With Mitt Romney seemingly on the verge of sewing up the Republican nomination, talk of possible GOP running mates is already underway. But many observers outside of conservative circles are mis-characterizing Romney's VP options. That's because they're assuming that the 2012 election cycle is largely a repeat of the last one.
Romney, they reason, is still too "moderate" for the GOP base. That means, like John McCain in 2008, he'll have no choice but to "balance" his ticket ideologically. And that means choosing a Sarah Palin-type candidate who can shore up his right-wing credentials, while projecting a new face for the party, even if it risks alienating independent voters.
But is that really the case? Howard Kurtz, in a recent column in the Daily Beast seems to think so. And it's true, many in the Tea party would probably welcome the choice of any one of their leading standard-bearers, be it New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Florida senator Marco Rubio, or South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, the latter two, reflecting the GOP's tentative new inroads among women and ethnic voters.
But viewing Romney's choices this way is more of a liberal view of the challenge he faces. In fact, as his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, and recent polling in Florida, make clear, Romney's ability to win over sizable percentages of moderates and conservatives alike demonstrates that he's already unifying the party to a much greater extent than McCain did in 2008, lessening his need to pander or grand-stand with a dazzling but risky, high-profile VP choice.
Who are some VP candidates Romney might decide to look to instead? Actually, they look a lot like Romney himself: white, affluent and male. And they are far from new faces. They include:
John Thune. South Dakota's junior senator became a hero in Republican circles after he knocked off Democratic majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004. He's as conservative on the issues -- from abortion to the deficit -- as the more recent crop of Tea party darlings, but he has more federal and state legislative experience, a more restrained bipartisan style, and stronger backing from the GOP establishment. Karl Rove, the GOP kingmaker, tried to push Thune into running for president in 2012, and Thune very nearly did. As VP, Thune won't help the GOP in the South or in key battleground states, but neither have many past GOP running mates. His chief virtue is that he can rally hard-core conservatives without scaring away suburbanites. And he won't outshine Romney -- or create unnecessary and distracting theatrics - on the stump.
Rudy Giuliani. The former NYC mayor who ran for president in 2008 and flirted with a presidential bid in 2012 remains one of the GOP's most popular politicians. He also has an uncanny ability to woo independents and Democrats, including high percentages of minority voters. There's a common belief among liberals that Giuliani is too simply "pro-choice" to be accepted by the GOP base; polls among Republican voters consistently show otherwise. Giuliani's emerging as a key party spokesperson, and at 70, he's unlikely to succeed to the presidency, which should allay lingering concerns about him among religious voters. Rudy has a demonstrated ability to mobilize Italian-Americans and other working class Catholics in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states that could swing the election - and his national security expertise -- and the aura of his post/911 role -- could add real gravitas to the ticket.
Newt Gingrich. The former House speaker may have emerged as Romney's chief presidential rival but he's desperately in search of a new role as he enters the twilight of his career. Could Mitt and Newt overcome the wounds they've already inflicted on each other? No one thought Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush could, especially after Bush lampooned Reagan's "voodoo economics." But Reagan saw the wisdom of the alliance, and the two men united politically without ever fully reconciling their differences. Gingrich has the capacity to inspire, and like Giuliani, would appeal to some independents; actually, it's the Republican establishment that's most likely to block him. On the other hand, if properly tethered, the former House speaker could lend Romney the kind of insider experience he'll needs to resist becoming imprisoned by the House Republican leadership, and to cut critical legislative deals with the Democrats, especially if the GOP fails to recapture the Senate.
As the GOP nominee, Romney will have his hands full defending his decidedly mixed private sector record, his hostility to illegal immigrants, and of course, his Mormonism, to say nothing of clearly distinguishing himself from Obama on health care. All the more reason for Republicans to go to their senior bench rather than injecting a young firebrand that might inflame the Democratic base and boost its turnout, further limiting the GOP's already dim chances. And besides, keeping promising new leaders like Christie and Rubio off the ticket will give them another four years to mature, making them far stronger candidates -- not as VP, but a president -- in 2016, should Obama win re-election.
Perhaps the title of the article threw me off the trail. It seems to imply that the Republican nominee was originally presumed to have needed a Tea Party running mate to boost his electoral chances. Although I disassociated from the Republican Party quite some time ago, I've always thought their strength was pragmatism in general elections; they do what they have to do to win, then let the party machine run things. They abandoned that tack in 2008 by choosing a fringe VP and it cost them. In my mind, that meant Romney/any-other-eventual-nominee always needed a VP in the middle of the road to garner a general election win. Leaning right gets you a nomination, but hurts you in the general. The Tea Party would hold their noses and vote for a right-of-center moderate, but I doubt moderates would vote for someone in a tri-corner hat.
On another note, it's quite flattering for the original author to respond to a comment. You're my first.
BUT.. a couple of downsides?
1. Daniels alienated social conservatives by calling for a "truce" on social issues. He was right and everyone knows he was right, but he got way out in front, and ended up hurting himself. it was one of the factors that led him to withdraw. Gingrich made the same mistake when he suggested that the Ryan plan amounted to "right-wing social engineering."
2. His tenure at OMB, which links him to Bush, high deficits, and seeming apologies for the Iraq war. He was accused of cooking the books on the costs.
Are either/both of these elements easily forgotten by conservatives. Can they be exploited in the general?
Also, Daniels may not be especially effective on the stump in a campaign. He's too damn nice and restrained, the way a serious politician might actually be.
Does it matter? Style matters.
I think the real issue, though, and why Christie might not cut it, is the indies, and what they are really looking for - which is experience, a steady hand on the rudder. I really think this is not an election for firebrands. Mitt's team has also spoken fondly of Rubio and has even floated the idea publicly of putting him on the ticket. But it's pure pandering - to the Tea Party, and to Hispanics, and Rubio simply doesn't have the experience to be one heartbeat from the Oval office.
Romney may be a one term governor but he really doesn't have that much political experience himself, and shoring up that experience would be wise, methinks, if you're going up against an incumbent and a long-time pro like Biden.
The virtue of a Giuliani and Gingrich is that they put you firmly in the pre-Bush, Reagan era of the party, which is a plus, baggage notwithstanding, and both are too old to succeed the presidency, but if they did, suddenly no one would think the country was in the hands of a tempestuous child, or a boy emperor.
A lot of people tend to think these bitter primary polemics are fatal - but history generally shows that, in fact, they are not. LBJ and JFK despised each other - it was visceral, and that goes ten times for RFK and LBJ, but JFK needed Texas, and LBJ agreed, which actually surprised the Kennedy clan. Once in office, they kept LBJ on a short leash, and LBJ bided his time, and inherited the presidency, of course.
There's an overwhelming desire to win on the GOP side in 2012, and no one wants - and in fact, needs - to go the McCain-Palin route this time out?
Christie is probably the sentimental favorite, and not just among the Tea party, and according to the campaign aide I spoke with, he fits Mitt's need to have an "attack dog" while he holds on to his own nice-guy image. This is often the role of the VP candidate, especially on the GOP side, to serve as the real hatchet man.
But Gingrich? Really? You think he would nominate Gingrich? The man that is pushing the establishment further and further away. No. I do not see even Newt being able to mend those fences that quickly.
But, I think this thing is a long way from over. What does Mitt have, like 20 delegates? No. I think Super pacs and the extended GOP Primary schedule are going to keep this thing from being over. Just because the establishment tells us to shut up, and swallow the Romney pill, doesn't mean we will.
Unless Romney can bring back Abraham Lincoln from the grave for his VP slot, I do not see myself voting for him.
But apart from Thune, I think your other nominees for Romney's running mate are non-starters. And Thune, coming from a place with a teensy population,can bring few voters with him.
Giuliani is always a great choice at a glance. But one long penetrating look at the man, and there's less that met the eye at first glance. And TP-types worried about the ever-expanding security state and the new world order would not cotton to him, early or late.
Gingrich has made Romney look bad. Very bad-- about the one achievement in his life on which he built his entire campaign as business executive who knows how to create jobs.Romney will not have such a person close to him. Remember the movie 'The Unforgiven'? That's Gingrich, who might be forgiven in prayer. but not in office.
My pick: Mr. Christie-- NJ governor and berater of those who might disagree with any darn thing he ever says or does. The party thinks he is beloved, and probably thinks he can secure NJ's electoral college votes for their candidate, which would indeed be quite the coup, if accomplished.