The Problem With V.P. Romney
The case for Mitt Romney as John McCain’s running mate is strong and very easy to make.
He’s well known, popular with the party base, a strong performer on television, and would bring big bucks, vigor and youth (or at least the appearance of it – he is 61, after all) to a Republican ticket that desperately needs all three. Plus, Romney’s corporate background would offer badly needed cover to McCain on the economy, while his family name could boost the ticket in Michigan and his Mormon faith could help in Colorado and Nevada. Factor in the apparent lack of all-star VP options for McCain, and the former Massachusetts governor’s prospects only seem to brighten.
But while there are about 646 small- and medium-size reasons why Romney would be a natural fit for the G.O.P. ticket, there’s one big reason not to bet on it happening: McCain doesn’t like him.
Sure, they’ve publicly kissed and made up since their acrimonious primary battle, and the surface-level tension between the two is long gone. But that is a function of each man’s own political imperatives, not a sign of any meaningful personal rapprochement.
Romney, after doing everything he could to tear down McCain and secure the nomination for himself, quickly decided that the VP slot would measurably enhance his prospects of snaring the presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016. To that end, he set about ingratiating himself with McCain with the very intensity and discipline he brought to his 18-month effort to destroy him.
McCain, obviously, has had every reason to play along. Romney’s campaign was championed by some of the loudest voices on the right, the same crowd that views McCain with suspicion and hostility. Creating party unity is important for any presidential nominee, but it’s a particularly challenging task for McCain, and one in which Romney can help him considerably.
Plus, Romney’s willingness to raise serious money is more than just a courtesy. McCain has struggled financially and faces against Barack Obama what will be the largest financial disparity ever between two major party nominees. McCain’s willingness to embrace Romney and to shrug off their venomous history – “You really are the candidate of change,” a seething McCain sneered at Romney in one nationally televised debate – makes perfect political sense.
But elevating him to the No. 2 spot on the ticket is an entirely different matter. Beneath the surface, McCain surely recognizes that Romney’s thirst for the VP slot is fueled by the same bald opportunism that so infuriated McCain during the primaries. Romney is running for president now just as intently as he was running for president during the primaries. All that has changed are his tactics and his timetable.
Back in the primaries, Romney calculated – quite correctly – that McCain was the most formidable obstacle blocking him from the Republican nomination. In the very earliest days of the ’08 cycle, back in the summer of 2006, you may recall that McCain seemed like the next in a long line of once-defeated G.O.P. candidates whose “turn” to claim the nomination had finally arrived. He had wide leads in polls, made peace with old religious right foes like Jerry Falwell, and set up a slick and professional campaign apparatus that promised to raise $100 million.
Romney, a defender of abortion and gay rights and gun control in his Massachusetts days, radically overhauled his image and ideology in an effort to rally the same conservative coalition that had thwarted McCain’s first bid in 2000. A pattern was set in motion that prevailed for a year and a half: Romney would attack McCain from the right, accusing him of abandoning the conservative cause on Issue A. Then, it would be revealed that Romney, back in Massachusetts, had essentially shared McCain’s views on Issue A.
And yet, because of his stellar communication skills and their hunger for an anti-McCain, Romney succeeded in winning over much of the right. By the summer of ’07, McCain’s campaign lay in ruins. Only a miraculous comeback, aided in part by Mike Huckabee’s sudden rise, brought McCain back to life and secured him the nomination.
Through it all, McCain grew more and more contemptuous of Romney. As his own poll numbers slid, and Romney’s rose, the outrage of losing a man he saw as a slick and disingenuous opportunist plainly enraged McCain, the war hero and self-styled king of “straight talk.” And Romney kept it up until the bitter end, blasting McCain as apostate all the way through South Carolina and Florida and Super Tuesday.
Only when it was clear that it wouldn’t work did Romney stop and bow out. And then, almost immediately, he transformed himself – yet again – into the tireless champion of John McCain that we now see.
McCain knows that his choice of VP could go a long way toward determining who the next Republican presidential nominee is. If McCain wins this fall, then his vice president would be the clear heir apparent in 2016, or 2012 if McCain were to pass on a chance for a second term. And if the G.O.P. ticket loses this fall, then the VP nominee could have a considerable leg up for ’12, especially if he (or she) performs strongly in the VP debate. At this point, there is no obvious candidate – like Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H. W. Bush in 1988 or Bob Dole in 1996 – to inherit the next open G.O.P. nomination.
So why would McCain give such a political gift to Romney?
Some Romney partisans point to the example of 1980, when Reagan turned to Bush, who had disparaged him during their primary fight, even calling Reagan’s tax cut vision “voodoo economics.” But the examples are not really analogous. It is difficult to appreciate how deeply the Republican Party was divided in 1980; a vibrant faction of moderates and liberals still existed (most have since left the party), and they had rallied around Bush. It is also difficult to appreciate just how extreme Reagan’s conservatism seemed to those moderate Republicans – and to independent voters. Teaming up with Bush was an essential step for Reagan.
McCain, by contrast, may be distrusted by much of his party’s base, but there are other VP prospects besides Romney who would sit well with the right, just as there are other VP prospects who would sit well with independent voters in the fall. Here’s betting that McCain opts for one of them.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.8
- 44.0
- Obama +2.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
There's one good reason not to listen to any of this....you are a dilusional clown. Romney and McCain, not like each other? McCain was asked this directly yesterday and said that they are on very good terms and the more that he has learned about Romney these past few months has helped him gain greater respect for Romney and his family. If you are going to write a blog, at least get your facts right. Why did I even waste my time to read this blog? I'm tired of hearing this pathetic arguement for why not to pick Romney as VP. He is most qualified and is the obvious logical choice.
I feel the article was well written. I do believe the article follows the pros- cons of Mitt Romney Potential value as a VP. I think Mitt Romney does bring more to the table than any other VP choice available. He wrote an eloquent speech when he bowed out of the Presidential run, that brought alot of respect and admiration from the GOP heads.
Kennedy never cared for Johnson, Reagan certainly did not like Bush 41. Saying the McCain does not like Romney is the primary reason why Romney won't get VP is seriously flawed.
First, this suggests it is all about McCain and what McCain wants. That cannot be further from the truth. This is about what is best for our country, Republicans, and the economy. It is not about what is best for McCain personally as Steve Kornacki implies with this suggestion, it is about winning.
Second, if McCain turns down the best possible VP candidate for personal dislike reasons, then he deserves to lose. I don't think McCain is that way - He has been in Politics for many moons. Politics is politics and nobody understands that more than McCain.
Saying McCain does not like Romney is not a compelling reason to disregard him as VP. In politics, few really like each other anyway. They all just act like they do..
I think this election cycle is analogous with 1980 Bush / Reagan. It cannot be disputed that those two men (Reagan & Bush) hated each other in a way that would make Romney / McCain look like pen pals at their worst moment.
Republicans were a great deal more divided back in 1979 / 1980 than what we are now. As a result, emotions were significantly more extreme.
What I'd like to ask the author is that if a Bush / Reagan team can put aside feelings of stronger animosity for the good of the party and ultimately work fine together successfully, then why is it impossible for a McCain / Romney to do the same thing?
I think it is fairly analogous. Step back 29 yrs with this same story, you could change the name of McCain to Reagan and Bush to Romney.
I hate to tell the liberal author of the "fictonal" story. But McCain DOES like Mitt Romney. The campaign was just that the campaign. Now that's it's over Mitt has helped John the most.
Our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press KNOWS Mitt is the one together with McCain that will defeat the Democrats on November 4th.
That's why they constantly poo poo the idea of an M & M ticket.........
One other consideration against Romney. Huckabee supporters, remember, he came in second, don't like him either. He was very nasty toward Huckabee as well as McCain. I for one, just wanted to reach through the TV screen and slap him during the debates. Not a good quality in a VP.
I love it. If liberals like Kornacki write anti-Romney blogs like this, it can only mean they're scared of what Romney can do to the ticket to help McCain. Of course Kornacki gives no proof whatsoever of McCain's dislike for Romney. Another liberal generalization without substance. I figure Romney's got to be the guy for V.P given so much attention is given to him, especiall by the liberals...they're scared and have every right to be. Romney's presidential, meaning his experience as a business owner and governor transcends his personality; he's an economic genius and he'll destroy any democratic vice president in a national debate forum.
McCain / Romney - The perfect ticket.
That is so rich about Romney being nasty towards Huckabee during the primaries. I distinctly remember an extremely tacky thing Huckabee said during a national debate: that Romney's 5 sons were wonderful and that Romney should save his money for his children. Also, I distinctly remember Huckabee saying to a national reporter "Don't Mormon's believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" in a psuedo innocent way, in which Wolf Blitzer on CNN refuted, the whole point being to remind evangelicals not to take to a Mormon. So, who was being nasty to whom? Maybe Eric doesn't know about the Cantebery Award the Becket Foundation gave to the Romney's? Look it up and then tell me about nasty. Romney could be a great VP, but so could a few others- just don't be delusional in saying that Romney was nasty to Huckabee when it was completely the other way around.
It seems like there are a few Romney fans here that aren't taking too well to your article. But I don't know if I agree with your point, either.
Because the truth is, there is a much bigger reason not to pick Romney, and I would be *very* surprised if McCain does so. Independent polling the past couple of months has shown that adding Romney to the ticket hurts McCain's numbers, against pretty much anyone as VP on the Democratic side. After the Republican primary, there can be no doubt that Romney is known nationally, so this isn't a result of voters being unfamiliar with him. But in polls comparing VP choices, Obama's advantage over McCain always goes up when Romney is on the ticket. Democrats would *love* to see Romney run as VP - and that is why we should be very worried about the idea.
He also doesn't have the advantage of bringing a state - Mass is solid blue, Utah solid red, and even if you buy the idea that he will help in Colorado and Nevada (I don't - his backers in those states were already voting R), both of those states went red in 2004 anyway. His strong attacks on McCain in the primary are ready-made commercials for the Democrats. And while he is "youthful" in comparison to McCain, the truth is putting him on the ticket isn't really building for the future. In just eight years there will be the same arguments about Romney's age as there are now about McCain's.
For these reasons my money is on McCain picking someone younger and a little less known nationally. He would have to be a fool to pick Romney.
McCain should definitely pick Romney! He would be a fool not to pick him! A McCain/Romney ticket is a winner!!!
Bloomberg's name was floated as being a McCain VP. I immediately stopped all ideas of giving any money to McCain's campaign. I have allot of respect for Romney although I wish he'd figure out the difference between real assault weapons and semi-automatics before he speaks about them.
I'm luke warm on McCain but here are some very good reasons to vote FOR him instead of Obama the "SOCIALIST".
1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent... FACT: Characterized by the "L"ibs as tax cuts for the wealthy actually took ALL Families of four with incomes of $50K or less OFF, repeat OFF the income tax roles, period.
2. MUCH better chance of our drilling for our own energy and getting ourselves to be energy independent.
3. No 55 MPH speed limit like we suffered under CARTER.
4. Supreme Court Justices appointed to interpret the constitution as it was written NOT legislating from the bench as is the case for the "L"ib jurist currently on the Supreme Court. "L"ibs routinely use this short cut to undermine our constitution because they cannot get their way in the Constitutional Process.
5. No surrender to terrorists. The "L"ibs think that if we just stop fighting this war it will be over. That it will be just another law enforcement issue. Just like Clinton did.
1993
-Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.
-World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra'/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front.
-Failed New York City landmark bomb plot.
1994
-In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.
-Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children; the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in the United States to date. Though not proven, foreign involvement was highly suspected.
1997
-Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine". His widow claimed he became suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture. In a 2007 interview with the New York Daily News his daughter said her mother's story was a cover crafted by the Palestinian Authority and that her father wanted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
-U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.
1999
-Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.
2000
-The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat ment to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.
-USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port of Aden, by al-Qaeda.
we need mitt as vp. If we don't get him , Mccain will lose to the Obama boy and boy will this country be in trouble.
It's worth noting that, in general, what one person will most dislike about another is what they often see in and dislike about himself.
As was pointed out in this article, Mitt Romney attacked John McCain for changing positions on issues dear to conservatives in the hopes of winning their votes in the primaries and in the fall. McCain, in turn, accused Romney of the same thing. The press had a hard time deciding who was the bigger flip-flopper for a while.
Now, Romney has swallowed his pride and admitted that McCain is indeed an honorable man, despite his faults. If McCain is willing to do the same, then I, personally, will take it as a sign that he's found the humility to own the beam in his own eye.
Like Huckabee has said all along...At least he and McCain won't have to unsay anything to one another. It was obvious there was a mutual respect between McCain and Huckabee. McCain was also the only one who wasn't looking at Huckabee as if to say "How dare you have the audacity to run for President?" If McCain is wise, and really wants to energize the party base, then his only choice is Huckabee. I do think Romney needs to be a part of the cabinet as he definately has a lot of valuable knowledge to offer. Just my two cents....
The one thing the Mitt supporters keep forgetting is that while McCain may have forgiven Mitt for all of the shallow primary stuff he did, McCain supporters have not. They remember the robocalls, the mail flyers, and the commercials where Romney distorted the facts to suit his purpose. Do you really think they want Mitt on the ticket? The primaries showed us that Mitt's money did not help him win. It did give him a chance to be seen on paid commercials in more American homes than the other candidates. But the voters did not choose him, and the more they saw him in the commercials, the more they did not like him. McCain/Romney is a losing ticket for sure.
Some of the things you accuse Mitt Romney of doing sound like the same things done by everyone else! Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, etc. So why try to make it seem like it is new, different, or somehow would disqualify Mitt Romney to be Vice President!?!
John McCain and his advisers are smart men and women. They'll be looking at the "big picture" when it comes to picking a Vice President. They'll choose the man or woman who will give McCain the best chances at being elected!
My hope is that the American voter gets tired of the media's emphasis on race, gender, religion, and all of the other issues that don't matter! The economy IS the most important issue over the next 4 years. Therefore Mitt Romney's experience is needed in Washington.
Wouldn't it be great to have an American Hero John McCain
as President and an Economic Hero Mitt Romney as Vice President. I think Americans agree (will agree)!!!
Mitt is the man!!!!!!!!!!!
Just wait and see!! He will smash his opponent in the VP debates..actually look the most presidential and debate the same way!
But this article being from new york...just another roll of CHARMIN !!
Recently, John said there is nobody that represents me more than Mitt Romney !! Well, all you DUHS!
What the Romney supporters fail to mention, is that in November 2006, right before Romney left MA as governor, he had a disapproval rating of 65%. He would not have been re-elected as Governor of MA. In April 2006, Romney ranked 33 out of the 50 governors in approval ratings. Huckabee was ranked 18th, Jeb Bush (21), Barbour (24), Pawlenty (25) and Sanford (29)-all of those have been on McCain's shortlist. Let's not forget Romneycare, a universal healthcare system that we would not want Obama to follow as an example.
Why Romney as V.P.? This is an excellent must read article:
http://w3.newsmax.com/romney/?s=al&promo_code=43CE-1
Romney fills the void of McCain being a poor speaker, not knowing economics, and looking worn out. Romney is an eloquent speaker, successful in business and in being a governor, energetic, squeaky clean with moral character in his marriage and family.
Huckabee, as some prefer, would be a horrible choice. Have you even looked at his record as Arkansas governor? He ignored immigration laws and increased taxes among other things which are not conservative. Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, wrote: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles." We already know how liberal McCain is in some important areas. No wonder he and Huckabee teamed up against Romney in the primaries.
I'm replying to emails from the Republicans and McCain that I'm not sending any money or make a pledge to vote until I hear that McCain has, hopefully, selected Romney.
Oh, don't forget that Mitt Romney also carried Massachusetts when running for President by the second largest margin after Utah. So, that was a nice theory about his approval rating. It is no secret the Democrats hate him. You can't tell me Massachusetts is not Democrat. Keep trying!
So the author is saying McCain was much more genuine when he barely disguised his dislike for Bush and campaigned for him eight years ago?
Give me a break. Romney didn't quit in early February for his health. He quit to try and unify the party. Frankly, it seems to have worked. Romney is campaigning for McCain wherever/whenever. Also, Romney didn't try and destroy McCain, McCain did that all by himself last summer (immigration reform, anyone?).
Romney has shown plenty of ability to contrast himself with others. To me, this seems to be effective, especially when you're a relatively unknown Governor who is running for President. How was he supposed to get voters to vote for him, spend 25 years in the Senate and then come back and try again?
The biggest reason Mitt Romney is not fit for the Republican ticket as VP is that he's no Republican. But, then again, neither is McCain, so maybe they are a match made in ... well, I won't say that "down there" word.
Romney was the worst flip flopper on the campaign trail and proved he'd say ANYTHING to get elected. He seems to have no principle that he'd not decimate for that purpose.
Huckabee would not be as egregious, though he's no conservative.
Still, with McCain leading the ticket, conservatism is out the window anyway!
It is spelled "delusional" not "dilusional". Talk about clowns....
McCain supporters can take this with a grain of salt because there isn't a chance in this or any future lifetimes that I would vote for McCain, but choosing Romney might be the last straw for the evangelical right.
In one sense Romney is more honest than Huckabee. Romney wears his mean streak on his sleeve. Huckabee can be pretty mean too, but he hides it better. He also hides his reactionary views behind a facade of Christianity.
But it's quite a facade. I think the moment in the Republican debates, when he rescued Giuliani from answering the YouTube question from a rather demented (probably staged) man waiving the Bible and asking whether the candidates believed in every word in Scripture was the best theater of the the debates. And his answer, essentially adopting the Golden Rule and that everything else was more too complex for political debate (a paraphrase) was one that OBama, Clinton or any other Democrat could well echo.
Neither Romney nor McCain are really comfortable with the Evangelicals. Huckabee at least talks the talk with some sincerity.
Given Obama's recent statements on faith-based initiatives, the rejection of Huckabee for Romney would indeed open up the Evangelicals for a significant diversion to Obama, substantially more than Gore or Kerry, even though not a majority. Expect a safer pick than either HUckabee or Romney. McCain's problem is that by pledging to pick a VP who is pro-life, he has eliminated a dangerous-to-Democrats pick former PA governor, Tom Ridge. Or an adventuresome pick like Lieberman.
The final word on Romney (and I hope Obama's people have tied his down): his "success" as a business man revolved around labor cut-backs which men like Romney call "streamlining." Huckabee's coda on Romney was most apt: "Would you like to have a beer with the man you laid you off?"
McCain supporters can take this with a grain of salt because there isn't a chance in this or any future lifetimes that I would vote for McCain, but choosing Romney might be the last straw for the evangelical right.
In one sense Romney is more honest than Huckabee. Romney wears his mean streak on his sleeve. Huckabee can be pretty mean too, but he hides it better. He also hides his reactionary views behind a facade of Christianity.
But it's quite a facade. I think the moment in the Republican debates, when he rescued Giuliani from answering the YouTube question from a rather demented (probably staged) man waiving the Bible and asking whether the candidates believed in every word in Scripture was the best theater of the the debates. And his answer, essentially adopting the Golden Rule and that everything else was more too complex for political debate (a paraphrase) was one that OBama, Clinton or any other Democrat could well echo.
Neither Romney nor McCain are really comfortable with the Evangelicals. Huckabee at least talks the talk with some sincerity.
Given Obama's recent statements on faith-based initiatives, the rejection of Huckabee for Romney would indeed open up the Evangelicals for a significant diversion to Obama, substantially more than Gore or Kerry, even though not a majority. Expect a safer pick than either HUckabee or Romney. McCain's problem is that by pledging to pick a VP who is pro-life, he has eliminated a dangerous-to-Democrats pick former PA governor, Tom Ridge. Or an adventuresome pick like Lieberman.
The final word on Romney (and I hope Obama's people have tied his down): his "success" as a business man revolved around labor cut-backs which men like Romney call "streamlining." Huckabee's coda on Romney was most apt: "Would you like to have a beer with the man you laid you off?"
The Huckster using religion as a wedge issue during the primary was totally disgusting.Huck is a liberal on everything except being pro-life and anti gay which were pretty much a must in Ark. His long history of accepting political gifts was also appalling.I think Romney's presidential positions were who he really was not the pseudo liberal he had to run as in Mass.One reason McCain might not pick him is he has a bigger more likeable personality and would overshadow him. But if McCain wants to win he needs a power house VP who has strong creds on the economy,especially after Gramm's idiotic comments.Gramm lives in a time 20 years ago and is probably behind McCain saying he can balance the budget in 4 years which is impossible without growth.Growth that can't happen in such a short time frame. Of course the liberals will attack Romney's religion since that's all they have. Calling him a flip floper would be pretty silly after watching Obama the last few weeks.Lastly Romney would make a great attack dog against the libs/dems and that's what the Dems fear abouthim.
We will know soon enough who the choice will be. We can bat this talk around forever, there will always be difference of opinion. Some will like Mitt and some will not. Some like McCain and some do not. Voting is our freedom to choose. Thank goodness! Personnally, I still like McCain/Mitt for the choice. I don't know any of the other choices. They didn't come out in the lime light enough for me to know their personalities. They didn't do any public speaking. As for Huck, I'm sorry, but he turned me off right away. You can't make bad comments about someones religion nationally as he has. He didn't hurt Mitt, he hurt me. I'm a mormon too. It's my religion too. He insulted me as my choice of religion. I don't tell others that I don't like their religion. It's a freedom choice in our country to be what we want to be. If you want to be president, than you have to respect "ALL" peoples religion that is different than yours. I'm not picking Mitt as VP choice because I'm Mormon, its because he's been working with the party to bring us together to vote for our party. I didn't hear Mitt bad mouth Huck on his religion. Besides, debates are not about which religion is right, its about the issues of our country! Hang in there Mitt!
Hey Bill Shepherd, what about Michigan?
Utah is red, Massachusetts is blue, and you don't buy the Colorado and Nevada argument, but you conveniently neglect to mention Michigan. IF Romney can flip Michigan that's 17 reasons enough to pick him as Vice President.
Romney was never "nasty" toward Huckabee - he merely pointed out facts in ads directed toward Huckabee. Huckabee, in fact, was the "nasty" one - hiding his deceit behind his religious hypocrisy.
This election isn't about religion - it's about an economic genius who will squash Hillary in the VP debates.
Romney was never "nasty" toward Huckabee - he merely pointed out facts in ads directed toward Huckabee. Huckabee, in fact, was the "nasty" one - hiding his deceit behind his religious hypocrisy.
This election isn't about religion - it's about an economic genius who will squash Hillary in the VP debates.