Reading the coverage of the potential vice presidential picks is like reliving the worst days of last summer. We’re told, for a variety of arbitrary reasons, that all of the exciting possibilities (Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie) are long-shots. Each day it seems more likely that the VP pick will be impossibly boring; either Tim Pawlenty with his midwestern blandness or the smart but sleep-inducing Rob Portman.
Just this morning, the New York Times caused Pawlenty’s inTrade veepstakes stock to spike with yet another article speculating about his chances:
The vetting of possible vice-presidential candidates is approaching an end. It has been a deeply secretive process, but several Republicans close to the campaign believe Mr. Pawlenty and Mr. Portman stand out among those being considered.
In 2008, as Mr. McCain was narrowing in on a running mate, several aides recommended Mr. Pawlenty. Others pushed for a bolder choice, a candidate who would create more enthusiasm among Republican activists.
Four years later, being passed over for Sarah Palin may work in Mr. Pawlenty’s favor. “In a lot of ways, he’s the anti-Palin,” said Steve Schmidt, a strategist to Mr. McCain who expressed regret for her selection. “Here’s a guy who is prepared to be president on Day 1. In any normal year, he would have been the pick.”
Pundits often point to the maxim “Do No Harm” as the Golden Rule of choosing a VP. It may seem like Pawlenty fits that bill, as he’s pre-vetted, comfortable on the campaign trail, folksy and inoffensive.
But this is also someone who was barely eking by at 3 percent in the primaries last August, despite his outsized media coverage. There was absolutely no energy there. While conservatives want Obama out of office, Romney can’t sit back and expect that alone to get them out to the polls. Conservatives have already struggled to come around in support of Romney. How much more “enthusiasm” will they be able to muster up for a Romney-Pawlenty ticket?
Do no harm should be the cardinal rule of any campaign manager. But that wasn't what Steve Schmidt did. He undermined Palin every chance he got. His expertise should only be cited as a caution of how not to run a campaign.
Pawlenty? let's see, how can I put this… n nNO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO .
Oh wait, you mean it isn't Condi Rice?!?
Anti-Palin is not – repeat NOT – a recommendation in T-Paw's favor. For those who have forgotten, Bachmann put him to sleep in Iowa without a whisper after he wouldn't confront Romney on ObamneyCare. Besides he is a flaming Warmist. He would do Kyota again in a New York minute – and that is dumb, really dumb. n nSo you guys like T-Paw but not Condi? Wonders never cease!
Once again, if Mr. Romney is either unwilling or unable to make a sane choice for vp, unlike McCain; he is washed up, PERIOD. It will be THE END for Romney. It is not about appeasing evangelicals, they are above that. It is about the placing together of a viable team to tackle the serious problems we must confront. One is the economy, obviously and another is Foreign Policy. Since Romney has a background in economy and can handle, presumably, these matters, the vp selection needs to be someone strong on foreign affairs.r nIt needs to be someone who has distinguished themselves over a period of years as someone who is not only an expert, but one who will do the right thing. There is one such person who comes to mind and it would be a gutsy move for Romney to make.r nr n That person is: John Bolton