It’s time for Mitt Romney to start searching for a running mate, and it’s pretty obvious that the vetting process is going to be different this time around.
It’s not going to be pretty,” said [Republican operative] Rick Wilson. “It’s not only about whether they paid their taxes, but are they ready to face the cameras and have they ever said anything that get used in an ad. You never had to deal with this YouTube archive before.”
“In this hyper-connected Internet world, what passed for vetting a few years ago is now grossly inadequate,” he said.
This time, they’re not going to pick someone who has to be taught the entire history of the Cold War on index cards. And they don’t want someone who’s been digitally captured saying that nearly half the Democrats in Congress are actually communists. Of course, candidates will be required to have paid their taxes. And they probably don’t want someone who has a record of stealing from the Republican Party (sorry, Marco Rubio).
In recent years, the Republicans have been extremely unpredictable in their choices of running mates. I do remember seeing Quayle listed as one of about 10 or 12 possible veep picks in a 1988 New York Times article. I joked at the time that Bush would pick the “pretty one,” which he did. But that was late in the game, and almost no one knew anything about Dan Quayle. Bob Dole selected Jack Kemp, which came as a surprise. Kemp had been out of office for a few years and he’d never held any office higher than congressman. He didn’t bring any regional help, he didn’t excite the base, and he couldn’t help Dole carry New York State. In 2000, no one could have predicted that Dubya would select the man he chose to run the vetting process. And Sarah Palin came from out of the blue.
The Democrats did throw a hail mary in 1984 with Geraldine Ferraro, but they’ve been a little more rational since then. Dukakis tried to repeat the Massachusetts/Texas magic of the 1960 ticket when he selected Lloyd Bentsen. Clinton surprised some people by eschewing regional balance with his pick of Gore, but the strategy worked well, winning Gore’s home state of Tennessee twice in a row. Gore’s selection of Lieberman confirmed his DLC credentials and was an obvious effort to win enough Jewish votes in Florida to put him over the top. Unfortunately, a badly designed ballot in Palm Beach caused a lot of those Jewish retirees to erroneously cast their ballots for well-known anti-Semite Pat Buchanan. John Kerry chose his closest competitor, which was reminiscent of Reagan’s decision to put Poppy on his ticket in 1980. Finally, Obama selected one of his weaker opponents, but a man with a long track record in the U.S. Senate.
Romney won’t follow McCain’s example, but he will consider some of these other strategies. The least likely scenario would be for him to follow Reagan and Kerry’s strongest-opponent strategy and pick Santorum. Nor will he follow Obama and pick from further down the roster. As I see it, he can emulate Gore, Clinton, or Dukakis.
If he wants to emulate Gore, he will pick someone who gives him moderate credentials and can help him win one big state. An obvious choice would be Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
If he wants to emulate Clinton, he will forget about any regional balance and pick someone who shares his profile as a New England Republican with a fairly moderate record. I don’t think this strategy would go over very well at the convention and it would cause a lot of infighting within the party, but it would help him shake that Etch a Sketch. Unfortunately for Mitt, there aren’t a whole lot of people to choose from. Maybe former New York Governor George Pataki would fit the bill.
If he wants to emulate Dukakis, he’ll choose someone from the South who is a real conservative son of a gun. Possible choices include former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, current Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.
If he wants to mix and match a little bit, he could go with the other Tennessee senator, Lamar Alexander.
There are two other things worthy of some consideration. Romney could wind up in the same place that Walter Mondale and John McCain found themselves. Polling data could paint a grim picture where none of the obvious choices are going to do enough to make a difference. He may feel compelled to search for a game changer.
If he goes that route, he may seek to radically alter some demographic, which would probably be either the voting pattern of Latinos or of women. He’d be well-advised to stay away from ethically troubled candidates like Nikki Haley of South Carolina or Marco Rubio of Florida. And New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, both Latinos, are quite light on experience.
The last consideration is the base and their level of enthusiasm. Like McCain, Romney has a problem with the base. Picking an extreme social conservative can serve like a shot of adrenaline, but it can also wear off and leave a bad hangover. The battle for the presidency is not just a battle among the bases of the two parties. It’s a battle for the middle, too. Firing up the base by picking a factually-challenged fire-breathing conservative will help turnout and volunteerism and fundraising among the faithful, but it will cause suburbanites to flee into Obama’s arms.
So, tough choices for Romney. Which strategy do you think he will employ?
If the gender gap is still this favorable to the Ds this Summer, I imagine that Romney would want to consider picking a woman for the ticket. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) could potentially be a strong pick, and here’s why.
Anyway, my two cents. I think the main thing now is for us to continue pushing hard so that we can sink Romney early and focus on Congress.
She’s a woman, so some Democrat somewhere would say “She’s like Palin!” which Republicans and the media would go crazy on, saying “Why? Do you think all women are the same?! Thats sexist!” and it would seriously harm our narrative.
Thanks 🙂
I don’t know that much about her. My West Virginia friends are unflattering in their depictions, but that’s to be expected.
That would be a real Mondale move, though, picking a woman from the House who doesn’t appear to have the credentials to be president if something happens.
It will probably come down to if Portman can actually win him OH. I don’t know if he can, since the state GOP has soured the electorate and fired up our base there.
A less obvious choice is Mitch Daniels of Indiana. He comes from an Obama state, although one that Romney expects to win even without Daniels’ help. But he also has executive experience, and he’s business-oriented.
On the down side, he’s called for ending the culture wars, he’s really pissed off labor, he’s pretty bland, and his wife wouldn’t let him run for president and might not let him run for vice.
I don’t think candidates emulate their predecessors as much as learn from their mistakes. And I think there’s a clear lesson that R-Money will take from McCain – first, do no harm. The VP pick is unlikely to help a whole lot, but it can cost a lot. (Once the pick is made, the search for historical “precedents” can then turn up historical examples to make it seem savvy, reasonable, normal, etc.)
R-Money will go with a safe pick — I’m liking Portman, assuming he vets out. While Rubio would be the sexy pick — there’s no GOP win without Florida, plus LATINOS! — there’s just too much downside risk: former Mormon, tons of video of him saying crazy stuff, proven dishonesty, etc.
There’s nothing about R-Money to suggest he’s a risk taker. It’ll be someone like Portman, even if it means foregoing tastier choices that shore up Florida, Latinos, women, etc. I’d bet that his arrogance will go something like this: “If anyone is going to lose this, it’ll be R-Money my own self, not some pischer from Florida (or South Carolina, etc.)”
Considering Romney isn’t going to win, he’ll be pressured to pick someone that best helps down-ticket. It’s why I still say McDonnell. Portman might help with Sherrod Brown.
So yeah, McDonnell or Portman then.
Dude. He’s getting killed with women.
And? It’s attached to the Republican brand. He’s not going to escape it unless he picks George Pataki. And then the base will be pissed and it won’t matter anyway. It’s lose-lose. Might as well embrace it and go where it might help in the Senate.
Yeah, accountability’s a bitch.
So there’s also the point that they’re fighting at best a squeeker race against Obama, so who’s willing to toss their political capital into a race with so many factions from their party and so little leadership? It’s a time capsule that will be remembered among Rep’s for more than one cycle as a time of Party weakness, so who would want to have their career buried in that.
Anyone with future aspirations would follow Jeb’s lead and let the dust settle. Of course they could go for Scott Brown, he’s gotta be feeling like he’d like to move on.
No, Scott Brown’s got a good chance to hold his Senate seat. He won’t jump from that to a probably doomed VP run.
Scott Brown’s chances of holding the seat are iffy. He’s in a race to the finish for a very blue seat against a very aggressive candidate. This ain’t Martha he’s running against.
That said, why the hell would Scott Brown even be considered for the VP? No experience in Foreign affairs, no particular tie to the TeaParty, No chance of bringing in a HomeState or even of significantly affecting a border state (NH/RI/ME) and he’s not really an attack dog. He’s more of an attack shih-tzu.
Nah, no Massholes on the R ticket except the top.
It was snark on my part but R’s seem to like pretty and he campaigns with his charm and a pickup truck. Course the TParty is pretty disappointed at his pseudo sensibie voting record. They wouldn’t worry about his grasp of foreign affairs, look at Romney..
I agree he certainly isn’t a lock to hold the seat, but Massachusetts isn’t as solidly blue as people outside the state* see it. Brown plays to the moderate image and is a very good campaigner. I think Warren’s chances of knocking him off are good but it’s by no means a slamdunk.
*Lifelong Masshole here.
Granted. Most of the blue is from the urban centers and there is quite a bit of suburban and even a few recognizable non-urban sites … mostly in the “west” (1.5 hours from Boston).
But, Warren is mashalling the troops (I’m a canvasser for Sterling/Lancaster) in a GOTV effort RIGHT NOW!
Brown is a good campaigner and is considered somewhat of a moderate. But the left base is fired up also.
We’ll see.
Pawlenty. Romney will play it completely safe and get someone with even less personality than he has.
If Romney wants a woman candidate who can appeal to the center while he appeals to the base, there’s Kay Bailey Hutchison.
I suspect that like most governors, he would like to have someone with experience and friends in Congress. Lamar Alexander has extensive experience in Congress and was once a pro-education governor in the same mold as Clinton and Richard Riley. Of course, that was a generation ago.
At this point, there is no way that Romney is going to repair relations with African-Americans or Latinos. Picking someone like Marco Rubio would be too obvious a pander and would backfire.
To deal with his Mormon problem, he might pick Santorum or Huckabee.
The answer is so obvious I can’t believe nobody else has posted it.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2012 Republican ticket:
Who else could possibly do more for the Etch-A-Sketch than She-Ra, the most powerful woman in the universe? Her strength is sure to appeal to women everywhere, while her outfit and capacity for handling weaponry will certainly endear her to the lizard brained republican base.
The meetings held with the religious Cons that led to Santorum suspending may have taken Rmoney’s choice from him. If they expect him to lose anyway, he has to try for a respectable showing by putting on a ‘true believer.’ That way Rmoney isn’t utterly humiliated in November and an anointed ‘true believer’ polishes his (it will be a man) resume.
“If he wants to emulate Clinton, he will forget about any regional balance and pick someone who shares his profile as a New England Republican with a fairly moderate record.” This strategy would also make the Mainers – Snowe and Collins – available. This certainly wouldn’t make ‘the base’ happy, but could blunt some of the ‘war on women’ damage.
.
Mitt Romney will have to decide whether to stay close to the Independents vote or the religious right wing. The evangelists consider the Mormons a religious cult and blasphemous. They see Mitt’s drive towards the presidency as a threat for christianity and a means to convert masses across the globe to Mormonism. Accordingly they explain Mitt’s call towards the presidency as Mormon divine intervention. I don’t see Mitt Romney getting any votes from the fundamental christians and their pastors. If there is some truth in this discussion, Mitt could be a bigger disaster for the US than George Bush.
Therefore Miit Romney will play the Hate Obama Card.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."You realized you started out with “No way he picks Palin” and then laid out exactly why he has no choice but to pick Palin, right?
But why does Obama lie…whoops… I meant engage in deceipt…”We tried this before, and it didn’t work”, referring to the “Bush” tax cuts…wait a minute…they DID work…Boo, you’re good at this…please research job and GDP growth from the evil GOP tax cuts until the Democrat-caused, Freddie and Fannie-caused real-estatate bubble burst starting in circa-2007…Bush tax looks good! Post-911 economic and job growth was astounding!…Reagonomics Works!…
Here’s what Progressives are scared crappless about…Obama blames the sluggishness of the “recovery” on the severity on the severity of the downturn…but history shows, with the exception of the “recovery” overseen by the other Progressive hero FDR…this is the most pathetic “recovery”, as measured by GDP and Job growth, in U.S. history…but history tells a much different story…the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery…Reagan’s inherited recession, as measured by unemployment and GDP contraction, was more severe than Obama’s…but look at his Job and GDP growth!!!
take a good hard look at what you’re saying L4A…it’s so wrong on so many levels that it’s surprising even for you.
to wit, from a 24 sep 2010 analysis from So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy? from tax.com:
you should avail yourself of the entire article there’s lots of damning evidence that directly contradicts the smoke and mirror fantasy world you appear to reside in.
perhaps then you can come back and convince me/us that reaganomics is anything more than a different phrase for voodoo economics and not really the failure it’s shown to be.
I think Romney’s campaign meta-rationale is going to be something like “I may not be a barrel of laughs, but I’m successful, and it’s time to get serious and solve the nation’s problems with business sense, not ideology.” That would set up a move towards pragmatism over partisanship, business over government, etc. And if that’s what he tries, he’ll go for a business leader or a military man, not an elected politician. I don’t have names in mind, but I don’t think it’ll be Petraeus.
Here’s the good news Progressivevs…there’s a clandestine movement among the “new rich”…we know our wealth comes from something from other than ourselves…and we are going to teach every human being on this planet how to “Fish”…
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Veep Sweepstakes
I’m in for either Portman, Paul Ryan, or Huckabee, who could win him the South (portions of which he actually might lose in a very low-republican-turnout race).
Can Ryan win him Illinois? Probably not, but it would buttress his queasy base. Portman is most likely.
No Hail Moroni passes from Mitt, though. It will be someone safe. In part because Romney thinks he can win it by himself.