I recently saw some video footage of Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on stage together and I thought they looked good together. Their statures, physiques, and overall appearances seemed to complement each other. Visually, at least, they looked like a good ticket. Considering the fact that Romney’s campaign has no grassroots component, the optics become vitally important. His campaign has to look right because it is going to be run entirely on television, mainly through advertising. Paul Ryan fits that bill a lot better than Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, or Chris Christie. But, when it comes to selecting a running mate, optics are not the only consideration. I don’t know the law in Wisconsin, but it’s often against the law to appear on the ballot for two separate federal offices. It’s possible that Paul Ryan would have to give up his House seat in order to run for vice-president. Should the ticket lose, that would be a big sacrifice for Ryan and the movement he is leading.
But who else can make a plausible running mate? Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to force themselves onto the ticket, but Romney will not pick them willingly. The other presidential candidates flamed out in embarrassing fashion. Marco Rubio is a crook. The only other sitting senator that ever seems to get mentioned is John Thune of South Dakota, but I think that’s more for his tall stature and jutting jaw than for his brains or campaigning ability.
Romney could choose South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, but picking untested rookie governors is probably not at the top of Romney’s priority list. Plus, Gov. Haley has some tax and relationship issues.
I think Romney’s best option among elected officials are Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. But I don’t think any of these choices are very good.
Mitch Daniels reinforces Romney’s unhip milquetoast image. And his ties to the Bush economic team are a problem. Plus, his family didn’t want him to run for president.
Bobby Jindal reminds everyone of Kenneth from 30 Rock. He’s awkward and not very good on the stump.
Chris Christie is a great attack dog, but he’s on the record as saying he’s not prepared to be president. Also, speaking as a Jersey Boy myself I can tell you firsthand that our abrasive bombastic style goes over like a lead balloon in the Midwest. Finally, Chris Christie is morbidly obese. His health cannot be very good.
Rob Portman is almost synonymous with Bush’s failed economic policies. He’s also a boring politician in the Mitch Daniels/CPA mold. I think he’s the best choice though. Romney needs to win Ohio. And Portman’s strengths (he understands the federal budget and trade issues) reinforce what Romney’s trying to sell the public. Portman doesn’t have any embarrassing personal problems that I’m aware of. And, while he won’t excite the base of the party, he won’t alienate them either. Finally, he won’t upstage Romney the way Palin upstaged McCain.
So, I’d go with Portman, but I’d actually try to do something else. I’d try to find someone in business or the military to put on the ticket. The CEO of an admired company would be ideal. Mark Zuckerberg???
Given Romney’s weaknesses among the non-plutocrat elements of the electorate; his lack of appeal to Southern voters; Obama’s surprising strength in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia; and the frequent practice of seeking geographic balance, I predict that he chooses a Southern populist. Is there a smarter version of Rick Perry?
I’m with Joe on this one. I think he’ll go Southern.
He desperately needs to excite the base. And in all the criteria frequently mentioned for picking a VP, picking someone from a swing state so as to win the state has to be the most overrated. Are there any modern examples of a ticket winning a state because of the appeal (native or otherwise) of the VP candidate? I can’t think of any.
For that matter, I can’t even remember the last time a Republican picked a running mate from a swing state. Palin, Cheney, Kemp, Quayle, Bush…none of them have been from states seriously contested in their elections. And Democrats from swing states (Edwards, Lieberman, Gore) haven’t been all that helpful in their home states.
Are you saying Lieberman’s home state was Florida? Because that’s the state he was picked to win. Too bad his votes went to Pat Buchanan.
I think Chris Christie is, in effect, a Southern populist, in the same way that Rick Santorum is, in effect, a Southern evangelical Protestant. And Christie just traveled to Israel. I’m betting on him right now.
Don’t forget that Christie will have to face Biden in a debate. The visual of an morbid obese Christie standing next to Biden….
Maybe I’m the only one, but I kind of like the image of a heavy guy running for office. With so many perfect-plastic-people politicians straight from central casting, someone with such an obvious physical and aesthetic detriment seems more real, in a way.
Not to mention, it makes him seem like a heavy-weight. This isn’t some student council president, popular kid all grown up. This isn’t someone, obviously, who got where he is by being charming and handsome. It suggests that he’s got something going on, if he could overcome such a liability.
Bill Clinton looked like the President of the Student Council. Barack Obama looks like the President of the Young Democrats. George W. Bush looked like the son of a former President.
Chris Christie looks like a DPW Director, and on a totally irrational level, I find that I respond to that.
Why would Christie do it? If he runs as Veep, and loses, he’s toast in ’13. And it would ruin any chance he has at 2016. Not to mention, I am sure Christie calling Afghan/Iraq War vets idiots(like he did a few weeks ago) would go over well with independent voters.
Well, re: calling vets idiots: Christie’s delusions about himself and the reality of his chances should he run are two vastly different things. Christie will play as well as a candidate as the highly touted Rick Perry.
Re Christie becoming a hot VP candidate, just follow the waistline. If we see him shedding some serious poundage in the next few months, that probably means Romney might actually do it.
But right now I would put good money betting against both possibilities, the major weight loss and his being picked. Temperamentally he’s not exactly well suited to be in a subordinate position. This guy clearly needs to be the one in charge, as with most bully type personalities.
Meanwhile the Mittster has the luxury over the next 4-5 mos to quietly vet a number of potentials representing a range of strengths and weaknesses, and wait to see what the political lay of the land looks like in August before deciding how bold or out of the box he needs to go.
Christie isn’t wingnutty enough.
Agree but his bully personality makes up for wingnuttery deficiencies. Repubs like bullies and tough talkers, they have since the days of McCarthy and Nixon and John Wayne.
agree, except I think he’s already shed some lbs. a couple years ago there were no photos or video of him standing up. maybe he’s trying for 2016 and maybe he’s discovered he can’t lose weight (maybe he’ll go with surgery the way Huckabee is reputed to have done).
If he runs as Veep, and loses, he’s toast in ’13. And it would ruin any chance he has at 2016.
Chris Christie probably knows that he’s toast anyway, as a Republican governor in a deep blue state who only won because his opponent was under dark clouds.
Also, Republicans don’t work that way. They actually respect and reward their losing candidates for fighting the good fight, as opposed to Democrats, who cast the aside like trash.
Ah gee and I was hoping you would offer up Allen West. He’s perfectly inexperienced, has a nasty mouth big enough to insert both his and Mitt’s feet, loves the power carrot, a TParty standard bearer, represets the worst of the military…
Even if God existed, She wouldn’t love me enough to give me that present.
I was thinking a Gingrich-Christie ticket. think of the visuals vs. Obama Biden
And he lost to Obama before, and has been known to go birther. Sounds like the perfect candidate to me. š
He’s a southerner, at least by career — like Gingrich, he was also born in Pennsylvania. He’s governor of a battleground state. And he ran on “Bob’s for Jobs”. Plus, he’s got military experience, which is a sore spot for the Romneys.
Bob McConnel wouldn’t be a bad choice right enough.
Maybe, but there’s the whole ultrasound vaginal probe issue on his record now.
Granted, Creigh Deeds was a terrible candidate, but McDonnell wasn’t hurt by his thesis or other extremist positions during the governor race. And he crushed.
He’s got the look of a moderate, with the soul and heart of an extremist. Perfect pick, imo.
I don’t think any of us understand the Republican mindset and values system they use to pick Vice Presidents. There’s never any pattern there.
The Democrats do the same damn thing 80% of the time. Their VPs come from the Senate. Longstanding senate insiders and foreign policy hands. No neophytes or fresh faces.
Kennedy? Johnson.
Humphrey? Muskie.
Carter? Mondale.
Dukakis? Bentsen.
Clinton? Gore.
Gore? Lieberman.
Obama? Biden.
Whenever they deviate from this pattern (McGovern, Mondale, Kerry), it’s a surefire sign that something very bad is about to happen.
But the GOP? Honest to god, it seems like they just pull names out of a hat sometimes. Picking Palin or Quayle proves that they simply don’t take the process seriously as a party.
Whenever they deviate from this pattern (McGovern, Mondale, Kerry), it’s…
Because they put the longtime Senate insider at the top of the ticket instead.
BTW, Kerry didn’t do badly. He came closer to unseating an incumbent wartime President than any challenger in history.
I’m going to say it again … Corker. Looks good. Foreign policy creds. Senate experience. Southern. Was a business guy, I believe and a mayor. Born in South Carolina. I guess he’s running in 2012 for Senate again, and perhaps with a serious tea party challenger. But still, he seems like a fit with Romney. The Republicans won’t want a 1st term governor. Did that last time which was a disaster. They need someone with Washington experience, no matter what else they may say. Military? Wouldn’t hurt.
The only thing less interesting than Mitt Romney is the loser he picks to be his VP. This is like learning about the models for a men’s wearhouse photo spread.
I hear rumblings of a Dave Petraus.
How about Mel Gibson? He was born in the US, so I’m pretty sure he’s eligible. He’s a real live action hero, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he’s way the hell more conservative than Arnold.
There’s an interesting wrinkle to all this. Does the VP pick become next cycle’s presumptive frontrunner, or does he or she get tagged as a loser for being associated with the clumsy Romney campaign? Both are possible, but they work at cross purposes. Someone like McDonnell or Rubio probably has an eye on 2016 already. I think something similar happened with the Obama veepstakes: picking an heir apparent would rub too many people in the party the wrong way. Note that Clinton ran with an heir, and Kerry did, and McCain did, while Bush did not, and Obama did not.
So my sense is that McDonnell and Rubio will knock each other out of contention.
Zuckerberg? Kind of tough as he’s 27. He can’t even buy a Senate seat yet.
Mark Zuckerberg
Good one, BooMan.
When Willard is drowning, throw him an anchor.
All the folks who despise Facebook’s changes will either cross over or sit it out.
If the VP is supposed to complement the Presidential candidate, then clearly Rmoney needs a photogenic younger minority, fundamentalist Christian, female, southern/western, military, social conservative teabagger from a poor background who can learn their lines, smile, wink, engage with people and generally exude charisma and “personality”.
Any actual serious governmental experience is a handicap.