Fascinating – not surprising, and perhaps a bit of off-the-cuff boilerplate praise for some rising stars in the GOP, but fascinating nonetheless, from the good folks at Bearing Drift:
Former Massachussets governor and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney was in Virginia Beach yesterday attending a fundraiser at the home of State Sen. Jeff McWaters.
The $1200 per plate event brought up some interesting data points regarding Governor Bob McDonnell.
Romney said that McDonnell has been an “incredible governor” and will be on “any candidate’s short-list” for Vice President. Now, considering that the candidate was in Virginia Beach – effectively McDonnell’s hometurf, that statement should be taken with a grain of sand. But he reiterated that the short list is “McDonnell, Governor Christie of New Jersey and Marco Rubio of Florida.”
Romney is not blind. He realizes that Virginia is an important state, witnessed only by the number of trips the president has made here in 2011. The commonwealth voted Democrat for president for the first time since 1964 in 2008, so Romney considers Virginia “key” in 2012.
J.R. Hoeft adds, “It is expected that Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling will reprise his roll as chief Romney supporter in Virginia again, as he did in 2008 in Romney’s first run for the nomination. This could point to McDonnell potentially leading in Romney’s Veep-stakes.”
McDonnell has indicated in past comments that he would consider an offer to be a candidate’s running mate, but has been quick to add he’s “not expecting a call.”
Keep in mind that if Texas Gov. Rick Perry departs his spot as head of the Republican Governors Association to run for president, McDonnell is slated to move into the top spot.
Anyone else think McDonnell would be better on top of the ticket, compared to Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann or even Perry? He has, in fact, been an excellent governor, and oozes class and poise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure I'd pick McDonnell over Perry (but that's more an electability thing than on positions, etc), but I'd take him over the other three, yes. I've only been in Virginia for about a year, but I've been impressed so far.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI realize that it's NRO's sworn and solemn duty to sell Mitt Romney to us as the presumptive nominee in 2012 for the GOP. I'm still not buying. But, I'd support any of the 3 guys he mentioned as either the nominee or the VP pick - for someone else.
Considering that Romney being the nominee would take one huge issue - repeal of Obama/Romneycare - off the table, the GOP would have to insane to nominate Romney in 2012. Which, I suppose, given the GOP's usual nomination process, pretty much guarantees Romney will be the nominee and that we'll have 4 more years of Obama to survive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@davidinvirginia: what part of repeal Obamacare don't you understand? Romney has called for it and promised he would sign such a repeal and in the mean time grant waivers to all 50 states. Nothing meets your definition of off the table. Romney will do it. He has delivered on every promise. Bank on it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is going to be much more difficult for Romney than another Republican to criticize Obamacare because he signed a bill that contained versions of several of its worst elements, such as the individual mandate. Sure he can make a federalist argument, but we need someone who can argue that the government simply shouldn't be requiring us to do things like that.
And frankly, I don't trust Romney at all. If he gets elected and then decides it'd be easier to keep Obamacare, he'll do it. He's never shown any commitment to his promises or to conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand Romney just fine. He says whatever he thinks is appropriate to whatever direction he thinks the wind happens to be blowing in that day.
You apparently are more familiar with this alternate universe version of Romney than I am. He sounds like a fine fellow and nothing like the one who inhabits this universe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a big drawback to picking governors for VP - they aren't "up to speed" on most federal issues. They've got a pretty big job as Governor, and that makes it tough to also stay abreast of foreign policy, federal legislation that doesn't have a major impact on their state, etc. If they run for President themselves they have months to prepare before people start asking them what they think about Syria, or the Ryan plan, or Social Security reform, etc. But if picked for VP they have a few days or at most weeks before they have to face an interviewer like Katie Couric who is determined to make them look like an idiot by asking "gotcha" questions about the details of Washington arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlthough I completely disagree with the whole Sarah Palin-is-stupid nonsense that the MSM gave us (and still gives us), I don't think the average Republican governor would have had as much difficulty with such questions, especially those governors mentioned as potential running mates. Two years before her Couric interview, she was mayor of a town of about 7000 people. She really came out of nowhere very quickly. None of this is to slight SP but just to say that the average governor has been around the block a lot more than SP was in the fall of 2008. (Also, if the VP pick is Bobby Jindal, I don't think anyone is going to be able to make him look dumb; he has an extremely high IQ.) Anyway, I like John Hoeven and think all conservatives would like him although I'm not sure he would generate anywhere near the sort of enthusiasm the other names would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey might not get tripped up as bad as Sarah Palin did, but I'll bet most governors would struggle to familiarize themselves with the broad range of federal issues in the short time available for a VP nominee. Remember Mitch Daniels mentioning a few months ago that he didn't feel ready to debate Obama on foreign policy. Mitch is one of the smartest politicians around, but he just hasn't been focused on what our policy should be in Libya or Afghanistan.
The exception would probably be a governor like John Kasich or Sam Brownback who previously served in Congress. Or anyone who has run for President themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll wrong: "Perry-Ryan"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe best VP choice is none of the above. It is, in fact, John Hoeven.
John Hoeven was governor of North Dakota for 10 years - during that time, North Dakota had unprecedented economic growth. He left the helm with North Dakota one of the only states to gain jobs during the recession.
John Hoeven is now a senator.
Before getting in to politics, John Hoeven was a successful bank president.
The top issues of 2012 will be jobs and the economy. Hoeven is proven in both regards. The VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, so a good VP needs executive experience. Hoeven has more than virtually any other choice. And, the VP is president of the Senate. As a sitting senator, Hoeven is already familiar with the operations of the world's most deliberative body and would be able to step directly into the role.
Now, on issues: Hoeven is very conservative, both socially and fiscally. He will appeal to virtually every faction of the GOP. Finally, he is vanilla. There is nothing controversial about him. He doesn't rattle anyone. A good VP is someone who, until a crisis occurs, can just blend in to the background. I used to think this made Tim Pawlenty the ideal VP - but his poor campaigning to date now makes him questionable.
So mark my words: you want an ideal VP? You want John Hoeven.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting, gully. Hoeven is a dark horse whose name hasn't even been mentioned until now(not that I've heard). Good call.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe has a fantastic record. He lacks something in the charisma department however. I like your thinking though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney-Jindal.
Young, dynamic, Southern, and a health-care expert to boost Romney's weakest issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with you on Jindal. A lot of people forget about him, but he would be a fantastic running mate. Actually, he would be a better president than pretty much any of the people running, IMHO. But running for reelection as LA gov makes him unable to run for president. Even so, he'll cruise to reelection and be a great pick for VP. McDonnell would also be a great pick since he is also a super competent, popular governor. Also, given that he can't run for reelection in 2013 (unlike Chris Christie), it doesn't really affect his future to be spending much of 2012 on the campaign trail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll this is futile speculation. Romney will not come close to nomination.
The value of this speculation is the same as speculating about a Ron Paul vp choice - useless.
2012.REP.NOM.PERRY
Rick Perry to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 M Trade 34.1 34.5 34.1 48875 +1.6
2012.REP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 M Trade 28.2 28.7 28.6 37140 -0.7
Short Romney while you still can. Soon the contract will be worthless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was thinking Romney-Shmomney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoever the nominee is should move Heaven and earth to get Rubio on the ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Republican has won without Ohio, the last guy to balance a Federal Budget (No not Clinton he was playing with cigars)That's right Governor Kasich. Lets see what other big state would wrap it up, hmmmmm Give you a hint 29 Electors, (No not the lady who was married to the guy who liked cigars, state NY) Florida - Rubio
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKasich-Rubio
I don't think Kasich will get in so ?-Rubio.
Assuming Obama dumps Biden, the respective dates of the Republican and Democratic conventions impose a substantial constraint on the Republican nominee's flexibility in selecting a running mate. The Democratic convention is after the Republican convention, allowing Obama to counterprogram the Republican vice presidential nominee.
For example, if Mitt Romney were to select Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie as a running mate, Obama could counterprogram with a Southern and/or Hispanic running mate.
Thus, the Republican nominee should choose a running mate who is the least vulnerable to counterprogramming. This likely favors Marco Rubio as a running mate for any likely nominee with the possible exception of Rick Perry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse