the new Gov. Romney VP choice post Other Topics, posted by Chuck Roofe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
Months ago, Emerle created a post on suggested VP candidates for Mitt Romney. Quite a bit early as it turned out, the scrubs running against Mitt Romney extended the race well past what was expected, with Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum all having turns in the limelight.
When interest in the VP choice started heating up, the old post was hijacked by rhetoric, with other posters combating the rhetoric and posting their facts, all but abandoning the topic.
Kids, can we keep this one on topic? Your choice for VP and why, your prediction and why.
Your opinion about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Socialist belongs in another place, feel free to start a new post. Likewise, your opinion about Mitt Romney being an out-of-touch, failed politician, Thurston Howell III comments belong elsewhere.
Electoral math? Great idea! Start a new post. Latest news not involving a VP choice? Ditto.
Original thread: Web Link Where did you go, Emerle?
Candidates already mentioned:
- Condi Rice
- Jeb Bush
- Marco Rubio
- Chris Christie
- New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte
- Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
- New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez
- North Dakota Sen. John Thune
- Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan
- Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell
- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
- Former Sen. Rick Santorum
- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels
- South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
- National security stretches, such as Gen Patreus
- Longshots Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich (a million-to-one)
- - - - - - - - - - -
My preference = Portman, to help in Ohio (The GOP requires both Fl and OH, can't win without both; the GOP will have to depend on money and popular entrenched local leaders to carry FL - Rubio and Jeb Bush)
My bet, if I had to wager = Rubio or Christie, probably the senator, to lock down Florida
The rest wither don't help in key states, carry too much baggage, or are aren't interested (Bush, Rice, etc..)
Have at it. It's NOT the 'biggest election in our lifetime'. Maybe 2008 was. Maybe 2016 will be. Every election can't be calle the Biggest, unless you own a network and our pumping for ratings.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 6, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I backed General Patreus in the other thread, no one disagreed about a strong security, foreign policy choice for Governor Romney who, while not my first choice as a conservative, needs help in that arena.
Other choices, such as Rubio or Portman almost necessitate a electoral count based discussion, since their sole reason for having a Portman or Rubio is to pick up a specific state.
Posted by Bucky, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Chuck, you're not the only one who is unsure.
Romney VP choice. PPP May 3-6. Registered voters. MoE: ±3.1%:
"Given the following list of choices, who do you think would be the best Republican candidate for Vice President: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Ohio Senator Rob Portman, or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez?"
Someone else/not sure: 30
Chris Christie: 17
Marco Rubio: 14
Jeb Bush: 13
Jan Brewer: 9
Paul Ryan: 8
Susana Martinez: 5
Rob Portman: 3
Kelly Ayotte: 2
Funny, why the heck would anyone include Brewer on this list? Also wonder if TPaw would have broken 5%, had he been on the list. Funky poll. Seen any others?
Posted by Bucky, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on May 14, 2012 at 11:03 am
If it's Monday, it must be time for another series of VP articles to hit the press.
No women considered, wacky types need not apply, says Romney campaign. Palin types are out.
"One Republican official familiar with the campaign’s thinking said it will be designed to produce a pick who is safe and, by design, unexciting – a deliberate anti-Palin. The prized pick, said this official: an “incredibly boring white guy.”
“If not Portman, Pawlenty, Daniels — some other incredibly boring white guy,” the official said. “If there was a fourth name on the list, it’s [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell.”"
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 18, 2012 at 10:48 am
Having a CIA director as President worked well last time. Gives Governor Romney needed foreign policy and security credentials. I have yet to read anything about a veep candidate that brings anything better to the ticket than that. The talk about an “incredibly boring white guy” shows they need to get out of the box and take control of this election, or it will start slipping away, similar to the pattern evidenced by Senator McCain.
Posted by Bucky, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on May 22, 2012 at 9:38 am
Not much new this week. For those of you waiting for Rubio, think again.
Not going to happen.
Here's a sneak peek of the DNC commercial of Rubio giving his endorsement of Gov. Romney: "There are a lot of other people out there that some of us wish had run for president -- but they didn't," Rubio told Townhall.com in an interview.
So Rubio is out, so is Christie, as he told Oprah: "In terms of me, I`ll be much more ready four years from now than I am now."
Who will it be? Romney should start up the speculation machine, at least get the message back to his terms and off the Bain bashing.
Has to be Portman, otherwise a completely out of the box choice.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm
I don't understand why Governor Romney didn't give a huge speech in Texas last night, in the middle of the conservative heartland, upon clinching his nomination. Parade a couple of VP choices behind him, national speech, national spotlight, last big moment before everyone clams up until the convention.
Posted by Alfred Realist, a resident of another community, on Jul 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm
While I agree the timing is about taking our eyes off the Bain ball, I do think that it has to come down to Portman or Condi. Portman gets him OH, but doesn't help with much else.
Condi gives him a shot in OH, MI, PA, NC, and even NH. It would probably trim some support from the bible belt, since she is pro-abortion, but those states aren't in play anyway. Plus they will forgive all as long as Romney lets them choose the next supreme court justice, which he will promise them in blood.
The Obama camp would probably waste time trying to remind of her ties to GW, but that will just be a fools errand. Those that are casting votes against GW are not going to be swayed by a veep candidate anyway.
But at some point Romney is going to have to say just HOW he fixes the economy. So far all I've heard from him is that Obama sux and that if we had less debt all would be well. Worked for Hoover.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the economy is threatening to double dip, unemployment rates remain stubbornly high, there are almost no new jobs, the debt is seemingly out of control, Syria and Iran are about to explode, all of our tax rates about to increase, funding the healthcare law seems to jump every month, the European Community and their currency are disintegrating
we're talking about Mr. Romney's business record from the late 1990's (hint: he was successful), what he paid in taxes (hint: he is very rich) and if he planned for the NAACP to boo him (hint: does it matter?).
Posted by A. Realist, a resident of another community, on Jul 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm
> Condi won't help Romney anywhere. She has a video problem.
Don't think so. Won't hurt anymore than it hurt GW. Besides there is no 5 seconds of that video that is going to change anybody's mind.
Besides, consider the audience, they're trying to help make up somebody's mind who can't choose between Romney or Obama. At this level its about demographics. Romney is weak with women and minorities. It's ridiculous to assert that she doesn't have credibility. She was Secretary of State. Did she do a bad job? Where? In Syria? Where is Syria? I thought that was a dessert topping. You disagree with her policies? What are you, a racist?
There are only 8 or 9 states that are really in play, and Condi helps in several of them. At least a few percent of African Americans would love to vote for the right, all the more so since Obama is out of the closet on gay marriage. But they're not going to do that with two white guys on the ticket if it means voting against the country's first black president. Otoh, these very same voters are not going to be pro-reproductive rights, so I really think that part is a problem.
That said, Intrade ("investment" betting) puts the odds for Condi at about 9% behind both Portman and Pawlenty.
I do think Condi on the ticket could be formidible.
Posted by SF Treat, a resident of the Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm
'Realist': She does have a 'video' problem. There's a perfect 5 second ad in the video posted above. As far as "She was Secretary of State. Did she do a bad job?" You ARE joking, right? 9/11 and the two longest wars in American history.
1. he was successful - yup, and the dems looked into that success and have raised enough questions that Romney came off vacation to defend himself - a bad sign, since he has NOTHING else to run on.
2 he paid taxes - probably did. Probably paid everything he was supposed to. But he only released 1 years. $40 million in income, 13% paid in taxes, far lower rates than you and I "enjoy". What's he hiding? A year or 5 that he made 50 million and paid under 5%?
3 the third thing is, um, uh, yeah, hemmmmmm, sorry.
(with apologies to the Gov of Texas.)
Regarding all the other real world things out there - Romney has yet to offer solutions to any of them. His foreign policy advisers are all Bush/Cheney retreads (27 of 34 including Bolton.) I'd like to hear what Romney actually plans to do, other than raise the debt ceiling 10 times and cut his own taxes more.
Rice should lead the ticket, ahead of Romney, at least then I'll have the pleasure of seeing this lawn sign:
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Far from having no plan, Romney produced a 59 point plan to revive the economy and help create jobs. If anything, he was too detailed. Of course, in this era of "gotcha politics," no one is willing to be too specific about anything.
Which brings us to OUR President. What is his plan to revive the economy, reduce the debt and reign in entitlements? Jobs are stubbornly stuck in the mud, he rejected Simpson Bowles tax reform and he's yet to even propose that entitlement reform that he promised 4 years ago.
Where's HIS plan?
And while we're at it, let's remember this week as the week that the negative campaig began when one of the President's own campaign managers (not a PAC or SuperPAC) accused their opponent of being a felon. Of course, if I had President Obama's record, I'd try to deflect and change the subject too. Unfortunately, there will be four more jobs reports before the election. You'd better hope for better news.
Posted by Frederick, a resident of the Atherton: West of Alameda neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:45 am
Funny stuff. Rmoney has 59 points on a campaign website. The president has the America Jobs Act or whatever the official title is, real legislation that is blocked by the house. A house that votes on abortion every month, that voted 32 times to repeal obamaromneycare.
Def of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a differnet result... voting on repealing romneycare 32 times and expecting jobs to be created.
Posted by Moderate McGee, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
"...Romney produced a 59 point plan to revive the economy and help create jobs. If anything, he was too detailed... ... What is <Obama's> plan?"
Even asking that question indicates either one has partisan blinders or one isn't paying attention.
Romney's plan is just a bunch of rhetoric, laid out in bullet point fashion with ZERO detail behind those points. That said, even without any detail or CBO scoring, it includes some good ideas.
Obama's plan is a piece of actionable legislation called the American Jobs Act awaiting implementation. It's not nearly strong enough, but even watered down, it will never make it past the GOP House until the lame duck session, and only if Romney wins, that would give Romney a head start on job creation.
Klein has a nice summation of the two 'plans', taking into account that Romney's is only bullet points, it actually dovetails with Obama's plan. Obama's has more short term job creation (which increases revenues, reducing the deficit) and Romney's rhetoric is more long term solutions, with potential results measured in years, not months.
Do both. We are not far removed from December 2008 and it's 800,000 per month job losses.
"It’s true that Mitt Romney has a jobs plan, and that it includes 59 bullet points. But it’s not true that Obama hasn’t released anything similarly detailed. He’s released the American Jobs Act, which has 41 bullet points on its fact sheet. So Romney has a slight advantage in bullet points. But Obama’s plan has actually been written up as a 423-page piece of legislation, making it considerably more specific than anything Romney has put forward."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Nothing passed in the House stands a chance in the Senate... and vice versa. So? Whether the House or Senate is the problem depends on your perspective.
At least the House is passing legislation. Majority Leader Reid won't even entertain votes.
So who's being obstructionist?
PS - Yes, I am definitely biased... NOW. I am a lifelong Democrat, I voted for Obama and am disappointed by his performance, his lack of leadership, his policies, and his failure to focus on the economy.
Posted by Pops, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Pogo, no one loves Romney. Least liked candidate since Kerry. Similar to Dole and Dukakis in that regard. Even John Boehner publicly said that “Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him."
The House has a jobs bill in front of it. It will create jobs and build infrastructure we need. The jobs created will be this winter at the earliest, and will be "credited" to the new president - Governor Mitt Romney or President Obama.
I don't see the House working on any other jobs bill. How can you blame Harry Reed, the Senate or Obama for that?
Boehner promised in 2010 that this was the 'Jobs are Number One' Congress. His grade?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Except many people believe that jobs bill is nothing more than another giveaway to state employees. That's kinda what happened last time we had a stimulus package. Remember those "shovel ready jobs" that weren't? I didn't really think it was funny when they joked about it.
Fool me once...
Here's an idea, how about government getting out of the way and letting the private sector do their thing. (And please spare me about Enron and Barclays and I'll spare you about unsustainable union pensions.)
Posted by up or down vote, a resident of the Woodside: Woodside Glens neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm
They're not just blocking the American Jobs Act by voting 33 times to repeal RomneyObamaCare; the senate is blocking the bring jobs home to America bill.
I don't care who the veep nominee is, I'm done with the GOP until they decide to get to work and earn the fat checks we give them.
56 votes to end the corporate welfare to companies that outsource to India. It doesn't pass with 56 votes because the GOP filibusters.
"Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an "insourcing" bill from Democrats that would have ended tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.
The Bring Jobs Home Act also would have given a tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States. The measure failed to advance on a 56-42 vote, with 60 votes needed to end debate on the bill."
Bastards. Give it a straight up or down vote.
How can they sleep at night, defending tax breaks for sending jobs to China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc..