I agree with this approach. Forget the gay stuff, focus on the fact Obama has failed, and if in power for 4 more years those failures will grow exponentially destructive.

One problem with some of the candidates mentioned is they have too much personality. Presidential candidates rarely choose a running mate whom they perceive as outshining them. When they do, it is usually a "Hail Mary" play because their campaign is otherwise troubled.

In 1976, Ford dumped his incumbent VP, establishment Republican Nelson Rockefeller, in part in response to the growing conservative insurgency within the GOP. But rather than choose his primary opponent, Ronald Reagan, Ford went with Bob Dole, liked by conservatives, but unlikely to outshine Ford. Carter chose Mondale, probably to assuage liberals worried that Carter was too centrist (boy, were they wrong).

Reagan didn't really have to worry about being outshined, and he chose as his running mate the number #2 in the nomination battle in what would count as straightforward ticket-balancing (conservative Western-stater and establishment Republican New Englander).

Mondale's choice of Ferraro in 1984 probably falls in the "Hail Mary" category. He thought the choice of the first female major-party VP candidate would inspire some voters, especially feminists. Also, I imagine he had no desire to run with Jesse Jackson, but feared that choosing a white male would alienate Jackson's supporters and other Democratic constituencies for whom diversity is both all-important and solely a matter of chromosomes (not much ideological diversity between Mondale and Ferraro).

G.H.W. Bush's choice of Dan Quayle in 1988 is probably the classic example of finding the guy who isn't going to outshine you. Dole's choice of Jack Kemp was a bit of "Hail Mary" play, but Kemp would probably have been a better choice for Bush in 1988. Quayle didn't hurt the candidate in 1988 but he also didn't really help at reelection time in 1992; Kemp would probably have been a stronger voice for conservative issues within the Bush Administration and might have helped keep some of the conservatives who drifted to Pat Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot (or even Clinton/Gore) in the general election. Or just stayed home.

Clinton chose Gore, I imagine, because he got along with him and he wasn't worried about the wooden Gore outshining him.

G.W. Bush's choice of Cheney remains a rather interesting one. He brought elder statesman gravitas and added foreign and defense policy experience, as well as Washington insider knowledge. Arguably, Cheney outshone Bush personality-wise, but Bush does come across as someone comfortable in his own skin, so he perhaps didn't feel threatened.

Gore seems to have gone with Lieberman for regional and ideological balance. Lieberman wouldn't be seen as outshining even Gore. I would put the Lieberman choice in the same category as Quayle. Kerry's choice of Edwards also seems motivated by regional balance (by 2004 the Democrats were pretty uniform ideologically, with a moderate-left to far-left spectrum from Lieberman to Kucinich, and few prominent moderates or conservatives). Howard Dean might have done a better job firing up liberals, but also might have made Kerry look bad by comparison.

Obama's choice of Biden definitely reflects someone who didn't want a running mate to outshine him, but Obama does also seem to have overestimated Biden's elder statesman status and underestimated his buffoonery. McCain's choice of Palin certainly seems like a "Hail Mary" and at the time appeared to be working, until McCain's indecisive reaction to the financial crisis doomed him.

With this history, I would conclude that whomever we might want Romney to choose, he probably won't. Romney is not in the desperate Hail Mary position at this point (though who knows where events will take us over the next few months), so he is probably inclined toward the "safe" choice. This is probably why Portman's name keeps coming up even though most people's reactions to Portman are "who?". As long as conservatives are energized by "anybody but Obama", Romney probably doesn't feel the need for a Palin-esque energy boost. Also, Romney's message is heavily oriented toward competence and experience, so, as some of you have noted, a choice of one of the less experienced rising Republican stars like Rubio would undercut the message. Right now my fear is that Romney will make the "safe" choice and will spend next January 20 watching Obama's swearing in on TV and regretting it.

I have a feeling Romney's been made aware of it. I hope so.

Cheney was G.W. Bush's "pit bull"............;):D

Big Teddy :munchin

One name I don't think I saw in this thread is one of the few politicians who hasn't been coy about saying he would accept the nomination if offered: Gov Bob McDonnell of Virginia. Virginia governors are barred from running for re-election, so he will be out of a job once his term is up. That probably affects his willingness to entertain the VP possibility more openly than other candidates.

PROS: popular Governor of a key swing state Obama won in 2008 (the first Democrat to carry Virginia since LBJ in 1964), though McDonnell's approval ratings have slipped somewhat recently. Legislative (House of Delegates), executive (Commonwealth Att'y General and Governor), business, and military experience (retired LTC, USAR).

CONS: no specific foreign policy experience. Democrats and their media allies would be expected to tarnish him and Romney as part of their "war on women" strategy over the recent ultrasound debate in Virginia.

Any thoughts?

Also, a couple of posters mentioned Condi Rice as a preferred Attorney General pick. I don't see this, as Dr. Rice has no legal experience. You maybe don't technically have to be an attorney to be Attorney General, but it helps, to say the least.

Some potential VP candidates have been criticized for lacking foreign policy experience. Dr. Rice's experience is all foreign policy. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't mind seeing here in Foggy Bottom again, though I imagine she might view it as a step down to take the same job she already had. She intimidates Putin, a good trait to have. I would actually prefer John R. Bolton, but absent a filibuster-proof Senate majority, he and his mustache of doom might have a little trouble getting confirmed.

I think there are a number of strong candidates for AG with both the legal credentials and the conservative bona fides. Among these would be Judge Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, and Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

----

Another name to throw into the VP mix: Gov. Tim Pawlenty. As I recall, T-Paw endorsed Romney pretty quickly after abandoning his own quest for the White House last year.

Also regarding Rubio and West: I can't remember where I saw it mentioned, but someone pointed out that if Romney tapped Rubio, Gov. Scott could appoint West to Rubio's Senate seat.

Nice article on Marco
 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/0...g-respect.html

Sen. Marco Rubio earning respect in Senate for foreign-policy work

Political pundits focus on Sen. Marco Rubio as a vice-presidential shortlister, but Senate colleagues from both parties say the freshman Republican is becoming a key foreign-policy player.

Marco Rubio had just stepped off the plane from his first visit to Cuba, the homeland of his forebears, a land at the heart of his political identity.

Did he at least bring back a souvenir?

“No,” he said Tuesday evening.

No sand? No water? No rocks?

“No,” he smiled.

For Rubio, who traveled to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a member of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, the trip was all business. And that’s pretty typical for the Republican freshmen senator, according to colleagues like Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and Rubio’s fellow foreign-policy hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman.

“Marco’s not a show horse,” Lieberman said. “He’s a workhorse.”

One day he’ll be giving a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington or the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Thursday. Next, he’ll be lugging Henry Kissinger’s “Diplomacy” tome to a Munich conference, stopping along the way in Madrid to chat with Spain’s prime minister in Spanish as his unilingual Anglo colleagues twiddle their thumbs. He also has travelled to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malta, Libya, Haiti and Colombia.

The nation’s political chattering class focuses most heavily on Rubio as a vice-presidential shortlister, but his Senate colleagues can’t help but talk about him becoming a key foreign-policy player as a member of the intelligence and foreign-relations committees.

Lieberman and Kerry are Senate experts both in foreign policy and running in a presidential election. Kerry was the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2004; Lieberman the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate in 2000 before becoming an independent.

Both say Rubio is able to handle the rigors of the national campaign trail and the Senate at the same time.

“I’ve been impressed by his thinking — doing the homework necessary to earn the credibility with respect to your approach to things. I think that’s constructive,” Kerry said.

“A lot of the colleagues around here, obviously, are interested in substance and interested in people who do the work and are not impressed by people who are prone to play the political end of something and hold a press conference and not do the work,” Kerry said. “They want to see someone buckle down and learn the ropes. And I think he’s clearly been doing that in a very positive way.”

Rubio, though, still adheres to the party line.

His praise of President Obama is sparse — even amid seeming foreign-policy triumphs like the overthrow and death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in October. At the time, Rubio and other Republicans gave Obama relatively little credit.

“Let’s give credit where credit is due: it’s the French and the British that led on this fight,” Rubio, echoing the Republican Party line, said at the time in a video clip mocked by The Daily Show’s John Stewart, who essentially accused Rubio and others of being neither gracious nor statesman like.

Asked Stewart: “What the f--- is wrong with you people? Are you that small?”

When asked about the lampooning on the popular liberal comedy show, Rubio said he stood by his criticisms, which were aimed more at Obama for not acting more quickly and decisively.

Snip

I can't remember if it was Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, but one of them mentioned last week that Mark Levin might be a potential running mate.

It was Hannity and it was a joke.

Pat

Ahh...thanks. I can never tell when he is joking.
:rolleyes:

I will mention it again, Rubio is not "Natural Born". Sauce for the Goose. :munchin

I'd like to see Rubio trot out his birth certificate from Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami. The Constitution says "natural born" - it's the relevant US Code that defines what that term means and currently:

Nowhere do I find that "but if your parents didn't get naturalized till 4 years later you can't be President."

OTOH, I didn't find anything in the many succeeding paragraphs that give any wiggle room for the current incumbent.

The current President, whether born in the US or not, is not "Natural Born" as defined by Supreme Court decision, yes ancient but still in force. His father was not a US citizen at time of his birth nor any other time. Mr Rubio has the same problem. US Citizen, not Natural Born. If the Conservatives are going to raise a stink over Obama then the same stink hits MR. Rubio. Sauce for the Gander.

No dispute, it already is being played by others. The issue of citizenship based on inheritance from a citizen parent (only rarely the mother), or simply by virtue of one's birth location, may be a rabbit hole the opposite camp doesn't want to go down.

SCOTUS has ruled on many aspects of citizenship via birthright (and women get the short-straw almost always), but they rule narrowly. I'd like to see that SCOTUS cite which completely trumps the current statute RE Mr. Rubio or the President. (I personally don't care if the current President can trace his roots back to the Mayflower; IF he was born in Hawaii, move on. If not, then he's unable to inherit citizenship from a father who clearly had no ties to the US.) Mr. Rubio appears to have been born in Miami. I'm not aware that SCOTUS has ruled sufficient to ditch the very first requirement in the law.

Many may not like it & want to change it but where one is born matters.