Skip to comments.Sedona Soundings (McCain aide says NO to Romney,Cris VP, considering Jindal for VP)
Posted on 05/27/2008 7:06:29 PM PDT by adi
click here to read article
If true, I think it’s heartening that McCain is not seriously considering either Romney or Crist as his runningmate. McCain needs to pick someone that is (i) at the very least acceptable to both social and economic conservatives, and preferably inspiring to conservatives, and (ii) ready to serve as president from Day 2. While Romney and Crist have the experience to serve as president, they both have quite liberal records and would be disastrous as McCain’s runningmate.
Bobby Jindal would be an outstanding VP (or perhaps even presidential) nominee for 2012, but I think that he needs a few more years of gubernatorial experience before making the jump. Besides, he’s only served as governor for 6 months and has way too much important work to do in LA to leave the government to the Democrat Lt. Gov.
I think McCain’s best bets are the same two guys I’ve been proposing ever since it was clear that McCain would be the GOP presidential nominee: SC Gov. Mark Sanford and MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Former OH Congressman Rob Portman is an intriguing choice as well, given the importance of OH and neighboring PA and MI. WI Congressman Paul Ryan (who was one of my longshots along with fellow House conservatives Mike Pence and Steve King) is also a principled conservative from a swing district (51% for Bush in 2000)in a swing state (50% for Kerry) in a swing region (the WI-MN-IA tri-state area went to Kerry by only 50%-49%), but is a young, good-looking guy who could get Dan Quayled by the media despite his accomplishments.
Whoever McCain picks, he or she better be a conservative or he’ll lose in November (and make our dim House and Senate prospects even dimmer).
Point is - Obama DOESN'T have enough experience - and should he live to be a hundred, he still won't.
Palin and Jindal, however, could well mature in experience and be ready in another election cycle or two - but not yet.
Experienced enough now to be VP, maybe, but not POTUS - which is what must be considered.
It has occurred to me that the main obstacle regarding McC is that he has so many years of service - So there's a plethora of things to agree/disagree with him on...whereas with all the new whippersnappers, service wise, with only a couple years under their belts, don't have much action to point a finger at.
That doesn't make them Knights/Knightettes ;o)... in shining armor. Give them 20+ years in office and each will have plenty of actions some of us will disagree with.
I'll take real and sustained experience and remember that we will never have a candidate that has delivered 100% the way each of us would agree with...especially since each of us have a different list of pet subjects.
Indeed, many in FR demand 'their' candidate agree with them 110%.
We need to keep our eye on the ball: Do we want to take a chance the clinton gets back into the Oval Office? Do we dare take a chance that obamama gets his skinny little polished, programmed puppet arse into the WH?
If not, we need to tuck our precious egos into our back pockets and vote McC.
I think I agree with you.
Obama is unqualified to be president by reason of inexperience. Jindal and Palin each have at least as much experience as Obama, and have some executive experience which Obama lacks entirely, but neither of them have enough to be president either. If the choice is between an inexperienced candidate for president versus an inexperienced candidate for vice president, the decision is obvious.
The inexperience of Obama manifests itself continually in his gaffes when speaking without a script. The man is simply incapable of tip-toeing through the minefield that is foreign policy, where we simultaneously must work with less than perfect regimes while advoctaing for democratic reforms; and, where we are both the only superpower in the world and must seek to involve other, lesser powers in diplomacy.
Obama obviously appeals to the utopian element in the Democratic Party, but the majority of the American people will see him as the empty suit that he is.
Having said this, I must, in fairness, point out that the neocons in the Bush Administration were/may continue to be simplistic in their analysis of foreign affairs.
And he needs time to prove his ability to clean up the muck and mire of corruption. N.O. is one of the most corrupt cities in the nation...It's a swamp in more ways than one.
If Jindal is able to defeat the entrenched corruption in LA, he will have proved himself. Until then, even though he shines like a new penny now, he, and others with so little time in the saddle, is untested as far as being material for VP within a breath of the presidency...
I think that, since McCain is a westerner who has been a U.S. senator and representative, he should balance the ticket by choosing a conservative who has been a governor from a state that is in the eastern half of the U.S. John Ashcroft would be the perfect choice. Although he ran for re-election to the U.S. Senate and lost to a dead man, he later got four years of experience, as the U.S. attorney general. That experience would help him as McCain’s running-mate and as vice president.
If McCain wins the election, whom should he nominate for some cabinet positions? I think that he should nominate these people: Secretary of State, Dirk Kempthorne; Sec. of Treasury, Ed Schafer; Sec. of Defense, Mel Martinez; Sec. of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchison; Attorney General, John Sweeney; Sec. of the Interior, Richard Pombo; Secretary of Agriculture, Frank Keating; and Chief of Staff, Newt Gingrich.
My best estimate is that a President moves the numbers 4 points in his home state and 2 points in nearby states, and that a Vice President moves the numbers 2 points in his home state. Gore did o.k. in Tennessee in 2000, and way better than Kerry did in 2004, but not well enough to deliver his home state. But Kerry did make the difference in New Hampshire in 2004. So, in a very close election, the candidate or his running mate might help deliver a particular, crucial state.
The traditional rules for tabbing a Vice President are these:
2.balance the ticket, regionally or philosophically (this means McCain has to name a conservative)
3.help in a crucial state.
Your point that Governor Palin can help with a demographic group, cutting across the country, and helping in several potentially crucial states, is a new and interesting consideration.
We Republicans need to appeal to women and to Hispanics. I think Governor Palin can help with appealing to women; and, I think both McCain and she can appeal to Hispanics on the issue of patriotism unless Obama tabs Richardson as his running mate.
Your point that, from our perspective, this election is about preventing the Democrats from totally consolidating power is absolutely correct.
We stand to lose 3 to 7 Senators. With such losses, I don’t believe we would be able to sustain a filibuster in the Senate (think of the several RINOs in our midst). With a majority of any size in the House, a large enough majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the White House, it will be Katy Bar the Door.
On the other hand, with a RINO president, and a firmly Democratic Congress, the net movement will be in the wrong direction, but we will survive.
Hopefully, in 2010 and ‘12, and with the War in Iraq finally over, we’ll retake the House and the Senate.
This is why I would support McCain enthusiastically as long as he names a conservative running mate. I am looking toward the future.
On the other hand, if he names a fellow RINO, I will give serious consideration to supporting Bob Barr.
Even if he doesn't like Romney, he sure seems to be using his connections to raise money.
As I have pointed out to Owen, I have seen little evidence to suggest that Romney would be all that helpful in Michigan. In the most recent statewide poll in Michigan, McCain has inched ahead of Obama. McCain may very well carry Michigan on his own merits.
The only state in play in the New England is New Hampshire. It was Romney's loss in New Hampshire combined with his poor showing in Iowa which made most political analysts realize that Mitt Romney was a weak candidate. McCain has a very good chance of carrying NH by himself.
I strongly doubt that anyone is going to pay a lot of attention to what the VP candidate has to say about the economy.
On the purely EV calculus, the one person at Sedona who could be the big player is Tom Ridge. He likely delivers Pennsylvania's EV and could help with Ohio. (I am opposed to such a move due to Ridge's politics but the guy is still real popular in Pennsylvania.)
Sanford would be a very safe choice. He would strenghten McCain's standing with conservatives without undermining his appeal to independents. If McCain believes that Obama will be exposed during the campaign as the lightweight that he is, I could see McCain pickinng Sanford confident that enough swing states will come his way that 270 EVs are assured.
Hey, let’s be very straightforward here. The incidence of state flipping from one election to another is very rare. It requires enormous change for it to happen.
Romney is not guaranteed to take Michigan. The reason Michigan looms tempting is that the Dem governor there is not popular, they had a budget battle there last year that resolved as badly as California’s and . . . Romney does better there than McCain. Add to that . . . Obama did and will do worse there than would Hillary, and McCain got it over Bush in 2000. Michigan sits out there with a very tempting 17 blue EVs to make a grab for, and Romney is the only name floated — who has fundraising potential — that points at it.
That’s my case for Michigan. Pennsylvania and Tom Ridge I do confess are tempting, but the closest gap I have seen in PA polls is 3% and most are wider. Michigan’s Obama issue would be Detroit’s black population and Pennsylvania’s would be Philly and Pittsburgh — but neither stopped Hillary.
Tom Ridge is a McCain style centrist. He signed a ton of execution orders as a strong Law and Order guy.
The big obstacle for him is what has always been, for him and Sam Nunn.
He is pro-Choice. Sam Nunn is pro-Life. These are two very qualified guys but those positions make them poison to their own party.
Oh, forgot to comment on Sanford.
He can be safely dismissed in total. He adds not a single Electoral Vote. The grab has to be for a swing state. Playing defense is weak. Playing offense and making a grab for some EVs is the path to victory.
Generally, that is true. We shall see if running a centrist will put some of the blue states into play that were out-of-reach for a more hard-core conservative. Michigan might well be that type of state.
Romney does better there than McCain
I'm not sure I see what voting group in Michigan flocks to McCain because Romney is the VP candidate. I think that McCain himself can pull together a winning coalition in Michigan against Obama.
Tom Ridge is a McCain style centrist
However, despite his claims to the contrary, so is Mitt Romney. That is why I would much prefer Sanford or Barbour to either Ridge or Romney.
I wouldn't be so dismissive of Sanford. He could rally the conservative base in a way that Romney never could. Most Movement Conservatives don't trust Romney. Their support of Romney was only a marriage of convenience to try and defeat McCain. They will be the first ones off the Romney bandwagon in the 2012 primaries (if McCain isn't running for re-election) when a true conservative (Sanford, Barbour, etc.) gets in.
Before McCain begins looking for swing states, he needs to make sure his electoral base in the red states is solid. All McCain has to do is win the same states that were won by Dubya in 2004. The Republicans only have to hold serve. Although the election could prove this to be wrong, I think that McCain will prove to be a better candidate in the purple states than Dubya was because of McCain's appeal to independents.
Strategically in big picture, McCain only has to hold serve, but that is only the starting point.
Tactically, you have to look at the polls, and the big poll issue for Obama is Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa. NM and IA were very marginal Bush wins. Colorado is the real problem. The polls show Obama will take it. Colorado is loaded with fringe liberal types up around Boulder and they frankly have sat out or voted Green in recent elections because the Democrat was not leftist enough. Obama is leftist enough.
Poll results are all dependent on turnout model, but the problem is this year everyone’s turnout model for Colorado is showing it blue.
James Carville once said “you show me a candidate that is depending on new voters for victory and I’ll show you a loser.” Odds are pretty good that remains true because the young don’t vote. The problem in Colorado is that the “new voters” are not young. They are leftist true believers who now have a dog in the fight.
Something has to balance the loss of Colorado with a probable loss of NM and IA. Bush got 286 EVs. Losing Colorado’s 10 as well as NM’s 5 and IA’s 7 and McCain is 6 short of 270. New Hampshire will be 4 of that. McCain is leading polls there. But that still leaves him a loser, 2 short.
Things then become rapidly too close for comfort. Michigan’s 17 is certainly more than 2, and can make up for surprises like Montana, where Hollywood’s influx has put two Democrat Senators in office. Or either of the Dakota’s, both of which have Democrat Senators.
Shoring up the base is pointless. If you give away the moderate states, you’re going to lose anyway, even if the right wing true believers punch their chad extra hard. The fight is just like on a chessboard. It’s for the middle. Always has been. Always will be.
Well I know I feel better...
The election is not about New England. What's in New England for the Republicans, maybe NH & Maine?
Picking an elitist white collar liberal like Romney would have only hurt McCain where the votes are, in PA - OH - MI - etc.
Frankly, you can narrow that further to Ohio and Michigan. McCain needs one of those two. Of all the names mentioned, only Romney points at one of them.
Yes, I'm sure McCain wants Romney on the ticket so Democrats can run ads in Michigan quoting Romney saying how much McCain doesn't care about Michiganders and wants to see them all unemployed. That'll help.
Dum dum dum.....
Considering who the opposition is, I doubt that criticism will gain any traction. On the other hand, their youth will blunt McCain's attacks on Obama for being too inexperienced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.