMorris Rodgers brings a unique blend of life experiences and governing experiences that could add a lot to a national ticket.
7. Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin
The Wisconsin congressman has become a hero to the conservative intelligentsia and his reform proposals have become the center of much of the political debate in Washington. With the debt and entitlement crisis hanging over the election, Ryan’s plans will likely become a focus of the campaign at some point with or without him on the ticket. In that case it may be better to have the best spokesman for his ideas, Ryan himself, on the ticket alongside our nominee. Still, some worry that Ryan’s plans, however bold, are a sure political loser in 2012 and think his presence on the ticket could distract from the focus on jobs the GOP wants to campaign on.
8. Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
The former governor of Florida was the candidate many in the conservative establishment wanted at the top of the ticket in 2012. His strong record as governor, his appeal to Hispanic voters, his passionate dedication to education reform, and his heavyweight political stature made him a top potential challenger to Barack Obama. Despite not having run himself, these same strengths apply to his potential as a running mate. Bush remains very popular in his home state of Florida, and his name on the ticket would all but guarantee Florida easily returning to the GOP in the fall. His presence would also bring bundlers and activists who have been on the sidelines so far into the game, helping form perhaps the greatest GOP political machine in history. The drawbacks for Jeb are obvious, specifically his last name and his connection to the 43rd and 41st presidents. There is also the potential of turning off Tea Party voters with not one but two political scions on the ticket. Still, Jeb Bush is a serious political talent, a brilliant policy wonk who would distinguish himself from his brother and, in my opinion, would add more to the ticket than he would subtract.
9. Rand Paul, U. S. Senator from Kentucky
Throughout the 2012 GOP nomination fight, story after story has come out about the emerging, if unlikely, friendship between Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul. While some may struggle to understand the friendship between the establishment favorite and the Libertarian champion, one potential fruit of this alliance should not be ignored: the Vice Presidency. While some may think impossible for the 76-year-old Texan to join Romney on a ticket, the prospects of his son, Sen. Rand Paul, should not go unnoticed. The younger Paul could bring his father’s legion of young supporters on board in a general election campaign, keeping them out of the Obama camp or a third party camp like that of Gary Johnson or Buddy Roemer. Rand Paul, while equally passionate about his father’s constitutional priorities, possesses the composure, gravitas, and youth that his father lacks. Sen. Paul would be an unconventional pick, but a possibly a unifying one as well, especially if the race drags on and on and Romney finds himself in need of a few delegates to push him across the finish line.
10. John Thune, U. S. Senator from South Dakota
Sen. Thune, the GOP’s 3rd ranking member in the Senate leadership, is the favorite of a lot of establishment conservatives as a solid, safe, do-no-harm candidate. Thune checks all of the conventional boxes for a republican contender on social, economic, and military issues. Though largely undistinguished in the senate on policy grounds, Thune would bring experience to the ticket, helping connect the messaging of the Washington GOP to the Romney campaign. However, Thune hails from a safe GOP state and lacks the other regional advantages some of his establishment rivals bring to the ticket.
Honorable Mention: Susana Martinez, Mitch Daniels, Condoleezza Rice, Rick Santorum, Luis Fortuño
February 25th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
If Romney gets the nomination I hope to God he picks a fellow moderate as a running mate, then we can kill two birds with one stone when they lose epically.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Romney has said that he would want to pick someone capable of taking over should anything happen to him. That pushes Rubio down the list, no matter what activists want. I would say it looks something like this:
1) McDonnell
2) Christie
3) Rubio
4) Santorum
5) Jindal
6) Portman
February 25th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Being from NJ, there is a couple of things wrong with a Romney – Christie ticket. Not at least is the fact that this would give us 2 moderates on the same ticket who also have a history of flip-flopping on the issues. (Christie was both Pro-Choice & Anti-2nd Amendment when he ran for Assembly in the mid-90′s in NJ and then “saw the light” on both these issues when he ran for Governor against a much more Conservative Primary opponent in Steve Lonegan).
And Chris Christie already had such a big ego and chip on his shoulder being in NJ and sandwiched between NY and Philly, I can’t see him taking a back seat for 8 years to anyone.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Sorry, I would take Cathy McMorris Rodgers off the running mate list.
If you are trying to prove that Rodgers has gravitas because she has a BA in pre-law from Pensacola Christian College, then forget it. I grew up in Florida and I had never heard of PCC until just now. That’s because it was unaccredited until very recently. (“Pensacola Christian College is a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) … having been awarded Candidate Status as a Category IV institution by the TRACS Accreditation Commission on November 7, 2011.” http://www.pcci.edu/Academics/Accreditation.html)
Rodgers would immediately be portrayed as Sarah Palin #2 (in the negative sense) and it could be hard to overcome that.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Portman is much closer to the top than is believed. Boring swing state sen with exec branch experience. Romney has no desire to excite people with this pick.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I doubt that the VP choice will make any difference in the general election. Romney will defeat Obama, and Santorum will lose to Obama.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I say move Jindal up higher. Am I the only one here who heard Jindal’s CPAC speech? I was very impressed. Nothing like his old SOTU rebuttal. At CPAC he was warm, witty, intelligent, and viscious. He’s a smart, well-educated guy, a popular, successful Southern governor, seemed to have way more personality and appeal than McDonnell, Portman (I don’t know at all), or Santorum (perish the thought), way more leadership experience than Rubio. More even-handed, more conservative and less controversial (and skinnier) than Christie.
He really bared his attack dog fangs on teachers unions and Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill. It doesn’t hurt that Jindal’s skin is darker than Obama’s–he can clearly attack Obama on a whole host of issues and not be called a racist.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
“Romney has said that he would want to pick someone capable of taking over should anything happen to him. That pushes Rubio down the list, no matter what activists want. I would say it looks something like this:
1) McDonnell
2) Christie
3) Rubio
4) Santorum
5) Jindal
6) Portman”
Why is Jindal so low on the list. If the goal is getting someone with executive experience who can govern at the very moment should something happen to Mitt, shouldn’t Jindal be on the top 3? In fact, Jindal has been a governor longer than McDonnell and Christie and has dealt with serious events that put his leadership to the test like the Oil Spill and Hurricane Gustav.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
I like Rubio best, but it’s going to be Christie and that’s a formidable team and I am so down with that.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I don’t think Romney would chose Rubio. He’s only been a Senator for two years and is very green.
I think Pawlenty, McDonnell and Christie are good bets. They would bring important states into play, and all seem to be interested.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
2 If Romney said that then for sure it’s Christie.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I like the sound of McDonnell, overall, especially considering Virginia may be a tough get for Romney. But all I kept thinking as I read through your descriptions, is why didn’t any of them run?
February 25th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
McDonnell has Virginia and military experience, that’s compelling.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
12 Same reason I didn’t run, probably. It’s a lot of work, hard on the family, and it’s just plain hard to match Romney’s skill set. I could’ve taken Palin easy.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
3,
Let me you ask you since I’m from NJ also. Do you think Christie has a good chance of getting re-elected in 2013? I mean he’s made an enemy of the Teacher’s Unions and most dems would like to destroy him. He’s polling well against all likely democratic challengers, except one, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. In a head to head, polling has Booker beating Christie. I just wonder if he’d make it to a second term.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Gingrich belongs in media more than politics. Kind of like Huckabee and Palin. If he slimmed down and put lipstick on, Fox would give him a gig.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
#13 Liz: Keep in mind, the last five presidential elections have been won by the candidate with the less impressive military record, or none at all.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
13. So, is running for (and subsequently serving as) VP that much easier? Really? It’s Romney’s turn I get that, but man do some of these guys sound like compelling choices.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
#18 – Good observation, but VP is easier because you get to come in after the
primary.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Santorum and Gingrich would have an easier time selecting a VP because they are
trusted by the base/tea party and has foreign policy credentials. They could
pick a moderate or someone with less experience but with broader appeal(eg Rubio).
If Romney goes with a moderate he invites a conservative 3d party challenger or
gives the base reason to stay home. Diversity for the sake of pandering is
transparent and fails. He also needs someone with Washington experience, which
is why I think McDonnell is out (and that vaginal probe law stuff would be
brought up).
February 25th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
20# “trusted by the base” Is that why gingrinch was run out the first time, or is that why he is being rejected this time in the primary? lets wait and see if santorum will be the 6/6 who is rejected.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
#20 “If Romney goes with a moderate he invites a conservative 3d party challenger”
LOL. The role of the VP is to attend funerals. If you think their political ideology is relevant you were probably fooled by McCain.
I do agree that using the VP position to pander to specific groups is transparent, with some exceptions, (see above) and usually fails.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Pride goeth before the fall.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
To me the list is short.
Marco Rubio (I would hate to lose my Senator, but for the better good)
Rand Paul (Great Libertarian without the flaws of his father)
Mike Huckabee (Great Debater, loved by those who are not as sure of Romney).
Jindal took himself out when he endorsed Perry.
Boring white guys need not apply
Chris Christie will get a cabinet post.
Jeb Bush, Secretary of State.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I remain interested in Huckabee as VP, but it seems like he’s faded from the national consciousness a bit too much recently. It would be something to pick him, but it looks highly unlikely.
As such, my first VP choice is McDonnell.
Without EITHER Virginia or Colorado, it becomes highly unlikely we make up the delegates elsewhere.
And since none of these VPs helps us in Colorado, it’s best to choose McDonnell.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Chris Christie for Press Secretary!
February 25th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
ALthough Rubio would certainly help in Colorado. But he already said “no” to VP.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
No question Rubio is still the best pick, I guarantee you the White House fears Rubio FAR more than any other pick. Florida will be a lock, the Tea Party/Anti-Establishment wing will be ecstatic, and Latino voters will swoon at the chance to make history. The only question is will Rubio say yes?
My 2nd choice would be Christie, I actually think he could deliver New Jersey, especially with gay marriage being on the ballot. If the GOp wins New Jersey, there’s really no conceivable way Obama gets reelected. I also think Christie is a fearless and effective spokesman for fiscal conservatism, I think the Tea Party wing would actually be really pleased. He also knows how to throw a punch.
The safest pick is McDonnell, but my opinion is if he’s needed to win Virginia, we’ve probably already lost. Still, he’s a solid Governor of a battleground state that’s not going to embarrass the ticket.
I really think Romney needs Rubio though to unite the Party and get some energy back after such a nasty primary.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
None really make much sense except Rubio, McDonnell, and Paul.
Any other VP is more risk than potential reward.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
28
Yes, I do think Rubio is the best pick, but he already said no. I don’t think it will happen, although it would be historic, exciting, and smart to do overall.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Romney needs to go with someone he trusts, and someone who has the same world view. If possible, he needs to go with someone who’s run significant organizations before, and been successful:
1. Bob McDonnell
2. Chris Christie
3. Rob Portman
4. John Thune
5. Tim Pawlenty
I would have had Marco on the list, but he’s still a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That would be a conflict….plus, he’s still less than 2 years into his Senate term, and while he’s been manifestly helpful to Mitt’s campaign, he’s never endorsed.
Pawlenty has been higher, but he failed miserably to deliver the Minnesota Caucuses, and is less valuable politically than McDonnell, Christie, or Portman.
But Max has done excellent work. Cathy McMorris Rodgers is the only one I would bump from the top 10, and I’d replace her with Pawlenty in the last half of the draw.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
I should mention, since not everyone appears to know, that if Mitt were to not get the nomination, Trump will run 3rd Party, and the chance that Paul would run on the LP would be greatly enhanced.
Any 3rd Party run AGAINST Mitt would be relatively inconsequential.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Killjoy for VP.
He brings diversity to the ticket and is a rabid attack dog.
Give em severe “Sweater unraveling” hell Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
What the Hell is wrong with you? Do you have something against him? You know damn well he hasn’t been to the LDS church since he was 12 and had no choice in the matter. He’s a Catholic and has been his whole adult life. Even his parents left the church within 4 years of joining.
You know this, but appear to have some other motives, of which I am not certain.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
33 – LOL! Post of the week!
Killjoy would unite the only-Mitt and ABR factions of the party into an invincible force.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
35
Yes, everything Killjoy does is invincible, he’d have you believe.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Romney/Rubio
February 25th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Have a bad feeling it’s going to be McDonnell, which will excite no one. It might help deliver Virginia.
Jindal makes the most sense. Great resume, great on the stump, great in debates, great on TV, beloved by conservatives, will fire up the base.
Plus he’s a young exotic fresh face that appeals to shallow independent View-watching types that unfortunately swing elections.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Out of curiousity, has any of Romney’s surrogates endorsed or even defended
Romneycare?
February 25th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
I think Huckabee should be on this list, as he is very popular, has great political instincts, is sincere in his beliefs, and has tons of executive experience.
Why not?
February 25th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
As much as I like Rubio, I fail to see how he would qualify moreso than a Jindal, Ryan, Thune, or a McDonnell or Christie.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
38 Jose,
I agree with everything you said.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
nothing to do with VP… but read this and watch the vide0… just shows the great character of Romney
http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/01/29/mitt-romney-has-literally-defined-the-meaning-of-service-by-example/
February 25th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
41
It’s about more than just having the longest resume. Someone like Rubio is a game changer. He’s a natural. Plus, he’s exciting. The prospect of electing the first hispanic VP in American history is something a lot of people would get excited about, and not JUST hispanics – many Republicans would like our party to be first on that. Seriously, the dude is a rockstar and his presence on the ticket would get many Romney skeptics to the polls.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
I think ultimately it comes down to the details of the vetting process. One mistake McCain made with Palin is that they didn’t vet her well enough. The most important thing is to do no harm with the VP pick. They better be good on their feet and not be a source of gaffes. I think it would also be a plus if they would be a good candidate in the making for 2020. There is also a visual problem with 2 “white guys” against Obama. Jindal is very high on the list with executive experience, smart, brings the party together and a good potential candidate for pres in the future. Rubio certainly has a lot of pluses, but he lacks executive experience which is a moderate setback but not a deal killer. The LDS issue with Rubio is a non issue in my book. It will get play for about 1 week and then disappear as an issue.
I looked into Rodgers. She is actually a very compelling choice but a bit risky. She seems like a much better version of Palin. She is very attractive, well spoken and has much more foreign policy cred than Palin had. The college does not matter. Reagan went to Eureka College. I’m not sure how conservative she is. To have a woman on the ticket that is not so polarizing as Palin, is well spoken and not the center of attention could be a HUGE advantage in the general. If she passes a thorough vetting process by Romney, then she should be considered.
I think Christie would be a big mistake. He has his very good qualities, but he wold be a big distraction and can be a gaffe machine. He gets away with making a lot of bold statements but this would not be the case if he were the VP candidate and would be a distraction for the campaign.
Daniels, McDonell, Portman, Pawlenty and Thune are all very boring but acceptable choices. They are safe choices but you have the “2 white guys” problem.
1. Jindal
2. Rubio
3. Rodgers
4. Portman
February 25th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Forgot Ryan. Probably the best “white guy”, but the medicare issue could be a distraction during the election. I would put him as 3 or 4 on my list.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
44,
The problem is lumping all hispanics together. Rubio is a Cuban-American like me. But, Cuban-Americans don’t share the same problems dealt with Mexican-Americans. Nor do either of those groups share the same problems as Columbian-Americans or Puerto Ricans. As much as I would like to see a fellow Cuban-American in the White House, Rubio doesn’t speak for all hispanics. Each hispanic group has their own issues and dilemnas that are not necessarily shared by each other. Putting Marco on the ticket doesn’t guarantee that Mexican-Americans or any other hispanic group other than Cuban-Americans would vote for Rubio on the ticket.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
#44 – #41 Rubio is probably not the MOST qualified, but he the most exciting. In a country where Obama will be hard to beat, Rubio would probably deliver more votes. Whoever is chosen will be set up for a future presidency. Who would make a better president? Jindal or Rubio. I’m thinking Jindal has a way more proven track record.
Nobody’s better at being a compelling spokesman for conservatism than Rubio. What an embarrassment of riches.
I see Christie as AG. I see Bachmann at HHS, taking down ObamaCare. Pawlenty gets a cabinet post. Treasury? Paul Ryan? Perry, Cain and Santorum get nothin’.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
And Gingrich seriously gets nothing. He burned the house down.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
47
I didn’t lump anyone together. I was saying that Rubio would excite people.
For instance, take Obama. Obama did excite many black people. But he excited many white people as well. I know a number of white people who voted for Obama because he’s black. They wanted to “make it happen.”
And so, I would expect some to do the same with Rubio. But it’s about more than that, of course. The guy is really great at explaining his values and morals in a way that makes sense to people. He’s very conservative. As a politician, he’s where our party ought to be. No more stupid politicans who win because they raise Hell. We need policy folks, and great communicators. People who can sell our ideology on substance rather than style.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
47, NM, CO and FL are the only swing states with substantial Hispanic populations. It does not really matter that Mexicans and Cubans have different issues, there are some who will be attracted to him as a candidate and identify with him. I think having 2 white guys against Obama will be a problem and should not be ignored.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
LOL, it won’t be Rubio. Might as well get that idea out of your head right now.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
51,
That’s why, IMO, I think Jindal may be the most qualified to be VP.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
52,
How come you seem so confident that it won’t be Rubio?
February 25th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Romney / Rubio makes the most sense, perfect balance to the ticket, it would fire up the GOP. Just the thought of this ticket gets me pumped up and energized!
February 25th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
I was a Jindal pusher earlier in the cycle. I was afraid Rubio was too young. Either of them is great, but Rubio is what we need. But again, he’s already declined.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
53,
Yes, I have Jindal as #1. He really has everything we need in a VP candidate other than being from a swing state or delivering a certain ethnic group.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Obama is automatically re-elected without a Paul on the ticket.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
56,
Rubio and Jindal are the same age. In fact, Rubio is two weeks older than Jindal. Rubio born on May 28, 1971 and Jindal born June 10, 1971.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
58,
I think you overestimate the appeal of Paul to the mainstream in a General election.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Mass Con, I’m not so sure Rubio declining means anything. There is so much focus on him. If he did anything other than outright decline, then he would be putting himself and the nominee in a bad position. I’m not saying he will 100% take it if offered, but there is nothing wrong with declining and accepting it in the future if offered.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
58
Bush won twice without the Paul people.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
#56: MassCon: I don’t take the “declining” serious. They say the bottom of the ticket can’t help, just hurt. I don’t believe that’s true this cycle. If Mitt is the nom, he’s fighting so many fronts, I believe he needs a VP nom who can help. That would be Rubio. Infuse some real excitement into the race.
I keep reading Rubio has skeletons. I don’t know about that. If so, I’m sure the Mitt research team will ferret them out. Since he’s so young and being groomed for so long, I truly doubt there are serious skeletons.
IMO Mitt needs someone who can jazz up the ticket and is also qualified. That would be Rubio. Or Jindal. Not another reserved white guy.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I would like to get some more feedback on Rodgers. It seems like some immediately dismissed her, but I think she is worth a look at. Imagine someone unlike Palin who interviews well, speaks softly and intelligently, is not the center of attention, has foreign policy experience and is there as a more quiet attractive candidate in the background who is very compelling to many women independent voters.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
59
I meant “inexperienced” – Jindal has been in politics for many years.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
There was a report at one time about Rubio having some money problems. Is this true? Story was it would show him to not be fiscally responsible.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
64
Do you think some of the Palin people would resent the concept of electing a female VP who isn’t Palin? Something tells me there would be backlash.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
#60
I completely agree. As much as I love Ryan, he’s going to be seen as another bean counter politician. And he’s the guy that drove granny over the cliff in a wheel chair.
I used to think Huckabee for Mitt’s VP, but he’s probably a has-been at this point IMO.
I still like Jindal or Rubio. Mollify the “base” and render Palin completely irrelevant. She’s been a bitter, divisive voice and needs to be marginalized. She could redeem herself by campaigning hard for the nom. But if the nom is Mitt, I don’t see how she does that, considering what’s said about him. Not to be mention having her bus tour rally, stealing Mitt’s thunder when announcing.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
68
He was talking about Ron and Rand, not Paul Ryan.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Fortuno is only an “honorable mention?” If Romney wins then I expect Luis Fortuno to be on the short list and he would be my #1 choice.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
66,
I have a feeling that the Main Street Media will villify Rubio is he becomes the VP. They’ll do everything to diminish and put him down. To destroy him like they tried to do with Palin. They’ll dig up any dirt they can find on Rubio to discredit him. The same with Jindal, McDonell, Ryan or anyone else that Romney picks as his VP.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
#69: Oh. OK. It’s been along day. I guess I should read more closely.
But I don’t believe any of the Pauls will be a VP choice.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
I really think Mitt will pick Governor Luis Fortuno
1. He’s a Governor , which Mitt likes
2. He has all of Rubios Hispanic assets and fewer liabilities, plus 1 above
3. he’s a graduate of UVA law school with honors.
4. He’s a Southern Governor
5. He is an excellent public speaker and a Christie style conservative
6. He would eat big holes in the Hispanic vote in Florida, Texas, N. Mexico , AZ and California votes
February 25th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
54 Because then it would be all about the LDS church.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Sorry to be a bit off topic on this but does anyone have any insight about Jan Brewer’s potential endorsement? I noticed she is going to be on Meet the Press in the morning and Santorum is also.
Sidenote – Romney will be on Fox News Sunday.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Building off comment #68, I still am shocked that there are still so many people who believe Palin is presidential, smart, capable, ready, steady, strong, and serious. The fact that millions of these people exists makes me truly concerned that the USA has already passed the point of no return on a 1 way train to Hell.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
74,
Rubio is Catholic. Romney is the one from the LDS church.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
I think Christie, Ryan & Thune will be at the top of the list, but who else I don’t know.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
#71: Yes, they will–and there won’t be much time and opportunity for a defense. That’s why the Romney (assuming he’s the nom) people need to vet like ferrets and see what’s out there–how damning it might be. Some of the stuff re: Palin was just ridiculous: That her baby was really her daughter’s. That she had an affair. The troopergate stuff. None of that mattered.
What mattered was how Palin handled herself in interviews. That’s what caused her to be labeled “dumb.” Rubio and Jindal are media savvy, way smart, and neither can be painted as an air head.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
24 Thunder,
Jindal endorsing Perry means nothing. He was worked with Perry over the years as a neighboring state gov, he felt he owed him an endorsement. That should not stop Romney from considering him.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
77 I know what Rubio is, but do some Google research.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
#75: Tennesee: I’m down here in San Diego. We are border experts down here and are very supportive of Brewer. She’s a hero. Our local talk show hosts believe Mitt is the strongest candidate on border issues and Mitt had high praise for Arizona’s border solutions in his AZ debate. I cannot imagine she would endorse anyone besides Mitt. But then, who knows?
February 25th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
The people who are saying Rubio is Mormon remind me of the people who said Jindal is ineligible to be VP because his parents are foreign. Seriously, cut it out. It’s a bunch of crap and the fact that anyone is repeating it is disgusting to me/
February 25th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
#76: The same mentality that caused people to swoon in the streets over Obama is the same as that of people swooning in the streets for Palin. Two sides of the same coin.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
76,
You know. I’ve learned that people have different views on what makes a good car. Some like small compact cars, or economy cars. Some like trucks or big V8 muscle cars. Some people like different sports teams and dislike others. Some people like different shows on TV. And yes, some people have different views on what makes a good president. Does that make them right or wrong? No. It means we all differences of opinions. And I’m thankful for that. I don’t want to live in a country where everyone is an automaton who all think the same. So, yes, some like Romney, some like Palin. Does that make either right or wrong, no. For the record, I still like both.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
#80: I agree. Jindal and Perry are GOP governors together. Jindal endorsed a friend but never went out and attacked Mitt. His skirts are still clean.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
73,
Fortuno Southern Gov, LOL. Good one.
He is very compelling and should be looked into further. He is already in the process of running for reelection this year. Not sure how that would work. Also he is the head of the New Progressive Party. Not sure what that means. He’s and out of the box choice that would need a whole lot of vetting.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
86 The thing is Romney has so many qualified people who are supporting him and working with him, that I don’t think he’s going to make a pick outside of that circle. They’d have to bring a LOT to the table, and I don’t see anyone who does that.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
85
I didn’t say anyone was wrong, I said their process of picking a president is unfortunate in my opinion.
I still have yet to hear one person tell me the reason to be obsessed with Palin other than the fact that she’s an unapologetically unsophisticated female.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
83,
Didn’t they say that Rubio is ineligible for VP for the same reason you list for Jindal?
February 25th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
90
Yes, which also bothers me.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Mass Con,
Palin was so compelling at first because she was different than anyone else in Washington. She was refreshing to people in fly over county because they felt that she understood them. However now I don’t think she is very refreshing at all and is more of an entertainer that has no potential to hold future political office.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
89,
OK, she fires up the base in a way unseen or unheard of. The reaction to her at CPAC is proof. Secondly, she has name appeal. She has a rock star status which can be a plus if used the right way. She gets attention where ever she goes. She is incredibly underestimated. And the fact that liberals and establishment types hate her so much makes her the everywoman that the common folk want to side with and view as their champion. Good enough reasons? Or do you need more?
February 25th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
#88: I listened closely to the last interview I heard where Mitt was discussing VP possibles. He was VERY specific: He wanted someone with EXECUTIVE experience. He then went on to list every GOP governor he could remember, including Christie, Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez. He listed NO senators or members of congress.
Mitt’s reason for running is that a POTUS needs to have had leadership and executive experience. For him to choose someone without it kind of undermines his reason for running.
I was kind of cool on Jindal after hearing his SOTU speech; good guy but maybe not much of a campaigner. But then after hearing him at CPAC I completely changed my mind.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
93
Not one of those is a good reason. Not one.
You are telling me we people support her because people support her.
Why do people support her? What is so good about her?
February 25th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Ed Rollins made some interesting comments on Huckabee tonight. He said one of
the leading campaigns (I guess that means not Ron Paul) asked him how a brokered
convention might work. That suggests it is not just wishful thinking among the
chattering class. Two, in response to Huckabee’s question about what type of
negotiations might occur between campaigns to end the primary, Rollins said the
harsh attacks made any type of negotiation unlikely.
It sounded like he believes the primary could go all the way to the convention.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention Daniels? I still think, in spite of the truce, that he would be a good choice. Maybe his reluctance due to his family would preclude him from accepting, but he should be on the list.
My choices in order are Christie, Jindal, Daniels, McDonnell, Portman.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
IMO anybody who was an American citizen the minute they were born is probably going to qualify for POTUS–meaning born on American soil or born anywhere of American citizens. I know there’re some esoteric ways of looking at it, but I don’t believe they will fly.
Yes, there have been questions: Barry Goldwater born when AZ was still a territory; Geo. Romney born in MX of American citizens, McCain born of American citizens in Panama.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
96
Thanks for sharing, but Ed Rollins isn’t exactly the best go-to source on political wisdom nor a good barometer of what’s going on inside the “chattering class.”
February 25th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
95,
She FIRES up the base. She raises people’s enthusiasm in a way that Newt, Mitt, and Santorum have been unable to do. I can give you all sorts of of reasons to like her, but, your hatred of the woman makes it impossible to convince you. I’d have an easier time convincing my dog that he’s a cat.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Palin is a has been now, and in her last gasp for relevance. The notion that she could or should have any place of leadership in this party is insane. Let her go in peace.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
97
Romney selecting Daniels would immediately lose him the election because the grassroots types would be immediately outraged and no longer trust Mitt.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I can’t see the media trying to bring up a so-called “birther” issue with either Rubio or Jindal since they tried so hard to dismiss the same issue with Obama.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
100
I don’t hate the woman. I hate the fact that so many people think she’s presidential but none of them has made even a basic case for what she would bring to Washington DC.
It’s one thing to admire the fact that she excites people. It’s another to consider that a good reason to think she would be a good president.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Frankly, the lack of reasons provided to me for Palin’s case suggests that the only reason anyone thinks she’s presidential or VP material is that she’s a middle-aged unsophisticated moderately attractive woman.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
#95: Palin raised the roof when she spoke at CPAC. She really had the crowd in the palm of her hand. Not many people can do that like she can. Not even Obama anymore. So Palin can give a rabble-rousing speech.
But in interviews and regular conservations, she’s just awful.
Mitt gives good speeches but NOTHING like Palin. He and everybody else is a wooden stick compared to Palin @ CPAC. On the other hand, Mitt gives a good, intelligent interview. Like Oz says, I guess it’s what you’re looking for.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
102. Probably so, but Daniels record is more conservative than Santorum and Gingrich put together. He is a great governor. I realize the base seems incapable of reason these days.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
107
Yes, he is a great governor. However, being “conservative” these days means that you are angry and unsophisticated.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Mass Con,
Yeah, I don’t quite understand the “Rubio is a Mormon” thing. The articles I’ve read indicate that Rubio hasn’t asked to be removed from the Mormon rolls. Which indicates that Mormons believe you CAN cease to a Mormon. This is actually rather less strict than Catholicism (a church which also received Rubio and to which he professes allegiance currently). “Ex-Catholics” are just Catholics out of communion with the church. But there’s no process for nullifying your baptism or confirmation. Yet plenty of people consider themselves ex-Catholics. Tim Pawlenty was one of them and I recall precious little fuss about the matter. So how is it that Rubio is still a Mormon even though he hasn’t considered himself a Mormon for 27 years and has been received into another church? Would Pawlenty make a problematic VP because technically he’s still a Catholic and we wouldn’t want two minority religious denominations on the ticket? Explain.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
KG, it’s not just the interviews. Palin doesn’t have the temperament, the judgement or the experience to be a national leader. Period.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
104,
On paper, Mitt looks like he would make a great president, but, we don’t know. He might be as ineffective as Obama when he gets in the White House. You never know. All I’m saying is, should Palin ever run for POTUS. Let’s give her and every candidate the benefit of the doubt. Let her make her case, discuss her ideas and policies that she would implement and let her have her chance in a primary. That’s what I did when this race in 2012 started. I gave all the candidates a chance which is more than some here had done. And if Palin runs in the future, I’d give her and every other candidate a chance to make their case to the voting public without any pre-concieved notions or biases. Who knows, she might surprise us all and be the best man(or woman in this case) for the job.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
101…. Palin has turned into the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
109
For me, it’s really even simpler than that he hasn’t removed his name.
He was brought into the LDS church by his parents at age 8, and they left when he was 12. He probably was unaware entirely that his name was even kept in any records at all. What a stupid thing to get on him about. My name is probably in the records of a church I attended at age five, and I have not been there since because I moved to North Carolina and then Massachusetts. Should I go have my name removed? What a silly bunch of horse s***.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Matthew, Rubio appears to be technically on the records of the LDS church, but nothing more. I don’t see why anyone would consider him to be a Mormon when he himself says he is not. Although I do find it strange that he has never asked his name to be taken off the records.
I did enjoy reading about his time as a Mormon from about age 8-12. It seems that he was the one dragging the family out to church. That shows a lot of character, and a seriousness of purpose at a young age. Good qualities, no matter what church he went to.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
111
Oh sure, I’d let her make her case. But the problem for me is that she never intended to make her case this cycle, and so many stayed latched on for dear life for months, and some even continue to this day. But I don’t like to waste my time on Palin anyway, she’s not running and I really don’t hate her that much, just the fact that she was ever considered as a president bothers me. What idiocy. But it’s irrelevant now anyway.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Mass Con. Did you read about Rubio? He was certainly aware that he was on the records. That’s not something you forget, and it sounds like he took his membership seriously. Of course he remembers it.
But the bottom line is that he said he’s not a member, and that should put an end to the topic, IMO.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
#104
IMO this is the entire problem with the electorate: They do not envision the person actually performing the job as POTUS. They just vote for who they “like,” or who entertains them. They do not envision the person actually doing the job. You and I do and that why we’re for Mitt.
Read Ron Suskind’s book The Confidence Men. You get an inside look at what in takes to be POTUS and how completely unprepared and inept Obama is. There is NO reason to believe that Palin, Newt, Santorum, Cain, Perry, Biden–any of them could possibly have what it takes to be an effective POTUS.
Reagan had been CA governor for EIGHT years–during very trying times. Had fought tooth and toe nail to cut costs; took a ton of flack for it. Had hippies marching on Sacramento all the time. He had way more experience than just giving a good speech.
I have other issues with Palin as well: She is thin-skinned, bitter, saracastic and vindictive. And she’s quit nearly everything. Quit being mayor to run for lieutenant gov. OK, fair enough. But was then appointed to that Gas Committee. Quit after a year. Was elected governor and quit after a year and a half–or got harrassed out of office.
Palin doesn’t have a good temperament for POTUS–even if she had the experience and the education. And she’s too much about her own ego. Even back when I loved her, I thought, This woman loves being in front of the camera way too much. Sarah is like Newt; all in it for Sarah.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
#110: Claire: I quite agree. We are crossing posts.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
116
You know what? The Mormon haters ought to like Rubio even more, considering that he’s an ex-Mormon. But Mormon haters probably hate Cubans too anyway, so there’s that.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
KG, I agree with you, as well. She is an absolutely fascinating person, but not presidential material.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Mass Con,
“He probably was unaware entirely that his name was even kept in any records at all. What a stupid thing to get on him about. My name is probably in the records of a church I attended at age five, and I have not been there since because I moved to North Carolina and then Massachusetts. Should I go have my name removed? What a silly bunch of horse s***.”
This. I was a baptized Catholic and didn’t attend a subsequent Mass until I was 19 years old. I was raised a kind of roving, evangelical Protestant. No doubt, my name is in the Catholic registrar or whatever. Nonetheless, even though I’ve been going to Mass regularly for 14 months now, I don’t consider myself a Catholic. Because religious identity- at least in this world- is as much a matter of choice as ceremony. And I haven’t made all of the choices necessary to consider myself a Catholic, even if I’ve gone through one of the ceremonies. I don’t want to minimize the “unseen hook and the invisible line” aspect of religious thought, but it should matter, to us, what Rubio considers himself and it shouldn’t matter, at all, if he’s thought to go through the formal process to remove himself from a religious tradition he adopted as a boy.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
119. You got that right.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
I neither Sarah or Newt used taxpayer money to make buttons to say “I love Sarah”
or “I love Newt.” That would take ego.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
That Rubio WAS a Mormon for a few years when a child is not big deal. Yes, the CJSLDS has a procedure for nullifying baptism into the Church. Most people don’t do it. They just drift away. Did Gingrich go through the procedure to nullify his membership among the Lutherans? Or the So. Baptists? Most people just go find another church if so inclined.
Rubio is not a practicing Mormon; he’s a practicing Catholic with some evangelical interests. End of story.
If Mitt were to choose a VP like practicing Mormon Mike Lee, it would be another story. Couldn’t get away with it. Mitt would cause flack if he were to have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing at his Inauguration, even tho Reagan did, calling it “America’s Choir.”
It’s all dumb. Both Clinton and Gore were So. Baptists and nobody raised an eyebrow. Who knows if any Baptists sang at his inauguration?
February 25th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
It does pose a bit of a question for Rubio. Some will try to box him in; if you don’t consider yourself a Mormon, then why don’t you go through the process of getting your name off the rolls? They will push him to do it just to cause an issues.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
125
If they do it, Jeremiah Wright goes in a Super PAC ad within minutes.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
K.G.,
I had no idea any churches had a formal process to nullify baptism. It makes little to no sense to me, coming from evangelical Protestantism, towards Catholicism. Lots of evangelical protestants will just baptize you however many times you like- it’s more of a sign of commitment than a holy rite. And of course Catholics conditionally baptize adults, precisely because they’re incredibly leery of accidentally re-baptizing someone. Because baptism is a Christian sacrament which doesn’t specifically apply to Catholicism (except in the sense that Catholics consider are all Christians Catholic). It would make no sense to ask to have your baptism revoked, in any of these churches, because you wanted to join another church. Now, presumably, adults who were baptized into the Mormon faith know about this procedure but someone who was baptized at 8 and left at 13? It just seems like a strange expectation to me.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
MEM, KG, et al.
So what’s the insinuation about the fact that Rubio did not have his name removed from the records? Are we supposed to believe he’s a secret closet Mormon or something? Spare me.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
128 Every church has a formal process to nullify baptism – it’s called falling away. For the LDS I think what they’re talking about is whether or not you’re on their records.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
129
Riiiiight. And let’s take that one step further and ask what the point of the discussion is.
Is the fact that he’s still on the records supposed to be some sort of clue that he’s really just a closet Mormon or something? If not, what’s the point?
February 25th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
As far as Romney’s VP, I think it will be someone who:
1) Is or has been a governor
2) Falls into the traditional attack-dog role
3) Someone who won’t damage the ticket (not Palin)
4) Someone who Romney has worked with in the past and thinks can effectively pursue his policies
Who does that sound like?
February 25th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Mass Con,
I have no idea. That’s what they’re driving at I imagine but it’s a really strange insinuation. I will say, however, that Rubio hasn’t helped himself by being all mysterious about why he goes to an evangelical church, whether he still goes to Mass, etc. I could easily see this thing spiraling out of control. Most discerning people believe that Obama attended Wright’s church because that was the sort of thing an ambitious, black pol did in Chicago. There’s an almost equally problematic element to the Rubio story, even leaving out the Mormon business. There’s little doubt that, even now, Cubans are generally Catholics and that being a Catholic is bound to help an ambitious, Cuban pol in Miami. The seeming oddity of attending an evangelical church leaves open the possibility that Rubio doesn’t really subscribe to Catholicism and has just hung onto the identity for political convenience. From there, I’d say the Mormon story just unnecessarily complicates things. At some point, Rubio’s going to have to explain- in more than a press release- the basic facts of his religiosity.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
132
Well, what you’re speculating about doesn’t work because I’m sure Rubio wasn’t planning his run for Senate at age thirteen. He left the Mormon church with his parents then and became Catholic again. Age 13 is hardly time to be positioning oneself for identity politics in anticipation of running for Senator of Florida 37 years later.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
I can’t find a link, but I remember reading Rubio actually hired a group to research his own background. He’s prepared for the scrutiny. Look up how he handled the issue with Univision and his brother-in-law.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
As a devout Mormon and almost equally as devout a Romney supporter (though not at all because he’s LDS), I have to say that the Rubio-Mormon connection definitely takes him off the short list in my mind.
As we were trying to remind everyone when Newt was the FOTM, the election needs to be about Obama and his policies, not Romney and ridiculous questions and conspiracies about a Mormon takeover (don’t forget we’ve currently got the senate too…).
The good news is that Rubio, unlike most of the others on this list, could wait four or even eight more years and be in an even better place to run for president then.
And, for the record, I don’t think it’s bigotry to talk about this subject this way–it’s political reality. We need to accept the facts as they are, and the fact is that some people are suspicious of a Mormon in the white house, and they will be much more suspicious if they see the potential of another one waiting in the wings in the Naval Observatory…
February 25th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
132
As for the dabbling in Evangelical churches, I have no idea. Is he a closet Evangelical too? Is he living a triple life, one in Catholicism, one in Mormonism, and one in Evangelicalism? This is getting pretty dumb to even think about. There is just no “there” there, brother.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
#128: No, MassCon. Nobody believes (I don’t think) that Rubio is a “closet Mormon.” Rubio IS what he is in his own mind and that’s Catholic. This should not be an issue for anyone but you know how the trouble-making media is: They love trouble. Trouble and controversy sell.
LDS are a little different than most organized religions, I believe. Baptism means more in an offical way. Baptism and confirmation (receiving the Holy Ghost) are ceremonies that are not only essential for receiving all God’s blessings in the here after, but a person also becomes an official member of the CJCLDS at the time of baptism. People’s names are recorded as members and remain on the rolls unless there is an official, written request to have them removed.
If a person ceases to believe they are LDS, ceases to live LDS practices, then in God’s eyes they have broken that the baptismal covenant and it’s probably not in effect in God’s eyes unless they were to return. And many do, of course, just like you are turning to Catholicism.
This is only a big deal if someone were to try to make it a big deal; it’s all Rubio’s personal stuff. IMO it’s a non-issue. Americans change religions all the time. This is only a story because it has the word Mormon in it.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Should say “27 years later” not 37
February 25th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
130 If Rubio is on some LDS church records somewhere then all it means is he’s on some records somewhere – nothing more. He’s clearly Catholic, and anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Maybe I’m wrong – I’m very tired today and probably not thinking too clearly, but I think the way liberals and the media would deal with it would still be a big enough issue to knock Rubio down just enough so someone else gets the slot. It’s possible though that I’m not giving the public enough credit – I tend to think the public is stupid. Really though, I think Rubio isn’t pursuing the VP slot, and doesn’t want it.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
From what I understand, it’s pretty normal for Presidents, and probably people elected to congress to wind up going to a different church in D.C. for one reason or another so I don’t think that’s an issue.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
My top 3 choices for VP for Mitt, in no particular order, are Bob McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Huckabee. What do they all have in common? They are governors or former governors. They are from South. They will encourage unity in the GOP.
Getting away from governors, my 2 top choices are Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. They both have the same disadvantage, in my opinion. They would be just completing their 2nd year in their freshman term as senator. Lacking experience. Rubio is great to listen to. He is inspirational. He is pretty well known nationally. I don’t know if Rand Paul would be able to bring in any of the Ron Paul voters, but I would like to think some of them would come around. In both of their cases, I worry a little about what vetting would reveal.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
135 Okay, so you seem to be of the same opinion as me. Except I wouldn’t necessarily say “off the shortlist”, just no longer at the top. However, are we giving people too little credit. I mean there is almost no connection whatsoever in reality. Are people so dumb that this would be an issue, or do we just think people are dumber than they really are?
February 25th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Mass Con,
Obviously he wasn’t engaging in political positioning at 13. But it’s certainly possible that the Rubio’s did what many Americans have done: adopted to the religious norms of their community. In Nevada, that led to Mormonism. In Miami, that led to Catholicism. But it’s at least worth asking what he really believes. Not the theological nitty-gritty but the basic facts. For instance, Catholics are not allowed to take communion at non-Catholic churches. If Rubio’s attending this evangelical church and taking communion, it’s a pretty decent sign that his Catholic identity is at least partly a pose. Which matters because it speaks to character.
I don’t think anyone really believed that Obama agreed that God ought to damn America. But some of them (myself included) did believe that he was willing to go through the motions, pretending to believe something he didn’t believe, if it helped his political career. It was a legitimate issue then, it’s a legitimate issue now. I say this as someone who agrees that Rubio’s probably the strongest VP choice. Not my favorite necessarily. That’s Jindal or Ryan. But the one who, on balance, makes the most sense. But I still think this whole religious identity confusion could be a problem. The Mormon thing, on it’s own, is insignificant, but combined with the other stuff, it begins to look like potentially bad optics.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Unfortunately, this crap about Rubio’s religion can be combined with the confusion over the exile status of his parents, and twisted into a narrative that says Rubio has been lying about himself his whole life or something. So in that sense, it’s damaging, however stupid and distorted the charges are.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
141 I have to say, as a former HuckNot, I’d have no problem with Huckabee. He’s shown himself to be a class act lately – at least in my book. I think his “debates” are some of the best ones out there, and they’re probably the only debates that hurt Obama rather than help him.
I think if nobody went negative in this campaign we’d have the same results, but a less divided field. I think if you’re being honest, by the way, Romney was the last to go negative (I don’t remember Cain ever going negative).
February 25th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
#142: No, aspire, people really are dumb. And in the event that Mitt wins the nom and Rubio were the VP pick, there would be those who would run hither and yon claiming Rubio is a Mormon, which he officially is according to CJCLDS records. And a bunch of dumb people would make a big deal out of it. A deal-killing deal? I don’t believe so. But it would be an issue. But everything’s an issue in a campaign. American’s have short attention spans. After a truthful explanation, most would probably get over it.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
144 Has that other crap about his parents gotten any traction? I hardly watch the news lately, but I didn’t think anyone cared.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
#144: MassCon: I believe you’re right. And here’s the problem with the VP pick as I see it. Whoever wins the nom, if the VP pick is announced in June, that doesn’t give a lot a time for crap to come up out of the toilet and for the VP nom to explain, defend and/or refute. Meanwhile the campaign goes on and the focus is on the GOP VP rather than on taking out Obama.
IMO Mitt, as careful as he is, will pick someone that will not cause too much trouble or controversy late in the game. Mitt has his issues, but he’s had years to talk about them. The VP won’t have that luxury.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
If people like a candidate, and Rubio is VERY likeable, most of dumb stuff won’t stick. The story about Rubio’s parents and this thing w/Mormonism is just dumb stuff. It gets explained quite easily and won’t have legs. It could, as MassCon says, hurt some. But everybody has something.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
147
No, it went away.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
K.G,
Honestly, the “but has he been vetted?” stuff never makes any sense. Other than the folks already running for the nomination, everyone needs to be vetted. There’s no good reason, in the abstract, to think that Rubio’s “crap out of the toilet” will smell any worse than McDonnell’s or Christie’s (I’ve heard some things). In fact, it’s probably a little bit of a positive that we know some of Rubio’s potential liabilities already, because Team Romney’s more likely to have a response handy. Rubio’s almost undergoing a beta testing here because he’s considered the only obvious choice.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Oh, absolutely. The libs are probably doing oppo research and strategy on Rubio as we speak.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
This stuff probably came out as a trial balloon to see how everyone reacts and see where to proceed from here with the vetting.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
For instance, on Christie: he’s an Italian who’s awfully buddy buddy with the historically liberal Trenton machine. What do we imagine that turns into in a general election? Hint: if Romney makes him an offer he can’t refuse, we may wish he had. The point is, everyone has baggage. I think Rubio’s may be a problem but that’s mainly because there are about 10 times more stories about Rubio than about, say, Rob Portman.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
#151: MEM: I don’t believe we disagree. Yes, everyone’s caca (real or contrived) would come bubbling up and would take the focus off the real campaign to the degree it’s a problem. That’s why the Romney campaign is probably looking hard at everybody on the list to evaluate potential deal-killing problems.
I have no reason to believe there are any real problems with Rubio or anyone (maybe Christie). They will go harder after Rubio if he’s the pick because he’s so popular. On the other hand, because his name is so much in the fore, we probably would have heard of something. And better to get the Mormon thing out there and dispelled long before he’s even the pick.
Get it all out now so it will be old news by the time there’s the general campaign.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:24 am
First, I’m surprised Twain would choose a, to use his words, “tea bagger” like Senator Rubio as his #1 choice for VP.
Two, I do not see an unknown, untested, hyphenated last name congresswoman like McMorris-Rodgers getting the VP nod.
Jindal and Ryan are both too much of hardcore reformers to join the campaign of the play-it-safe, offend no one, change little, say what has to be said to win, do what to be done to keep approval ratings up, kow-tow to the liberal media Romney campaign. Moreover, both are young and have extraordinarily bright political futures that they’re not going to jeopardize with a sure-fire loser like Romney.
Wasn’t John Thune one of the Senate’s biggest ear-markers? Shouldn’t that be a problem for Romney given his campaign’s current promise to “ban earmarks” (which, FYI for you constitutional neophytes, are the purview of the legislative branch, not the executive branch)? Of course, this is the Romney campaign we’re talking about so nothing that was said yesterday will necessarily be true tomorrow. Thune is, like Romney, handsome, intelligent and unafraid to do what is good politics even if it’s bad policy, therefore he could be the ideal running mate for Romney.
Portman and Bush are both too closely tied to the past two Republican administrations to really do anything helpful for the ticket, despite their popularity in key states. Both are, because of their status as insiders tied to the big-government “conservatism” of the Bush administrations of the past, likely and viable choices for big-government conservatives like Mitt Romney and/or Rick Perry. Because of their insider status and past (likely current, despite the rhetoric) support of big-government they will exacerbate Romney’s glaring problems with limited-government voters and libertarians and, because of their ties to the Bush administration(s) will hurt the ticket with independents.
Rand Paul is not going to be Romney’s – or anyone’s – VP for two reasons. One, he’s his own man and thus will not subvert his beliefs for a big-government charlatan like any of the current GOP presidential candidates, Romney especially. Two, he has a large, passionate, nation-wide base from whom to draw support. If he wants to run for president in 2016 (or beyond), not only will he have a natural base from his father upon which to draw support but, being unassociated with the go-along to get along moderates in the NY/DC Republican establishment, will have the vase majority of the conservative, limited government, TEA party base behind him. Does anyone really think that, after a Romney or Santorum nomination and crushing loss this year the conservative base is going to go more moderate and establishment friendly?
The VP if (when) Romney gets the nomination will be either Christie or McDonnell. Both have towed the Romney line. Christie has a big personality that should pay well with red-meaters and McDonnell has military cred which should help with all the veterans who were offended when Romney equated his sons’ campaign work to military service. Neither will make much of a difference and the Romney-McChristie ticket will go down in flames, as will the presidential aspirations of both Christie and McDonnell.
As for Rubio, who is someone for whom I have high hopes, I’m praying he avoids the ticket this year and keeps home clean for 2016.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:26 am
For the life of me I just don’t understand why anyone cares what religion anyone is. I’m just so sick and tired of it. Give me a leader with character, and forget the nonsense.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:40 am
I left this thread hours ago, but having now read the comments, there’s a need to clear up Rubio’s religion. He was baptized when he was 8 with his mother and sister….it’s unclear whether there was any other family members involved…..his father was a bartender and hostile to the religion.
They stayed active for about 4 years, and were VERY active. That’s when they moved, and the idea to attend Catholic services was Marco’s. But the thing is that he’s NOT a practicing Catholic….he’s been attending a non-denominational Protestant Church for a long time…..he CALLS himself a Catholic, but he’s not practicing it….much like most other Catholics.
Where the Mormon issue comes up is the Mormon belief that baptism in the Church involves a Covenant with God, and to be broken takes an act by the person leaving. All Mormons know about this, and it’s not difficult or time consuming….it doesn’t even cost any money.
Active members ask inactives to do it in many circumstances, and inactives usually don’t do it. Marco has apparently refused to have his name removed from the church, and it HAS been brought up.
In the end, it probably doesn’t matter….Marco says he has no intentions of becoming a VP nominee. It would only matter if he did, and it would be because the Left wouldn’t let go of it. It would be an issue….and anybody who thinks it wouldn’t is naive.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:47 am
BTW, Rubio has an uncle, whose family brought the 3 Rubios into the church in Nevada, who’s an active Mormon, a Democrat, and a State Senator in Nevada. He knows the family’s history better than anyone outside the immediate family.
It would come up in a Presidential race.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Even though Rubio has batted away the idea of him being on the ticket, I hardly think the matter is closed.
It really is a win-win for him to be on a Romney ticket. The “worst” case is Romney loses, in which case Rubio would have the 2016 nomination wrapped in a bow with a national infrastructure at his fingertips that could easily destroy the competition. If, however, Rubio thinks Romney is probably going to lose and decides to sit 2012 out, he’s still going to have to face a TOUGH primary in 2016 with A-listers like Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, McDonnell, Thune, etc. It’s really anyone’s game.
Then there’s the very real possibility a Romney ticket wins without Rubio. If that happens, will anyone care about Marco Rubio in 2020? Hello Senator Ted Cruz? Senators rarely make it to the White House, especially with a 10 year voting history to scrutinize, and being that Florida is NOT a state that Rubio can vote like a a Jim DeMint if he actually wants to get reelected, he’s going have a lot of challenges.
If Romney looks like he can actually win, I think Rubio ultimately accept.
February 26th, 2012 at 1:03 am
Dave Says:
February 26th, 2012 at 12:47 am
BTW, Rubio has an uncle, whose family brought the 3 Rubios into the church in Nevada, who’s an active Mormon, a Democrat, and a State Senator in Nevada. He knows the family’s history better than anyone outside the immediate family.
It would come up in a Presidential race.
===================================================================================
And if it did, it would destroy Obama and the Democrats because they would be painted as being anti-religion (more so than before). That would devastate Obama and the Democrats.
February 26th, 2012 at 1:05 am
No one turns down the VP slot when offered.
February 26th, 2012 at 1:22 am
Cathy McMorris Rodgers is no Palin, but because of Palin she is 1000000000/1 to be picked! Same for Blackburn. The ONLY possible girl is Martinez.
February 26th, 2012 at 1:29 am
McDonnell is boring!
It will come down to who Romney gels with best. If he gets on well with Jindal he has to be fav.
You also forgot Santorum from your list. Another obvious pick (assuming he doesn’t go nuclear).
February 26th, 2012 at 1:49 am
Mitt has said that Kelly Ayotte from NH is on the shortlist, for what that’s worth.
February 26th, 2012 at 2:09 am
KA always sounds nervous in her interviews!
See also, Palin problem (inexperienced).
February 26th, 2012 at 2:14 am
Luis Fortuno seems like a good person and a good governor from what I have heard, but the fact that he’s from a territory rather than a state is a big problem for me. Not only will none of his constituents be able to vote for Mitt in the general election, Fortuno himself won’t be able to do so either. It would be preferable to have a VP candidate from a place that has electoral votes.
February 26th, 2012 at 2:38 am
#45 James: I looked up some information about Eureka College, where Reagan graduated from. Eureka was properly accredited during the time Reagan was a student there. He graduated in 1932. In 1936, the college lost its accreditation. However, it regained accreditation in 1962 and has kept it ever since then.
February 26th, 2012 at 2:40 am
Besides, the reason I brought up the status of Rodgers’ alma mater is that it was mentioned in the item about her as a point in her favor. None of the other candidates’ colleges are mentioned in their entries either favorably or unfavorably.
February 26th, 2012 at 4:55 am
Joshua,
I really don’t think the college accreditation matters. They may try to make it an issue like they did Reagan, but if she is seen as competent it won’t stick. That said, I think her chances are very slim as is Fortuno’s.
February 26th, 2012 at 6:14 am
When Romney wins the nomination he’ll more than likely pick one of these 4.
Rubio
Ryan
Christie
Martinez
Rubio – Let’s not kid ourselves, it’ll probably be him. Rubio is a brilliant speaker, well-liked by everyone in our party, is a popular politician in a critical swing state, and helps us with the Hispanic vote. Rubio brings everything we need to the ticket, and has very few negatives.
His detractors will say he is too young and inexperienced to be the VP, but in all honesty these are superficial arguments and wouldn’t hurt us at all in the general election.
Ryan – This is my personal choice, all be it the most unlikely. Ryan is brilliant, young, and one of the future leaders of our party. I could sing his praises for hours.
Objectively, Ryan brings very little to the ticket other than his ability to speak about the budget with extreme authority. I don’t think the populist in our party love him as much as we in the intelligentsia, and, to be honest, I’m a bit sick of their whining. Romney will need to pick a VP that will throw enough Red Meat to shut up the Palin wing of our party.
Christie – What can I say? Christie is political porn. Even we high minded republicans like when Christie lays the smack down on some mouthy lib. A loyal and effective Romney surrogate, Christies name has to be near the top of Mitts VP list.
Christie is a moderate from a North Eastern state who probably brings very little to the ticket other than being an incredible attack dog. The Palin wing (the populist) are a bit jaded with him at the moment, but I feel he can win them back over in the general election.
Martinez – One of the most sorely overlooked names on the VP list. Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, and republican rising star. Martinez is the very popular Governor from the not so critical swing state of New Mexico. In a recent Rasmussen poll her approval among Republicans was 94 percent. More surprising is that a majority of Democrats, 54 percent, approve of her performance. There is a TON to write about this Governor, if you’re not following her career I would recommend you take some time and read up on what she’s been doing.
She would win us New Mexico, but really… who cares? New Mexico is a bit worthless. And I can say that because I live here! But she would help us with the Hispanic and woman vote. She has a lot of pluses and very few negatives. The only reason I would hate to see her as the VP is because I wouldn’t want to lose her as Governor.
February 26th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Dave,
I think we don’t know enough yet to draw any conclusions about whether Rubio’s an “active” Catholic or not. He went to an evangelical church, yes, but that doesn’t preclude him from going to a weekly Mass. There are typically between 4 and 6 masses which meet the weekly obligation and Mass, unlike a typical evangelical service, is consistently only an hour long. As an example of this, I went to Mass for a year…and followed it by attending an evangelical service. I went to Mass because I was inclined to believe Catholics had something. I went to the evangelical service because lots of young people attended (including some friends), people were friendly, etc. Had I not moved, I probably would have continued the process indefinitely. And I don’t think anyone would consider me fantastically devout. Those 2 hours and 45 minutes of Sunday services constituted, probably, more than half of my weekly spiritual devotion. So there’s no inherent conflict in a Catholic routinely attending an evangelical church. Nor does it, by itself, tell us anything interesting about how active he is within the Catholic Church. We’d need to know A.) Does he still attend Mass and B.) Does he receive communion at the evangelical church? If the answers are yes and no respectively, then it would be genuinely unfair to claim that he’s not an active Catholic.
On the Mormon stuff: again, no doubt older Mormons understand that they need to go through a formal process to “nullify” their baptism, but as this is not a practice in most other faiths, and as Rubio was not an adult when he left the church, I’ll simply repeat that I think it’s rather incredible to think that he meant anything by leaving his name on the records. Why doesn’t he remove it now? Well, perhaps he will. But it’s worth noting that officially leaving a church which you haven’t attended in 27 years, after folks have claimed that membership in that church is harmful to your political aspirations, is bound to seem defensive and calculating. So it’s not an action without temporal consequences.
February 26th, 2012 at 7:44 am
Speaking of temporal consequences.
It is time to rise and shine.
Give em severe Sunday (no swearing) heck Mitt!
February 26th, 2012 at 7:49 am
If Romney does survive this primary – and it is still a question of if not when -
he may yet succumb to the same failed strategic thinking that has dogged his campaign.
It is well-known now that Romney’s plan was to run a rose garden/GE campaign in the primary,
engaging Obama and not his republican rivals believing they were too weak to pose a threat.
That strategy has lengthened the primary instead of shortening it and exposed weaknesses
that Obama can exploit in the GE. Romney has also had to move further right that he intended,
on immigration and taxes for example.
Those strategic flaws would become factors in a vp selection. One, Romney’s weakness with the
base must be ameliorated and that weakness includes a lack of enthusiasm. Two, he may need to
reach out to hispanics by if not a hispanic someone who is respected by hispanics. Three,
having stressed being an outsider Romney will need an insider, someone who knows how DC works
Portman, Daniels). Four, Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience needs to be balanced.
While Obama had less experience than McCain he nevertheless served on the foreign affairs
committee and worked on proliferation issues. Romney would give Obama a gift by choosing
someone like Christie with no foreign policy credentials.
The reason I mentioned arrogance earlier is that among many Romney supporters there is this
idea that Romney has no weaknesses, that the base will and must come around so there is
no need to appease them, and that the olympics qualifies as foreign policy. If the Romney
campaign thinks this way the vp selection is doomed.
February 26th, 2012 at 7:58 am
I don’t think Christie needs to be VP. He needs to be Sec. of Defense. Can’t you just hear him tell Iran where to go!
February 26th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Love the presumptuous title of this item, btw, which essentially boils down to a WAG about the Veep choice.
Since Mitt will be the nominee, I think he’ll need someone to compensate for Mitt’s inability to speak with some degree of consistency. Chris Christie looks great on paper in that capacity, since he can bring the fight with the temperament of a gifted federal prosecutor. We will definitely need someone who can apply sustained heat and light to the Obama record in a way that could get media coverage. I don’t see the moderatism being problematic here, since there’s no potential veep who can make Mitt suddenly into a flaming rightie after Mitt has tried to keep his conservatism low keyed.
Yet there’s every indication that Christie is not at all interested. He told Oprah quite convincingly that he had a job to do for his state, that he loved that job, that he promised his state’s residents that he would carry through his reforms, and that he didn’t have the personality who could play pocket pool in the background for four years.
Yes, I watched Oprah. There. I said it.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:18 am
From the Arizona Republic,
Governor Jan Brewer will be endorsing Mitt Romney this morning on Meet the Press!
Not really a surprise but still a nice get for Mitt
February 26th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Mitt just had a good appearance on Fox News Sunday.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:19 am
Rick Santy also said this morning that he does not think the separation of church and state should be absolute….oh boy he’s done it again folks!
February 26th, 2012 at 8:29 am
FL Con, Thanks for the info on Jan Brewer’s endorsement. I actually came to this site this morning to find out that exact information.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:29 am
177. The Brewer endorsement is one of those cases where it more important for the endorser than the endorsee. First of all, Mitt will win the AZ primary easily. I doubt that his team actually cared whether Brewer backed him or not. But for Brewer, there is a certain benefit from appealing to the conservative LDS folks politically in order to get their help pushing Brewer’s agenda.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:31 am
177. Interesting Brewer is actually going to endorse Romney on the show considering Santorum is also going to be on.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:32 am
#174
Don’t be silly. Of course we are aware of Mitt’s weaknesses, real and exaggerated. Of course we are aware of the very real StopMitt movement in the GOP. Why do you think there has been endless discussion here at Race re: his VP pick IF he’s the nom? Many of like Huckabee as VP because his yin to Mitt’s yang. Same with Rubio.
The VP pick for Mitt is extremely important. We all know it.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:40 am
As the sun rises over East Lansing it can be heard:
Give em severe Spartan hell Mitt!
February 26th, 2012 at 8:49 am
181. I think you are right about the endorsement is for Jan not Mitt, but not for the reason you suggested. The endorsement does not help with the LDS and her agenda. It helps AZ and the immigration law suit etc. If she can pick the guy who could be POTUS and have him on her team not against her.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:50 am
As the sun rises over the Grand Canyon;
Another Rino endorses Romney.
Give em “Brewer” hell Mitt!
February 26th, 2012 at 8:51 am
I think Brewer’s endorsement is just like all the other endorsements this cycle. They make no difference. Mitt was going to win, and he still is going to win. AZ is winner-take-all so the margin is irrelevant.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Brewer seems to be an opportunist by coming in after the battle has already
seemingly been won. I think the more interesting question is whether aligning
with her helps or hurts with hispanic and independent voters.
Romney’s interview on Fox was good, but has he appeared on any of the other Sunday
shows? Romney did a good job of describing his new tax plan and contrasting with Obama.
The most important part of the Q&A about taxes was Wallace’s question about the plan’s
impact on debt and deficits. Going down the road of slashing rates without spending cuts
only speeds us toward Greece.
February 26th, 2012 at 8:58 am
171…. I agree with you and the order you place the candidates in
February 26th, 2012 at 8:59 am
For all who want to see Brewer, turn on Meet the Press on NBC. It’s on in just a minute.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Never mind, it’s not on yet.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Jan Brewer http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/26/brewer-endorses-romney/
February 26th, 2012 at 9:13 am
174 I think you’re misreading some things from the race. I don’t think Romney moved further to the right on immigration, I don’t think he’s made any real changes in his policy there. He may have actually softened his rhetoric as compared to four years ago. As far as taxes, maybe his new plan is motivated by the state of the race, more likely I think it’s motivated by the state of the economy. Romney may have wanted to keep his rhetoric more toward the middle, but it’s silly to think NO contender would emerge. Romney’s got a good handle on this race at this point, and I don’t see a path for victory for anyone else. Gingrich has yet to do well, much less win outside of the “deep South”, and Santorum has only won some of the caucuses at this point. He has yet to do well in a primary. The only reason he won Iowa was because he surged too late to be vetted (as Michigan is now proving), and he was actively being pumped up by Fox – even during their caucus coverage.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Romney’s supporters have a lack of entheusiasm, and I don’t think it’s accurate to exclude his supporters from “the base”. Sure there are people who are under the belief that there are others to the right of Romney, but guess what – those people were voting for Romney 4 years ago when he was viewed as to the right of McCain. So Romney will pick them up when he goes against Obama. As far as reaching out to Hispanics, I think his tax plan will do just that. As far as needing an “insider”, I think that’s exactly what Romney doesn’t need. It would destroy one of his best reasons for running, kind of like how McCain destroyed his experience argument by choosing Palin (even though Palin was arguably more experienced than Obama). I don’t think Romney’s viewed as “weak” on foreign policy. I think he has a pretty good command of the issues. I don’t think that will be an issue.
If you’re looking for a weakness to fill in for Romney during the general election, then I’d find someone who can attack, and boast about Romney. Romney’s horrible at boasting, and he’s too nice to his opponents – including Obama. Anyone who sharply attacks Obama will “excite the base”. I just want to make sure it’s someone who won’t make a lot of gaffes, and say stupid things.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:14 am
183
…and REALLY exaggerated.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:16 am
186 The Romney campaign is like a RINO factory. Every week they make someone else a RINO.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:28 am
My wife thinks that Mitt will only pick a former governor as VP, someone with experience who can take over if Ann gets sick. She thinks that if Ann gets sick, Mitt will step down.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Mitch Daniels is very impressive on FNS, it’s a damn shame he decided not to run, almost a dereliction of duty.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:33 am
174.
>>The reason I mentioned arrogance earlier is that among many Romney supporters there is this
idea that Romney has no weaknesses, that the base will and must come around so there is
no need to appease them, and that the olympics qualifies as foreign policy. If the Romney
campaign thinks this way the vp selection is doomed
yada, yada, yada.
No matter who wins the nomination, next November is a binary choice. You either vote for the Republican nominee or, by doing nothing, you help re-elect Obama. Thats it. There is no other choice.
If you needs someone to motivate you to get Obama out of the White House then you haven’t been paying attention over the last 3 1/2 years.
The next President will, among other things, decide whether we have a shot at an economic recovery or we go the way of Europe. He will also nominate at least 2 new Supreme Court justices. We are at the crossroads of one of the most important times in our nations history.
Anyone who would stay home rather than exercise their right to try and put someone in other than Obama, even someone who is not their first choice, because they don’t feel motivated or are sulking is an immature dope.
If Santorum gets the nomination, I will walk through fire to vote for him and I don’t care for him at all. But he sure as hell isn’t Obama and thats good enough for me.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:58 am
LMBO at ‘honorable mentions’ Rick Santorum. HAHAHAHA. I hope he picks Christie or Bush … furthering his ‘Washington Outsider’ stance. Send a couple of governors to the White House to clean things up. I’m down with that!! Although, I do love Rubio. Like, a lot.
February 26th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Rush has criticized Mitt for being “unable to articulate conservatism.” Articulating conservatism is Rubio’s long suit.
February 26th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Off the subject… Romney going to win Wyoming Caucus…85% of vote in and Romney will win… S anty second, Paul third and the Grinch last. See below.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/01/29/mitt-romney-has-literally-defined-the-meaning-of-service-by-example/
February 26th, 2012 at 10:17 am
Sorry Wyoming results here:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149311.0
February 26th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Speaking of this Mormon issue, this is what I emailed to a non-Mormon friend of mine after reading he POLITICO story about Rubio being a Mormon when he was a child:
This is a very interesting story that I just read from POLITICO. Florida Senator Marco Rubio actually may have been a baptized member of the Mormon Church when he was younger. This would mean that all of the anti-Mormon bigots will start going against him now & he will no longer be their beloved choice for a candidate. But most of those anti-Mormons actually love people who used to be Mormons but are no longer affiliated with the faith more than anybody else because they are constantly trying to save people from the “Satanic clutches of the Mormon Cult.”
Either way, it will definitely make it harder for Romney to pick Rubio as his running mate. A former Mormon running mate (even though Rubio was just a child) adds to questions about Romney’s own faith. It will lead to the why did Rubio’s family leave the faith type of questions. But there will also be those conspiracy theorists who will argue that Rubio is really still a Mormon & it’s all a big secret plot by the evil Mormon Church to set up their next Mormon President after Mitt Romney who is secretly working for the Mormon Church.
Those are the same idiot people who argue that because Obama went to some Muslim school as a child, that he’s a Muslim now even though he says that he’s a Christian. It sounds familiar.”
Not to toot my own horn too much, but this Obama is still a Muslim comparison is still the best one I’ve heard to the Rubio situation, except in Rubio’s case, his religiosity is a distraction that the Presidential candidate at the top of the Ticket just doesn’t need.
I’m guessing Romney will pick either Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, or Kelly Ayote.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
I think putting Cathy McMorris Rodgers at #6 is savvy. In fact, the race will likely come down to her, Portman, and McDonnell (since Christie, Rubio, and Jindal will all take themselves out of consideration). She is only plausible woman contender (Martinez, Haley, and Ayotte are too inexperienced), and as another commenter pointed out, she would bring a Palin-level type of excitement while also demonstrating the knowledge and experience that Palin didn’t (McMorris Rodgers is a 4-term Member of Congress and a 2-term Member of the House Republican Leadership team). If Romney is tied or behind Obama this summer (as seems likely), anyone who thinks Romney is going “safe” is crazy. He will go for the exciting pick. Exciting, but also competent. And that will probably mean McMorris Rodgers.
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:33 am
If it were a popularity contest, Rubio would win hands down. He is just so likeable. Appears to be so trustworthy. When I watch him speak, it does bring back the way I felt when watching/listening to Reagan. And Romney/Rubio has a good ring to it.