McCain Advisor: McCain Can Announce VP Pick On "Short Notice"

From WaPo, via Political Wire, McCain advisor Charlie Blakc signals that McCain has made his VP decision:

He's [McCain] in a position to make the decision on short notice if he wanted to."

It seems clear to me McCain has made his decision. From the Wapo article:

Two top aides to the presumptive Republican nominee said the decision is likely to be announced after Obama returns from Europe on Sunday and before the Beijing Olympics begin Aug. 8.

I think it is the Mittster. What's your guess?

< The "Return" Of General Wes Clark | Dems Poised To Gain 15 House Seats; Then What? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it's Jesus. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    That's his only hope.

    Jesus is running (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    as a post-partisan Dem this cycle.

    I know, I know, but I didn't say the O-word.

    The way Pawlenty is hustling to get the collapsed bridge replacement up here in time for RNC and all the kudos I have to wonder if maybe he's got a big party ticket in his pocket (or he's just happy to be hanging out with McCain) lately.


    Pawlentey (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    is my prediction.

    I don't think McCain thinks he is behind enough to need a very bold move, like picking a woman. Pawlentey will please the base, he's young, and from a state McCain needs.

    my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:53:25 PM EST
    I have been saying Pawlenty (none / 0) (#156)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    for weeks- and this will help in Minn, Wis, and Iowa. If mccain takes those three plus Ohio or Penn. he wins. Poll this morning (heard it on C-SPAN) has mccain with substantial lead in Colo.

    5 comments in this thread (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    about Obama.  This thread isn't about Obama.

    You're chattering.

    Pawlentey (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    you'd have to be a masochist or an idiot to run as McCain's VP because McCain is going to lose. So, find the biggest idiot who wants to waste his time and ruin his career, and that will be the one.

    I agree with this (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    that's why I think you won't see someone like Tim Pawlenty or Mark Sanford run.  They'll keep their powder dry.  

    If it is Mitt then that says to me that no one else wanted the job.


    and also... (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    that poor Mitt has nowhere to go and nothing to lose!

    Romney will help McCain (none / 0) (#170)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    particularly in MI.


    I have a friend in MA, a minister for a large church and was surprised when she stated she liked Romney when he was Gov of Ma. I don't like him but he appears to help McCain.


    I would not be so confident. (none / 0) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    I was half listening to C-Span this morning, and they said most recent polling shows mccain ahead where he needs to be. It will be close.

    OK (none / 0) (#167)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    We'll see. It just seems like a fait accompli at this point - everyone is either in love with Obama or scared to criticize him. And McCain's campaign is pathetic.

    Spend before hand (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    I read an article that McCain would actually have to spend the primary money by the end of August.  I don't think they can carry it over.

    I still don't think McCain should announce now.  Obama gets this week for the trip and next week for the analysis of the trip.  I thought McCain's best bet was to announce after the Dem convention.  Maybe he figures he'll get some headway against Obama if they can double team him.  What's with the Repub party?  It isn't just that the McCain campaign sucks... the whole party seems to be laying low... like they've given up on the WH this round and expect to regroup for the next round.  It would give some of the other Repubs time to develop their resumes.

    they're walking on egg shells (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    for fear of waking up the Dems to the big mistake they're making running Obama as the Nominee.  Once it's official, they'll make up for lost time.

    No need to destroy Obama now.  Let the American People get over-saturated with The One to the point of eye-rolling disgust come September and then negatively define him when it's too late for the Dems to do anything about it.

    McCain is shaking hands and doing what politicians do Swing State by Swing State.


    Thank You! (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by IzikLA on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:29:51 AM EST
    Why does it seem that no one gets this??!!  Obama is the "presumptive" nominee not the nominee yet and lest we all forget, there is a very solid back-up candidate who received approximately the same amount of votes.

    The Republicans and the McCain campaign do not have their guns out ablazing right now.  It shocks me how many intelligent people around here think we Democrats have this in the bag because of how inept they seem to be right now.

    They will attack in full force after the convention. Just wait and see.  I would be beyond shocked if this did not happen.


    I agree (none / 0) (#181)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    Bush was a fairly inept campaigner both times, embarrassed himself in both debates and yet still somehow managed to get enough votes elsewhere to effectively steal the first election and then evidently get enough votes the second time to possibly steal it in 2004.  Why anyone would think the Republicans having an inept candidate would somehow put it "in the bag" for the Dems is beyond me.

    And Obama isn't exactly a perfect campaigner either.  I trust that by October, his need to refine inartful statements will be something of a running joke.  And with no history of national public service, anticipate the Republicans to knee-cap him and blow massive holes into whatever community service he did as well as reminding people constantly of those constituents of his who shivered out Chicago's most brutal winter in decades in one of his friend Rezko's sub-standard buildings (the city contract of which he helped orchestrate) while he stood by and fund-raised, doing nothing to help them.

    Either he's a community activist helping his constituents (which makes the Rezko sub-standard building thing more than contradictory) or he's just another politician doing what's politically expedient and going where the money is, constituents be damned (which contradicts his current "I'm different, Hope and Change" theme).

    For the Republicans -- who were only months ago resigning themselves to losing the White House --, Obama is their dream opponent.  There is NO way they're going to mess THAT up.


    Mit would be a great mistake (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    If McCain chooses Mit, he will lose big.  Mit is about the worst choice.

    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    I dont get Mitt.

    The conservative religious base (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:48:09 PM EST
    While they may not be excited by McCain nor his potential VP choices, I think they are better organized and will still support their candidate - especially if it looks like they are going to lose more seats in the Congress.  They tend to vote more in lockstep and I think it will be easier to corral them then all the disaffected Dems that Obama thinks he's going to get.

    They havent secured many seats so far. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:16:17 PM EST
    And Mark wins the prize (4.83 / 6) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    for the first Obama jab in a McCain thread.  

    Congrats.  Granted you were the odds on favorite but still a good win for you.

    Senator Craig (4.67 / 3) (#3)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    is looking for a new job. His wide stance will put us on solid ground. Charlie Christ a close second.
    But seriously, even with all the opportunity for high comedy -

    The VP McCain picks is very important seeing that McCain seems to be showing signs he may not make it through a first term, at least mentally. He needs to pick someone Presidential who will excite the base. I will be voting against his VP choice as well as him.

    And, dear Larry is both extremely well spoken (none / 0) (#76)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    and quite adept at tap-dancing.

    Plus, KO already has his puppet figure made, so there'll be a lot less labor needed to goof on him.

    I just wonder how Senator Craig will feel coming back through the Minneapolis airport, particularly where the elephant on the RNC convention logo kinda resembles the gas nozzle those furriners are yanking us by.


    Dick Morris doesn't like Mitt (4.66 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    But Dick Morris is an idiot. I don't know how it will be, personally, and I don't really think it matters much.

    But, he did announce... (4.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    Yesterday John McCain announced his Vice Presidential selection to a crowd of tens in a parking garage in Columbus, Ohio. Unfortunately, there was no media present, no one in the crowd thought to video the event and there was no cell phone coverage in the 3 story underground facility. Asked if it was true he had named his running mate McCain responded, "Are you my economy czar? No, have you seen him?" Later at a restaurant near his home former Congressman Rob Portman was asked if he was the choice. "Yes it is," said Portman, "and the wine is superb." The McCain campaign could not be reached for comment.

    It seems to me (4.50 / 2) (#42)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    the smart money is still on Romney.

    You don't think that the (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    FLDS stories are gonna have an impact on Romney's prospects?

    Not a bit (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    This is the VP slot, after all.  Very few people are going to refuse to vote for the ticket because the VP is icky.

    Even though Romney stands for nothing in actuality, he somehow acquired a niche as the conservative candidate during the primary with a lot of folks.  This means he brings a brand to the ticket that matters more than the reality that he has no actual ideology.

    He also has money, to the extent McCain has fundraising problems, and he can possibly swing Michigan.  Finally, I'm swayed by the fact that he's an obvious pick, and yet the rumors floating around of late have involved everyone but him, suggesting purposeful feinting is taking place.  No guarantees, but I think he's the most likely choice.


    While I disagree (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    that his religion wouldn't be a problem, I do agree with you that Romney is in the top three, and probably a close second choice as of today.

    Not an issue (none / 0) (#155)
    by nell on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    Romney's religion is not an issue for the general because of Obama's associations with Wright. Having Romney on the ticket neutralizes the issue of controversial religion and religious associates.

    I am no fan of Mitt and no VP could win McCain my vote (though Obama doesn't have it either), but at least where I am, I have heard a lot of enthusiasm for Romney, which surprised me. The primary in my state happened well after Romney dropped out, but many of the Republicans I know have mentioned Romney as their original first choice....go figure.


    Pawlenty (none / 0) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    McCain has been talking her up as of 7/23


    Sorry (none / 0) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    Pawlenty is a him.  My bad.

    You mean Palin, I bet. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    She has a great backstory.  She will get him great press.  Too bad I don't like her stands on issues.

    That's Alaska's Palin? (none / 0) (#66)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    What part of her backstory are we to be enamored of?

    The siccing the police on the former brother-in-law part?

    The twenty-six (or so) bogus complaints part?

    The selling Alaska to Big Mining and Big Oil part?

    The helping destroy the Alaskan Republican party part?

    Palin would be a Democratic dream come true.


    Yes, there are problems (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    but the backstory of the mother who decided against aborting the child with Down's Syndrome -- that's gold with some Independents.  And the GOPs won't mind your list above a bit.  And some will like a lot on that list.  Why do some Dems not get that GOPs have a different worldview and don't think like liberals do?  Jeesh.

    Uh... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    Im just going off of the lieutenant gov pulling all ads associated with her and conservative radio talk show hosts ripping on her.  And yes she wont lose all her support but shes taking a serious hit.  One bad enough to probably make her toxic as VP.  To try and deny that would be silly.

    Yup... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    Palin is toast.  Even the radio wingnuts in Alaska are turning on her.

    Rasmussen markets has him as a favorite (none / 0) (#79)
    by dianem on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    Right behind Romney, anyway. He would be a good choice, I think, but I'm not thinking it's likely - for a silly reason. "McCain/Pawlenty" simply doesn't sound like a winning combination. It doesn't roll off the tongue.

    Romney (none / 0) (#8)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    or Sarah Palin.

    how about... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    instead of sarah Polin, we go with Sarah Polley?

    I'd go for it, but she's got two problems: (none / 0) (#93)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    she won't be 35 until 2014, and
    she's Canadian, born in Toronto.

    I'm sure there's some way a 5-4 Republican S.Ct. can finesse those problems, but I'm not up to speculating on how.


    Governor of Alaska (none / 0) (#24)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    I had to look it up. So, I'm posting this to save the trouble for others who might be in my condition.

    Nice photos. Just the kind of image to add life to McCain's campaign.


    I think Palin (none / 0) (#9)
    by ajain on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    He needs to shake things up and if he is going to announce his VP pick before Obama, I think Palin would be a good choice.

    I'm surprised (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    I thought McCain was going to wait until Obama made his choice (of course, I guess he still could - an announcement like this may put pressure on Obama to announce his choice or that he has a choice).

    Palin might be (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by rottenart on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    She should fit right in with the other Republicans....

    Oh my (none / 0) (#41)
    by Nadai on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    So much for her.  Even if there's nothing to it, it'll never blow over in time to make her a VP pick.

    Palin? No way! (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Major scandal unfolding now.  She's out.

    Oh really (none / 0) (#27)
    by ajain on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    I had no clue.

    If it were Michael Palin (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    I might vote for McCain.  I would at least enjoyt he next 3 months a lot more.

    Now that would be something. . . (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    completely different.

    And he's already been around the world (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    Pole to Pole, and across the middle, and has the video to prove it.  He did not look very presidential though.

    Why Palin? (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    I don't know anything about her policies but I've heard she's not that inspiring a candidate but is competent. Like a flip side of Sebelius. Could someone point to some substantive info on her for me?

    From all that I have read about her (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ajain on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    She is a reformist (got elected by challenging the GOP establishment) who is incredibly popular (90% approval rating in Alaska). She is also the classic Republican, former beauty queen who loves to hunt and is married with 5 kids. Totally pro-life, gun-toting, charismatic conservative.

    Wrong tense about her. "Was." (none / 0) (#83)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    Her whole administration is imploding this week, thanks to one blogger.

    Another post-er put a nice link up, but in short, when a relative got divorced, she's accused of having sent the Department of Public Safety after the relative's ex-husband (i.e., her own brother-in-law), making about 2 dozen complaints about his performance as an employee and trying to have him fired.  When the DPS wouldn't fire the brother-in-law, she fired the head of the DPS.

    And it goes downhill from there.

    Sadly for the Democrats, she's toast.  But, there is a silver lining to even this, since the strongest Republican candidate to retain a (senate or house - I forget which) seat which is occupied by another Repug whose own scandal's are taking him down was a protege of Palin's.  That protege has wiped her endorsements from his ads, but not before everyone noticed the wipes.  


    Also, the brother-in-law is a cop... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    I think that aspect is adding to the flames.

    Sorry, could someone link to the (none / 0) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    imploding part?  The link above was to what -- a random page saying it should be investigated?

    It's gonna be.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST
    Cheney...   or maybe Bush.

    Just kidding.

    Cheney is more Obama's type. (none / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    They are cousins, after all.

    If asked... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    Im sure cheney would endorse McSame.

    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nadai on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    Crist or Palin - Crist if he's going for geography, Palin for demography.  I can't see him picking Romney at all, but I've been wrong before.

    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    it is going to be a hard core Conservative.  

    It seems clear to me that he isn't going to win this by wooing the middle.  His only chance is to fire up the base.  Create a contrast with Obama by appealing to Conservatives.

    Fred Thompson perhaps?  Newt Gingrich?  

    I can't see (none / 0) (#34)
    by Nadai on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    either of them.  Fred Thompson looks and acts like he's 100 years old, which is definitely not what McCain needs.  They'd be the Geezer Twins - Vote for us, one of us might survive the next four years!  And Gingrich hasn't been sufficiently prominent for years, not to mention he's got a ton of baggage.

    Fred Thompson is a terrible campaigner (none / 0) (#40)
    by dianem on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    He was not very committed to the race and was, apparently, a very boring speaker. Newt Gingrich would be more acceptable politically, but has had a number of personal scandals that would alienate a lot of the people McCain wants to win over. I think Romney would be the most likely choice. He's not conservative enough to alienate the middle, but he is conservative enough to rally a lot of right wingers. The extremists will vote for McCain just because they hate him less than they fear Obama.

    Rob Portman (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    He's reliably conservative and his experience at OMB and as a trade rep will play well with republicans. They need a shiny face and Portman's it.

    Definitely a woman... (none / 0) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    I think Christie Whitman.

    I don't think McCain should pick someone that nobody has ever heard of.

    Mitt would just be a dumb choice, IMHO.... He will alienate the evangelicals just as much (if not more) than Whitman would without adding anything to the ticket of much consequence.  

    But I definitely think it will be a woman -- McCain wants to put Obama's back up against the wall on his own choice... Obama's lack of national security cred means that its important that he pick someone with military/nat'l security cred.  And, unfortunately, I can't think of a whole lot of female dems who have that cred (with the exception of HRC, of course).

    I think Mittens is a real possibility... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    because of the money he would definitely bring in.  They are desperate for financing.

    since McCain... (none / 0) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:33:49 PM EST
    since McCain is taking public financing, the Mittsters personal fortune won't make a difference...

    Ahh yeah, forgot. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    Not gonna be a woman. (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    Remember O can't choose a woman because it would be seen as craven pandering for the female vote? McCain's move would also be obvious (to anyone that is on the fence, not the obama lovers/haters)
    That development is unfortunate though, because I believe there are a multitude of women capable of running the country. (call me crazy, that's what I believe)

    that's why he needs to pick a woman... (4.00 / 1) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    with high name recognition -- and a decent resume.

    And that is why I think that Whitman is the perfect choice.  Someone like Palin would look like pandering.  Plus, other than her gender, Palin adds nothing to the ticket.  (Whitman could make NJ highly competitive, and could make the difference in neighboring Pennsylvania.)


    No way (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    If McCain were attempt to rebrand the Republican Party in a more Northeastern, moderate way, something they'll probably need to do one of these days, he would be running a much different campaign than he has to date.

    I would love the chance to beat Whitman up over 9/11, though.  She has a lot of blood on her hands.


    Whitman (none / 0) (#82)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    may actually help lock up NJ and cut into any Obama support in NY.  Would be an interesting choice.

    Hah! (none / 0) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Whitman, the killer of 9/11 site workers?  Popular in New York?  I don't think so.  And a lot of those folks live (or lived) in New Jersey as well.

    you can Ha! (none / 0) (#107)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    all you want, but if New Yorkers (Greenwich Village right here, by the way) and people in New Jersey were voting with 9/11 at the forefront of their minds, no Republicans in either State would get a vote ... period.

    For Obama or the Dems to use 9/11 against Whitman, they'd need to, well, use 9/11 which many might find distasteful and over-the-line.  Desperate, even.

    In truth, many people see Whitman as a Moderate.  I wouldn't discount her appeal just yet especially when compared to the inexperienced opportunist we know as Oh-bam-a.


    She is a moderate. . . (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    and the kind I actually like.  If she were running for a state office, she's the kind of Republican I might cross lines for.

    But like so many others she got sucked into doing Bush's dirty work.  She's poison not on "9/11" but on "first responder treatment".  I doubt she'd help much in New Jersey.  In New York, not at all.


    Larry is spot on (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    Whitman does not carry NJ whatsoever.  

    I still wouldn't (none / 0) (#129)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    underestimate the effect McCain choosing her might have on fence-sitting Republicans in Jersey and New York who aren't planning on voting at all, but will get out in order to help the Republicans make history with the first female VP.

    If having her on the ticket helps force Obama into investing time and energy into Jersey and New York as the numbers tighten, he may do it.


    Hey (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    I really hope he picks a running mate that he thinks will help him challenge in NY and NJ.  These are double digit loss states regardless of who his running mate is.  Almost every Republican I know has already accepted defeat in November.

    interesting (none / 0) (#141)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    most of the Republicans I know here in NYC are ecstatic at having Obama as the Dem Nominee because they see an inevitable McCain Presidency.

    Haven't talked with them about how they feel each State will go (NY and NJ), but many of the Dems I know have no plans to vote for Obama while most Republicans I know (as well as Independents) are definitely voting for McCain.

    Guess we'll find out in November.


    Well (none / 0) (#152)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    I don't know any Republicans ecstatic about McCain regardless of his chances.

    about McCain personally? (none / 0) (#153)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    no, you're right about that.  But about the weakness of the Dem Nominee?  Oh yeah.  The Republicans I know were scared to death of Hillary running and we're overjoyed when the DNC dragged Obama across the finish line while shoving their boots in a resurgent Hillary's face.

    Some couldn't believe the Dems' stupidity while others expected nothing less than for them to shoot themselves in the foot in a year when it should be a cake walk.

    So, the Republicans I know are overjoyed that the odds are strong they'll hold the White House for another four years.


    So by the tone of your (none / 0) (#163)
    by independent voter on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    comments, I take it you are cheering for McCain. Presumably, you do not consider yourself a Democrat, a Progressive, or even left leaning???

    nope (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    not cheering for or planning to vote for McCain, but definitely not voting for The One either.

    Thankfully, Jeralyn doesn't require Loyalty Oaths or blindly following the Dem Nominee.  We're free to criticize (on-topic) and share our thoughts in a respectful, hopefully humorous manner.

    Besides, I'm allergic to Kool-Aid.


    Hey, if Obama is beaten in 2008, there's (2.00 / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:49:12 PM EST
    a better chance of having a real progressive in the white house in 2012. Don't knock it!

    FYI, no Democratic loyalty oaths are required here (none / 0) (#169)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    in order to talk.

    McCain needs someone (none / 0) (#173)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    to win at least one of these: PA, MI, MN.  And he has to win Ohio.

    Help him win I mean (none / 0) (#174)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    Whitman burnt her bridges to the (none / 0) (#84)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    conservatives when she wouldn't go along on arsenic-in-drinking-water while at EPA.

    And she's been proven a liar over the air quality in post-9/11 NYC.

    And there's always that picture of her feeling up a black suspect.  That will drive AA turnout for Obama like nobody's business.

    And most of NJ still hates her.

    And no one's even started talking about her husband's business dealings....


    WTF? (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    I had never seen that photo before!

    That's from her days as governor (none / 0) (#96)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    She would go on ride-alongs with the State Police in rough neighborhoods, and participate in the busts, sometimes.

    This was a young black male, about 19 at the time, and she frisked him.  The trooper who took the photo was supposed to have destroyed it but, you know how it goes....


    You're thinking like a progressive... (none / 0) (#92)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    and as someone born and raised in NJ, and who visits there weekly, I don't think New Jerseyians hate Whitman at all.   Like a slew of GOP governors who were in office during the Clinton years, she benefitted greatly from the Clinton economy.  

    You underestimate the bad taste (none / 0) (#102)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    her lying about air quality post-9/11 left in peoples' mouths, the years of continuing coverage that's gotten in the NJ/NY media as it came out in dribs and drabs.

    More importantly, you're forgetting that she's not one of the conservatives and never was.  

    She's a horse country Republican - from the old Rockefeller wing of the party and never was part of the people who really mattered in this Admin.  The same would be true of a McSame admin and, given his age and doddering-ness, the movement will not want to bet on whether their VP choice will be a true believer.

    Bushie put her in charge of EPA because to true movementarians the environment's a chick's job - like "secretary" on Student Council - and her job at EPA was destroy the agency.  When she wouldn't go along, they sh*tcanned her in a minute.


    Oh geez (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    I'm trying to imagine the African-American voter who wouldn't bother to show up at the polls to elect the first African-American president, but would be motivated to show up because of some picture of the GOP vice-presidential nominee frisking a black suspect.  You know, it's pretty hard to imagine that such a person even exists.

    Yeah I don't think (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:41:23 PM EST
    any minority block is stupid enough to vote R with or without this photo. (even though the rethugs are at least superficially changing their "resistence" to people of color)

    O's situation with picking a woman is different (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    Blantant pandering is excusable - most VP picks are pandering to one group or another. But O picking a woman other than Hillary is tone-deaf pandering.

    McCain's best chance is to pick a woman (none / 0) (#50)
    by kempis on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Whitman would appeal to moderates but alienate conservatives. (Remember "It's My Party, Too"?) And given that McCain is already on shaky ground, I don't know that he can afford to do that.

    Palin would be an exciting choice for McCain--and he desperately needs an exciting choice: young, a highly popular governor of Alaska, and the potential to be the same sort of blank slate Obama has been. Sometimes it's useful not to have been in the national public eye for too long. And I think it's important for the GOP to add youthful appeal to the ticket; she definitely does that.


    messaging.... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    Palin would be an exciting choice for McCain--and he desperately needs an exciting choice: young, a highly popular governor of Alaska, and the potential to be the same sort of blank slate Obama has been.

    I think that the choice of an "exciting" choice who is a "blank slate [like] Obama has been" is exactly what the McCain campaign needs to avoid to get its "Obama is a pig in a poke... and its a bad poke" message out.

    Ultimately, McCain's theme is likely to be about "comfort levels" -- I think the decision has been made to make McCain "the candidate you can be comfortable with".  He can't compete with Obama in the charisma/excitement department, so the smart thing to do is to make his deficiencies in those departments an asset.


    Carly Fiorini, maybe (none / 0) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    She's got the leadership competence, and is certainly committed to McCain for Pres.

    Whitman's impressive, (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    but Fiorina? Please. Isn't she pretty much a disgraced businesswoman?

    Not disgraced at all. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    Yet another attack on a strong woman who turned out to be right about what was happening in their sector.
    She got shooed out of HP because she wasn't melding with the old HP culture. The boys didn't like that.
    But no, not disgraced. Witch hunted and run outta town just like another strong woman I know.

    Don't think so (none / 0) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    My recollection is she was a victim of serious mysoginy, but I'm not interested enough to research that.

    Whitman can't shake her role in the bad air being called safe and the resulting illnesses and deaths of the first responders...at least not where my vote is concerned.


    Yeah your'e right (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    I forgot that about Whitman.

    but its not YOUR vote that McCain... (none / 0) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    cares about.  Its the vote of all those moderates who have serious doubts about Obama, but are sick of the GOP as well, that live in the swing states.

    Thank you. I said something similar (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    above about so much of the concerns raised here about GOP picks -- some of those concerns being not problems at all but pluses with non-liberals.:-)

    yeah... (none / 0) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST

    NOdoby really cares that much about issues and VP picks.... what matters is what it says about the candidate.

    I don't think that McCain has to worry about the 'conservative' vote at this point.  The people who think he's not conservative enough are already saying they'll vote for Barr.  

    What McCain needs to do is reassure moderates that he's "not Bush" -- and he has to do so in a way that is consistent with his overall message.  

    If Clinton was running, I think that Whitman would be a pointless choice; in that case, an 'outsider' would be a better idea.  

    But its not Clinton, its Obama -- and the underlying message of the McCain campaign is going to be "who are you comfortable with?", because it not only raises questions about Obama, but conservatives who don't like McCain are going to be really uncomfortable with Obama.


    A friend once represented Carly Fiorina (none / 0) (#88)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    in a very simple transaction and, to put it in two words, said "never again".

    She made a shrieking Martha Stewart throwing flowerpots look genteel.


    more lovely misogyny (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    on a progressive blog.
    shrieking and throwing flower pots.
    again and again and again and again, an ambitious or strong woman is an hysterical nut case.
    this cr*p is sickening.

    I have known ambitious women that are also (none / 0) (#164)
    by independent voter on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    hysterical nut cases. Not everything is misogyny.

    Palin (none / 0) (#19)
    by k on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    I have no idea. McCain needs someone exciting and I'm not sure there is a Republican that fits that bill.

    And waaay OT...cspan is televising Conyers Executive Power meeting. Bob Barr, Elizabeth Holtzman, Rocky Anderson, Vincent Bugliosi. Don't know how much longer it will be on but it has been fasinating.

    She is mired in scandal (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    Tried to fire a trooper based on private vendetta....Trooper's boss refused and she fired him.

    Right wing shock jock is all up in arms....

    Palin is sunk.


    The fact that a right wing shock jock (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    is upset is hardly going to bother moderates or the greatest part of the undecideds (of which there are quite a high number at this point).  In fact, it might help her.

    Mitt or Huck (none / 0) (#23)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    But I hope he picks the Exorcist.

    Just a tease to keep press attention (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    McCain hornswaggled the Prince of Darkness over this to get attention.....

    But, if true, I say Pawlenty....with Mitt being second.....Talk about flip-flopping.  Mitt will say anything....

    I heard (Tweety, I think) that Cindy McCain and Ann Romney are really close.  They swap recommendations on pilots for their private planes....Good help is so hard to find.

    I agree. I think Pawlenty. (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    Especially if the tightening in the Minn. polls aren't a fluke.

    Pawlenty is an unknown (none / 0) (#175)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    He won't create much excitement.  McCain needs excitement at this point.

    Palin is out (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    She is in the midst of a scandal breaking.

    Forget her.

    So those of you who picked her, try again.

    My guess is... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    ...his VP pick will do absolutely nothing for him.  Right now, Obama has all the momentum and no one McCain selects will change that.  

    Mitt... (none / 0) (#38)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    ... strikes me as a very weak choice. Given the excitement and historic nature of the Democratic candidates this year, McCain needs someone who's at least a little bit new and exciting. Romney is the complete opposite of that.

    Although... (none / 0) (#44)
    by rottenart on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    TWO gaff-o-trons on the trail would be awesome entertainment. Mitt's really good at talking complete bullocks on BOTH sides of an issue!

    I think it's mitt (none / 0) (#47)
    by jb64 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    He doesn't need Crist to win Florida, Palin has troubles of her own, Whitman would be great, but too moderate, which leaves.... the Mittster. Maybe he thinks it'll put Michigan into play, and it might. Mitt has money, gets some economic bona-fides, and is a tireless campaigner. Evangelicals will come in November regardless of who the VP pick is. Mitt soothes the souls of the conservative wing of the party (who probably wish he were the nominee) and he's kinda telegenic in a weird plastic candidate sort of way.

    I fully expect Mccain to announce he's only planning on serving 1 term anyway, so this really is about 2012.

    or maybe not

    since Palin is probably out... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kempis on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    I agree with you. It's probably Mitt.

    Mitt's money (none / 0) (#94)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    If McCain is taking public financing, doesn't that mean he can't use Mitt's money?

    I thought he was announcing too early to get the most out of media attention, but if he's using Mitt so he can access his money, it makes sense since he may still have time before he makes official whether he would use public financing.


    Ah, using Mitt's money in August (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    Maybe so......

    I think Mitt may be the choice (none / 0) (#115)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    Living in a part of the country just crawling with the Religious Right, I've found that the conservative evangelicals are quite willing to work with Catholics and LDS members, despite the denominational differences.  Of course, they'd prefer Huckabee, but Mitt might be a reasonable second choice for the RR.  

    Interesting thought about the timing and public financing, although I think it might be difficult for McCain to flip-flop on that choice.  My first thought about the timing was that it was a rather desperate attempt to grab a little coverage between the time Obama returns from Europe and the start of the Olympics advertising.  McCain has sounded old, tired, and grumpy on the stump this past week or two.  


    Who is strongest in the West and Southwest? (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    Isn't that where Obama's "new map" shows the most gains?
    If McCain holds the Southwest, does Obama have any chance? Is this why BTD thinks it will be Mitt?

    Good point (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    But if McCain holds Minnesota and Ohio and Penn, the west does not matter so much, if at all. That's why I'm sticking with Pawlentey.

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#87)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    ...that an unknown like Pawlenty really helps McCain in states like Ohio or PA, or anywhere that isn't Minnesota (and possibly Iowa).

    And as with Palin, Pawlenty's lack of name-recognition, and his lack of experience in national politics, conflicts with what McCain's best message will be.  


    If the election were tomorrow (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    then yes, Pawlenty is too unknown to help.  But if he camps himself in PA and OH for the next two months, I think he would help a lot.

    "holds" MN/OH/PA? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Not quite sure he's in a "hold" mode in those states yet, eh?  Although I'd love it if he thinks he is.

    On the broader point, I agree that McCain's best pick would be somebody who helps him in the Mountain West, where Obama has a real chance to pick up 2-3 Bush states.


    That's Romney (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    Being a Mormon will help in Colorado and Nevada....How much is unclear--all or most of the Mormons would dutifully vote for McCain anyway; so, it is unclear if Romney could increase McCain's take of the Mormon vote--because it is so high anyway.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    I meant to write 'hold Ohio' in the sense of keeping it red from 2004 and pick up the other two.

    If McCain wins Ohio and picks up PA, Obama can pick up CO, NV, and NM and still lose the election.

    I think Pawlentey would play well in PA even though he is not well-known there now.


    Pawlenty or Portman (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    Romney is too moderate for the republican base - that would be adding to McCain's own difficulty in motivating this base. And I predict, as always, that neither Obama nor McCain will choose a woman.

    Name I haven't seen mentioned yet: (none / 0) (#95)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    Mark Sanford, SC Governor.  The far right loves him to death, young, likeable, etc.  Haven't heard his name kicked around much, though.  I suppose if the McCain campaign buys into the regional strength fallacy, he doesn't make much sense to them.

    I wonder if McCain (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    is finished thanking Sanford for tying him to Bush on the economy the way he did on CNN a couple of weeks ago:

    BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?

    SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television.

    Well, to be entirely fair to the guy... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    there's no good answer to that question, where "good" means both "politically helpful" and "true."

    A subconscious (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    attack of conscience maybe?

    "I hate it when I have to tell the truth, particularly on television."


    Well (none / 0) (#160)
    by nell on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    it's not like Obama surrogates have never fumbled. Remember the Texas Rep. who could not name a single Obama accomplishment? Not a single one.

    I remember, and I was surprised (none / 0) (#165)
    by independent voter on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    that he was sent out to "represent" for the Obama campaign. If this election were not so unbelievably crucially important, I would have had to laugh. I felt really sorry for the guy, but come on...step up to the plate here!! Do you know what's at stake???

    Yeah he does (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    nothing for McCain electorally.

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    The far right (including religious conservatives) love him.  He does as much for McCain as anybody out there -- I think either him or Huckabee would be McCain's best picks electorally.  IMHO it'll actually be Romney, maybe Pawlenty, but I've never accused McCain's campaign of being smart.

    McCain is in striking distance in Minn. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    Pawlenty could give him an important state.
    and he is a very likeable and articulate guy.
    of all the people advocating for McCain on cable he is the best IMO.
    very non threatening for the GOP.

    I fervently hope (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    that McCain agrees with you and thinks he can pull off a win in Minnesota.  One outlying Q poll doesn't erase all the others showing Obama +10-15.  

    I'll be interested in the new SUSA, I guess -- they're the only outfit that has consistently shown Obama up only single digits in MN.


    I have seen several stories (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    about tightening in Minn.  but thats not the only reason to pick Pawlenty.

    McCain has no good choices. . . (none / 0) (#97)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    for VP.  Never having consolidated the evangelical base but needing to woo the American center, it's almost impossible for him to pick someone who won't piss off one side or the other.

    Mitt's a reasonable choice given that he's already been on almost every side of most issues.

    But I think his best play might be Huckabee.

    The most important factor (none / 0) (#98)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    will be youth and vigor, IMO.  I think McCain's age really does hurt him in many minds, so a younger and presidential-seeming running mate will matter.

    'Course, there's no real shortage of 40-55 y/o prospects out there for him, so I guess I don't have much of a point.


    Well, I must say (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    if he picks Huckabee, I will be jumping out of my seat to support Obama...because the potential of a Huckabee presidency scares the daylights out of me.

    Huckabee doesn't get along with the Republican status quo enough to be given even VP IMO.


    The prospect of Huckabee as VP (none / 0) (#171)
    by K Lynne on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    scares the heck out of many of the moderate repubs I know.  

    His quote about the constitution being secondary to the bible (paraphrased) may win a lot of evangelicals, but sends the more moderates screaming.


    There is only (none / 0) (#112)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    one pick that would force me to vote against McCain at this point and that the Huckster. It is a shame that Palin is embroiled in scandal. It would have been fun to tell people I was voting for McCain because she is hot. Heh.

    Why can't McCain pick someone from (none / 0) (#113)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    across the aisle?  Like, oh, hmmm, Clinton?  :)

    If Obama wants to pick Hagel, I think Clinton would be a fine pick for McCain.  

    You cannot think for one minute (none / 0) (#166)
    by independent voter on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    that a loyal Dem like Clinton would entertain that proposition. There is NO WAY...she cares much, too much about America to endorse McCain.

    I go with Mitt. (none / 0) (#114)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    Even though I think McCain detests him:

    Mitt can raise money - even for the RNC to help battle Obama.

    Conservatives like Mitt.

    Mitt is a terrific attack dog (as McCain himself has learned)... He has no problem slinging mud - and that may be necessary for McCain to win -  without having to have McCain do it himself.

    Mitt has money. is that enough? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    he spent hundreds of millions of it and pulled out one squeaker in Michigan.
    I dont get Mitt.

    He's not going to use any of his money... (none / 0) (#139)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    on someone else's candidacy.

    ... but he can raise it quite well.


    Der Kopy Kat (none / 0) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    Just as McCain "one-upped" Senator Obama's Berlin appearance with a counterpart trip to Schmidt's Fudge Haus in Colombus, OH, so too, will he one-up the Democratic ticket by naming a member of a minority, Bobby Jindal, as his running mate.  While Jindal may be best known for his exorcistic skills, he also brings to the position almost six months experience as governor and the family values of the congressional district he represented upon David Vitter's election to the senate.

    Jindal has said he won't accept (none / 0) (#124)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    Sounds like more than the usual disclaimers. LINK

    McCain's most outlandish chances (none / 0) (#131)
    by wurman on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Tom Ridge
    Condoleezza Rice
    Gale Norton
    Sen. Mitch McConnell
    Gen. Richard B. Myers

    BTW, I have always said Kay Bailey Hutchison (none / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM EST
    She would be a bit jujitsu.

    I cant see why he would not pick a woman (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    it seems so obvious.

    Maybe because he's a sexist pig? (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    I would be very surprised if he picks a woman.  If he does, it will be a disaster.  He wouldn't be able to contain his condescension even through the announcement.

    Until I got to see McCain in action, and learn more about him in the last few weeks I though KBH had a real shot too  Not anymore.


    KBH wants to move back to TX (none / 0) (#172)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    Rumor has it that she wants to finish her political career as Governor, when Rick "good hair" Perry is ready to go.    

    Honestly (none / 0) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST
    I've been thinking the Mittster all along. I think it brings MI, grabs NV back into the red, pulls CO (especially with a couple of conservative measures (like affirmative action) on the ballot), and maybe in some other western states where Obama thought he would run the table, Obama will have to spend money.

    Mittster also has the business background, and he is the guy who saved the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal.

    The FLDS thing will be no big deal, and being the VP will allow conservatives to get used to the idea to set him up for 2012 or 2016.

    I agree with everything (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    except I think the LDS thing could be a big deal.
    it will be interesting to see if McCain agrees with you or me.

    Well (none / 0) (#147)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    If either of us are smart enough to see the pros and cons, maybe SOMEBODY should hire us to do strategy!  :)

    He'll wait until after Obama picks his VP (none / 0) (#154)
    by laurie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    that way if he decides to choose a woman he can see what's happening to the Palin scandal.

    I think it's Mitt (none / 0) (#157)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    It makes sense with states (MI at least) and with money (though some restrictions there). And the big winner is that the bushies backed mitt, so if he picks them he gets a bunch of bushie advisors on his side. Of course he hates bush and the bushies, so he'd have to deal with that. But then again he's been sucking up to bush for a lon time now, so that's probably fine with him.

    I think it would be smarter for McCain to pick a moderate woman. Say Olympia Snowe. Because I think he's getting all the right base he can get now and a wingnut VP won't really help that much. I think it's the middle he has to win, and the best way to do that wold be a moderate woman.

    Personally I'd like to see both candidates pick women just to watch KO and tweedy's heads explode since they hate women so much. That would be priceless. But I don't think either will.

    Mitt (none / 0) (#161)
    by BDB on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    His business background lets McCain argue that his ticket has a lot of foreign policy and economic experience.  While I disagree with Romeny on just about everything, I thought he was the most effective when he was talking about the economy.  He sounded like he knew what he was talking about (even if his policies aren't going to help anyone).  

    And he helps McCain not only in Michigan, but possibly strengthens him in some Western states by increasing the excitement around McCain's run from Mormons, who make up quite a bit of the population in states other than Utah. They are more than 7% of the population in Nevada, for example.  They tend to vote Republican, but this would probably energize them in ways they wouldn't otherwise be.  

    The Downside to the Mittster (none / 0) (#162)
    by BDB on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM EST
    is the press hates him.  I've never been sure why, but I suspect it's because he's not an a$$hole, at least not personally.  While I disagree with Romeny on everything, I suspect I could have a perfectly lovely time having dinner with him and his wife.  He seems like a nice man with awful politics.  Usually the press likes the frat boy jerks.

    The problem is that the people the press would most likely love have either removed their name from consideration (Bobby Jindal) or are having problems right now (Palin).  The press would probably love Fiorina, but I think she's too moderate on women's issues (like birth control and insurance) to appeal to the religious base.