Mitt's VP pick

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

IMO, he's also too fat. Like it or not, I think this would concern some people.

Yeah, and Biden was too stupid...that concerned some people, too...look where he is now!

[mark46th]

I would put Hugh Hewitt in as EPA boss to dismantle it or at least let most of the air out of it. I believe in clean water and clean air but the people in there now are punitive, not helping anyone but their own agenda and pay check. . Whoever gets Sec of Education and Sec of Energy should also plan on dissolving them. Dept of Ag Sec should defund the Food Stamp program. 50,000,000 milion people on food stamps? Think the system is being abused?

[Pete]

Romney taps former chief of staff to lead VP search

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...lead-VP-search

"Mitt Romney has tapped a longtime adviser to begin his search for a vice presidential candidate.

Romney said Monday that Beth Myers is in charge of "selection and vetting and analysis."................."

Well, at least now we know who will do the looking.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

IMO, he's also too fat. Like it or not, I think this would concern some people.

That's hate speech. Better hope Sis doesn't tap into that post.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dusty

That's hate speech. Better hope Sis doesn't tap into that post.

She's too fat too.

[Badger52]

No hate speech I've seen according to the Holder protocol:

IF victim = white
THEN not a victim
ELSE call Al & Jesse to give them 4 hours leadtime and prosecute.
ENDIF

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Badger52

No hate speech I've seen according to the Holder protocol:

IF victim = white
THEN not a victim
ELSE call Al & Jesse to give them 4 hours leadtime and prosecute.
ENDIF

Caveat: Always call the Justice Bros at the same time to avoid professional jealousy.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Caveat: Always call the Justice Bros at the same time to avoid professional jealousy.

LMAO. Sad, till the past few years I only thought Justice Bros. meant a decent line of fuel-injector cleaners & additives....


Not that I know what a false-flag operation is, but wouldn't it be fodder for the Comedy Zone to play one against the other? With all the feely-good social networking tools available that probably wouldn't take much. You could get them so busy one denying that he "diss'd" the other they'd forget which little girl they were drooling after.

[MR2]

Vice President David Petraeus?
Posted By Paul Miller Thursday, April 26, 2012 - 9:47 AM

After Republican leaders rightly criticized Senator Obama, a former state legislator with merely two years in the U.S. Senate, for being unqualified to be commander-in-chief and leader of the free world during the 2008 campaign, it would be an irony if they selected Marco Rubio, a former state legislator with merely two years in the U.S. Senate, as vice president in the 2012 election.

Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie will almost certainly not be the vice presidential nominee for the simple reason that they don't want to be president. Both declined to run for the top job because, if rumors are to be believed, they were unwilling to undergo the rigors and personal scrutiny that a presidential campaign brings. If they were unwilling to do so for the presidency, why would they do so for the much lesser prize of the vice presidency?

Paul Ryan, meanwhile, is too valuable to the GOP in the House. As one of the more serious-minded legislators in the party, he would be wasted on the vice presidency.

Besides which, the vice presidential nominee almost never makes an actual difference in the election. The great myth is that the presidential nominee should pick a VP from a swing state in order to win more votes there. The problem is, that never happens. Perhaps once in American history has the VP delivered his state and swung an election: LBJ bringing Texas to give JFK the prize in 1960. That's it, just once.

So it comes down to this: Who is actually qualified to be president? That's the question Mitt Romney should be asking in selecting his running mate. That's the only criterion that should really matter. There are very few people in the country with a plausible claim to being qualified for the presidency. Unfortunately, Bob Gates has definitively retired, reducing the number of candidates by one.

That leaves David Petraeus. Petraeus served as commanding general of both wars the U.S. fought over the last decade, headed up central command, and is now director of the CIA. And, of course, he had the courage and professionalism to serve in a deeply unpopular war and, remarkably, come out with his reputation enhanced. Probably no person alive has a better grasp of the international situation, America's role in the world, and the limitations and capabilities of American power.

Petraeus has nearly universal name recognition and is one of the most well-respected figures in the country. A year ago only 11 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to Gallup, half that of Christie. And as a non-partisan figure he has not been tarnished by the partisanship and mud-slinging of recent years. Additionally, Petraeus would bring foreign policy expertise to the ticket, balancing Romney's focus on economic issues. If Obama really intends to claim that his foreign policy accomplishments should earn voters' respect, there is no one in the country with more credibility than Petraeus to take Obama's argument apart.

He would bring gravitas and seriousness to a campaign season that, so far, has been more memorable for the parade of not serious GOP challengers who, thankfully, had the decency to drop out. His intelligence and ethic of public service would be a good match for Romney's own. I admit "Romney-Rubio" has a nice, almost poetic ring to it; it rolls off the tongue beautifully. "Romney-Petraeus" has too many syllables. It sounds like something out of a technical manual, or a nickname for a loophole in the tax code. On the other hand, they might actually govern competently, which counts for something.

[Dusty]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ry_645218.html

Florida senator Marco Rubio slammed President Barack Obama in a South Carolina speech delivered last night to a large gathering of Republicans.

“For all the policy disagreements that we may have with the president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago, with his promises to unite America and lift it up,” Rubio said about Obama, referring to his 2004 DNC speech and 2008 presidential run.

But, Rubio said, President Obama has changed: “The man who today occupies the White House and is running for president is a very different person. We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years.”

Rubio, who might be the next Republican vice presidential nominee, also said that Obama and his Democratic party are on a "destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate" path.

"The president and his party’s view of America’s government and our lives is a failed one. It hasn’t worked. His ideas that sounded so good in the classrooms of Harvard and Yale haven’t really worked out well in the real world," said Rubio. "They get frustrated. They can’t win on their record, and so they’ve chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate."

Rubio also used the speech to introduce himself and talk about his personal story.

Snip

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Dusty

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ry_645218.html

Florida senator Marco Rubio slammed President Barack Obama in a South Carolina speech delivered last night to a large gathering of Republicans.

“For all the policy disagreements that we may have with the president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago, with his promises to unite America and lift it up,” Rubio said about Obama, referring to his 2004 DNC speech and 2008 presidential run.

But, Rubio said, President Obama has changed: “The man who today occupies the White House and is running for president is a very different person. We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years.”

Rubio, who might be the next Republican vice presidential nominee, also said that Obama and his Democratic party are on a "destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate" path.

"The president and his party’s view of America’s government and our lives is a failed one. It hasn’t worked. His ideas that sounded so good in the classrooms of Harvard and Yale haven’t really worked out well in the real world," said Rubio. "They get frustrated. They can’t win on their record, and so they’ve chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate."

Rubio also used the speech to introduce himself and talk about his personal story.

Snip

He's sounding better and better to me every time he speaks........

Big Teddy

[orion5]

Originally Posted by Dusty

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ry_645218.html

"The president and his party’s view of America’s government and our lives is a failed one. It hasn’t worked. His ideas that sounded so good in the classrooms of Harvard and Yale haven’t really worked out well in the real world," said Rubio. "They get frustrated. They can’t win on their record, and so they’ve chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate."

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.

[Airbornelawyer]

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

Entire post.

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

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

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.

Cheney was G.W. Bush's "pit bull"............

Big Teddy