Romney veep pick? A heavy hitter

Jewish World Review ^ | April 7, 2012 | George Will

[TJA]

Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy -- his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth -- should no longer startle. It should, however, influence Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate.

[jeltz25]

Well, Mitt does have a track record of picking a pro-choice woman to be his running mate.

[ldish]

if it has to be mitt...why not mitt-newt!

[JSteff]

two words; John McCain

He proved that even with a GREAT VP choice you can still blow it. Sarah Palin was an unstoppable selection but McCain screwed up with his grand standing "I am going to suspend my run" stunt.

He successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. So even with West, Mittly can loose the race and send obama back to office for another term.

Or has that been the plan all along?

[ldish]

if it has to be mitt...why not mitt-newt!

[Ron C.]

BULL-PUCKY...

There is NOT ONE VP PICK, no matter how conservative or brilliant, that will somehow make Romney electable.

Romney and the GOP have handed themselves sure defeat in November, and the most despicable president ever, certain re-election.

[JudyinCanada]

Agreed - Allen West.

[EternalVigilance]

No matter what toppings you put on a manure sandwich, it’s still a manure sandwich.

[JSteff]

is a union tool that sponsored and voted for Card Check

Gee, sort of sounds like Rick Santorum.

[TJA]

To me Paul Ryan is the obvious choice and Bobby Jindal is the bold choice. I would be delighted with either.

Me too

[Cicero]

I would never vote for Romney, not even if he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. No Romney. Never.

[JimWayne]

No Romney. No way.

[Longbow1969]

Been waiting for you to chime in. How’d your candidate do and how comfortable are you with Romney? The bottom line is that McCotter is better versed in poicy than ANY of the proposed VP’s. Oh yeah.....did you have a problem with Reagan being the PRESIDENT of a union?

My first choice was Perry till it became clear he didn't have the communication skills for a national campaign, and Newt, my second choice, obviously didn't make it either.

Romney sucks, but it is what it is. He's the nominee and there isn't anything we can do about it now. At the end of the day, I'm ABO.

Yes, Reagan was the president of the SAG, but he was certainly no friend of labor unions by the time he ran for President. Right now the issue of out of control collective bargaining agreements is front and center. Conservatives are trying to break the alliance between government unions and the Democrat party. Now is not the time to nominate a pro union guy for VP - especially not one that supported something as odious as Card Check.

[cripplecreek]

From Wiki.

The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the "malaise" of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan's strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and high taxes.

Reagan never had any major issues with the private sector unions outside the air traffic controllers and was bright enough to recognize that they weren't all ideological lock steppers. Lord knows, growing up in Michigan means you'll be in a union at some point and anyone who thinks that automatically makes you a liberal is a moron at best.

There's a growing conservative movement within the unions in Michigan but there are few with the man parts to acknowledge it.

[arasina]

One word....Condi.

A pro-choice defender of Obama policies whose sexual orientation is at the very least questionable. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Randy Larsen]

He truly needs a Sarah Palin, but she won’t be interested and I don’t blame her one iota!

He, and his minions with unlimited $$$$$ joined forces with the dems to destroy her personally and publicly!

If he wins, he loses and so does the USA!

[cumbo78]

But Reagan attracted union voters, the so called Reagan Democrats. Look, we went through this when Cong. McCotter was a candidate. You HATE unions. I get it. McCotter explained his card check vote, and declared it a mistake. So what’s the problem with putting someone on the ticket that might attract these voters.

And Rick Perry? A nice guy and a good American, but he could NEVER get up to snuff on policy issues to enagage in a far reaching debate. McCotter would DESTROY any Democrat in a debate and he could operate as the attack dog.

PS: It can’t be two Governors. No foreign policy experience. Never gonna happen

[cripplecreek]

You need to read what I wrote. While I didn’t support McCotter, it was because he’s an unknown. Aside from that I agree with you.

[Sybeck1]

How can anybody get excited here for a person who will spend four years doing state funerals while Willard runs wild on our personal liberties?

[Colonel_Flagg]

Romney veep pick? A heavy hitter

Romney veep pick? Who cares?

[Christie at the beach]

Like those people would include anything that the people want.

I have never seen such sissy poltical correct men running the party in my entire life. Maybe they can call it a new name.