While there’s still a lot of road ahead in the 2012 presidential race, one fact is already clear: The eventual GOP nominee is probably going to leave a certain number of conservative Republicans wary, or even skeptical. The selection of a running mate will be even more important than usual, as it will be the biggest decision of the campaign and the clearest signal the nominee can send to GOP doubters looking for reassurance.
For Mitt Romney, numerous conservatives just don’t trust him. Between the health-care plan and individual mandate that he signed into law in Massachusetts and the leftover flip-flop charges from the 2008 cycle, many tea party–affiliated Republicans see Romney as too establishment, too moderate, too flexible, and too unprincipled to effectively carry their banner in the coming year. If the former governor wins the nomination, he will need a running mate who can restore confidence in him among the GOP base while avoiding a firebrand whose style and philosophy completely contrasts with Romney’s.
Advertisement
The other poll leader, Newt Gingrich, has enjoyed a significantly different career path from Romney, but faces many similar challenges as a potential nominee. The former speaker of the House has been an outspoken conservative at many times — but also made millions advising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taped a global-warming-related commercial with Nancy Pelosi, endorsed liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava over tea-party favorite Doug Hoffman in a key special U.S. House election, and has had numerous other (often brief) departures from conservative orthodoxy. Gingrich is creative and eloquent but also erratic.
That pair — and almost any other potential nominee — will need to compete in the upper-midwest Rust Belt, and bringing into play any state in the Northeast beyond New Hampshire would be a considerable bonus.
The Republican nominee is likely to need a running mate who has impeccable free-market credentials, is admired by the tea partiers, and preferably comes from a swing state. A figure who would face little learning curve if thrust into the presidency and is experienced enough with how the federal government works to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, but hasn’t become a stale creature of official Washington. Someone who built his reputation as a staunch defender of conservative principles and by making the hard choices, but has also demonstrated a certain flexibility and willingness to compromise to achieve what he deems the nation’s highest priorities.
If the Republican nominee is willing to pick someone who only returned to elected office in January 2011, then this figure does exist, in the form of Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey.
Toomey is quick to express skepticism that he’ll be receiving any consideration as the Republican nominee’s running mate. “I really don’t see that happening,” he says in an interview. “I have to catch up with the work I have to do on my ordinary committees because I’ve been so engrossed on the supercommittee.”
Toomey’s blue-collar upbringing in a Catholic family in Providence, R.I., would contrast nicely with Romney’s. Like the former Massachusetts governor, Toomey is also a Harvard man and spent his early career working in international finance for Chemical Bank and Morgan, Grenfell & Co. During these young adult years, Toomey lived in New York, London, and Hong Kong. Like Romney, he’s a businessman, although Toomey’s entrepreneurial efforts were on a smaller and quite human scale: In 1999, Toomey moved from New York City to that emblematic city of blue-collar Americana, Allentown, Pa., where he and his brothers founded and ran a trio of sports bars, two in Allentown and one in Lancaster, Pa.
Yes, and if Bush and Santorum had been just a smidgen less enthusiastic about endorsing Specter in the first place, Toomey would have won that nomination and would have been our senator instead of Specter and been reelected now. He'd then have made a beautiful presidential candidate this year and would have been the clear winner for our party as the most consistent conservative with business and government experience and an unblemished career. Isn't it a shame that the ticket couldn't be reversed as it should have been a candidate Toomey looking for his veep.
Ah well.
It's ok as long as the state has a good conservative governor who will replace the VP with someone who can be a conservative senator and win election outright down the road.
Why would we Cons want to pull one of our own out of a Senate we are trying to control, and put him in such a non-influential position.
This Toomey and Rubio for VP talk is counterproductive.
It is becoming more clear that the GOP candidate for President will leave Conservatism wanting. Any (R) President can sign a Bill into Law, but our hope for driving our agenda lays with writing legislation that represents it.
A veto proof Congress is a long shot, especially as that would means voters drifted back to the Liberal agenda promoted by Obama. So the true battle is to place more men like Rubio and Toomey IN the Senate, not to take them OUT.
Agreed, we need true conservatives in the Senate, Toomey and Rubio just got there, we need to send them reinforcements so more focus is needed on senate races, let's not get distracted with the VP name game when not one primary vote has taken place.
Yes,
Despite my comment there is something to be said for what you say. Also Governors are needed.
But then where do we get our veep? I say if we must take a senator, be sure it is in a state with a republican governor so the replacement can remain a good conservative.
Let's use Boehner.
He's from an important swing state, he's already 3rd in line to the Presidency - what's a bump to second?, and we get him out of House leadership.
You know, I started that as a joke - but after reviewing it.....
I really don't think the nominee will need to shore up the conservative vote--even if it is Romney. Opposition to Obama will be reason enough to vote for the Republican nominee.
A conservative VP won't suddenly convince everyone that Romney is a true conservative--it will be seen for what it is, another calculation. But it might be a lightning rod for criticism from the other side, making this strategy more of a negative than a positive. If we have to have a moderate candidate like Romney, we might as well reap the benefit of his moderate positioning in the general election. If Romney actually is a moderate but allows himself to be painted as an extreme conservative, that is the worst of both worlds.
Also, Toomey seems too important in the senate. His legislative skills would be largely wasted in the figurehead VP position.
You would think that a Party would want a Presidential candidate that reflects it's values, and a VP that compliments his candidacy.
When the Party is seeking a VP to appease political and idealogical divides instead of geographical boundaries, those being appeased are being played.
No, thanks, to Toomey. While he is a fiscal conservative, he has not got off to a good start with social conservatives. Romney will not want to have to deal with certain question marks surrounding Toomey, and it would be needless for him to do so when there are many other good VP choices.
Here is a quotation from Family Research Counsel:
Apparently, moderate Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) agrees. In an interview with MSNBC, the self-described "pro-lifer" said Republicans need to "move on" from Planned Parenthood because "there are other, bigger battles that we're fighting." Sen. Toomey may be quick to compromise his core beliefs, but conservatives didn't come this far to give up.
Toomey or Portman would be excellent choices. for VP.
The Republican nominee will have to carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania in order to reach 270 electoral votes.
Both Senators have enough experience and intelligence to get off to a good start on the campaign trail in the summer of 2012.
Dan Quayle these guys aren't.
No go on Toomey ... don't be surprised to find out that he was involved with PA Governor Tom Corbett's cover up of the Penn State crimes against children for all these years. Corbett was the attorney general responsible for investigating the horrendous crimes and waited years and years to go public while he was at the same time accepting campaign money from Penn State trustees for his bid for the mansion ... was Pat Toomey complicit in that cover up? Concerned parents should demand answers.
Toomey/Corbett = two entrenched Pennsyvania politicians, one with direct ties to the scandal
Palmer/PSU = an upstanding pro golf athlete & a corrupt college football program
I'm surprised how lightly people take child rape! Questions need answers in this case and all PA politicians must be held accountable. If our elected representative can't keep our children safe what good are they?
Just because two politicians know each other doesn't mean they know about the same things. Ridiculous. No one here takes child rape lightly either. This isn't about Toomey, so stop it!
The supposition that Romney will be looking for a true conservative to balance his ticket assumes that he feels he isn't one. All evidence points to the contrary. Mitt figures he's right where he needs to be, in the center of the conservative spectrum, and winning the nomination certainly wouldn't change his mind there and think he needs to appeal more to conservative voters for the general!
If anything, preparing for a race against Obama after sewing up the nomination would have Romney thinking about sidling more toward the center. Look for possibilities who are even more center left than he is to appeal to him as VP choices, not toward conservative rivals. I know Jeb has endorsed Huntsman, but that wing of the party - Huntsman, Jeb, Gregg, Pataki, maybe Daniels - is probably where Romney will be looking for a veep.
I couldn't agree less. Conservatives will be tempted to stay home regardless of the VP pick if Romney is nominated. It will be imperative for him to pick a four-square conservative -- conservative according to the base, not conservative by Romney's personal lights. So, what if Romney "feels" he is conservative? He had better be a good enough politician to understand that he is not widely regarded as such, and for good reason.
By the way, the "Jeb" who endorsed Huntsman is not the former Governor of Florida, but his son. Jeb Jr.'s "endorsement" is about as valuable as mine and yours. I can hardly believe he felt called to publicize his endorsement -- it's pretty funny, actually.
I agree that millions of us will see Romney as not conservative enough. But will a conservative VP pick really get such conservatives to vote for him anyway? I know it won't with me. He is not conservative enough IMO, and even him picking Santorum or Paul wouldn't change that. After all, no matter how conservative the VP, we'd still have a centrist holding down the actual presidency. On the other hand, a too-conservative running mate would likely cost him a lot more marginal independent votes than it would gain him additional votes on the right.
In theory you should be right about Romney being able to step outside himself and look at himself as others see him, but we already know from his doubling down on stupid and refusing to back down on the mandate and Romneycare that that isn't necessarily so. And all his advisors, his many endorsers, and the voters, if they select him, can only give him more confidence that he doesn't have a conservatism problem.
I did not know that it was young Jeb who came out for Huntsman. I just read the headline a while back and assumed actual Jeb! Crazy - thanks for the clarification.
Implicit in the piece is that Toomey would help carry Pennsylvania. I'm not so sure that would work. Besides, if PA is competitive, then there will be a pseudo landslide underway anyway with Ohio, Virginia, NC, etc. already in the Republican's pocket.
ALSO besides, I find the whole "who's the VP nominee" topic very boring. The job ain't worth a warm bucket of spit.
So lemme get this straight: y'all who say you won't vote for Romney are going to do what at election time? Vote for Obama? Or not vote (essentially the same thing)??
Unless you are still part of that suicide-pact, third-party mindset, you will have no choice but to (hold your noses if need be and) vote the Republican ticket.
Follow
