Monday, July 21, 2008

To VP or not to VP, that is the question...

(Hat-tip to HotAir)

American Spectator is reporting an inside scoop that Mitt Romney will most likely not be McCain's VP choice. The reasons (all of which I agree):

"Mitt tanks the ticket," says a McCain insider. "We lose fiscal conservatives. We lose social conservatives. We lose Catholics. We lose evangelicals. All the groups were spending time and money on bringing into the camp would be lost. He just doesn't help us enough to do something like this, as much as Mitt might think we should. He doesn't even win us Massachusetts."

He loses fiscal conservatives because he's a politician from Massachusetts (remember Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, RINO Weld?). He loses Massachusetts because he's a flip-flopper and it's a national election. He loses evangelicals because he's a Mormon, and he's only recently (and suspiciously) become Pro-Life. He loses Catholics because of all of the above, plus the fact that he comes off as being way too slick (in a Bill Clinton sort of way, without the sleaze factor).

I've said it before, McCain needs to stop looking at anyone who ran against him in the primary. He needs to focus on some a combination of factors for the VP slot, these factors (whether you like them or not) are crucial for McCain to be able to keep the base in his camp come November.

1) Someone who is clearly and consistently both a fiscal and social conservative (yes to Pro-Life, yes to cutting spending, no to gay marriage, no to raising taxes),

2) Someone who is younger than him by at least 10 years,

3) Someone with executive experience, or untainted business-world experience,

4) Someone with name-recognition - a known quantity,

5) A female or a minority (to offset either the Obama or Hillary factor).

My choices for McCain? Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin (fits four of the factors - including the big bonus of pulling in the Hillary PUMAs - she's both socially conservative and a fiscal reformer, she gets bonus points because she's also known as a maverick, but she loses points because she's not well-known and she's only been governor for 2 years, but was a mayor prior to that). Former Ohio Representative John Kasich (young, well known, likable, conservative - downside: no executive experience, though he's mulling over a run for Ohio governor in 2010). Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett (well known, conservative, likable, respected, has some executive experience in and out of government - downside: his age is 65, and he could become a political lightning rod, though he'd be able to handle it without any problems). Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (young, likeable, socially conservative, black, Catholic - downside: executive or political experience might be lacking, would've been better if he able to serve as governor, or if he had won his last razor-close senate race). Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (would be perfect if not for two key factors - he's only been governor for 6 months, and he's only 39 years old. But if he lives up to his reputation, look out for him in 2016! And he's Catholic.) Former PA Senator Rick Santorum (this will never happen because of so many factors - he was tossed under the bus by Sen. Spector and ended up losing his reelection bid, he's a political lightning rod, especially on social issues, no executive experience but plenty of political experience, and he's been vocally anti-McCain).

Actually, any combination thereof would like an excellent 1-2 punch ticket (who the hell needs McCain or Obama???).

If McCain chooses Romney, Huckabee, or one of his RINO buddies, he'll lose not only his base... he'll lose me! I'll do a write-in vote for one of the afore mentioned 1-2 combo tickets ("throw-away" vote be damned).

No comments: