Mitt Romney gave some details about what he’s looking for in a running mate during an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd yesterday, and some are wondering whether there was a hint that Romney will go for one of the bolder VP options:
CHUCK TODD: What do you want your running mate to say about you? What do you want your selection to say about what kind of president you’re going to be?
MITT ROMNEY: I don’t think I have anything for you on the VP running mate. Other than I– I certainly expect to have a person that has a strength of character, a vision for the country, that, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country. I mean, I happen to believe this is a defining election for America; that we’re going to be voting for what kind of America we’re going to have.
If Romney is truly seeking a running mate with a “vision for the country,” that seems to contradict the conventional wisdom that his choice is going to be based primarily on competence and governing ability. Rob Portman and Tim Pawlenty are fine candidates in many ways, but you’d have a hard time attributing a grand national vision to either one of them. Out of all of the likely VP choices, Paul Ryan is by far the one most associated with the word “vision” (this is a measurable fact, as New York magazine illustrates with a graph of Google search results). And while Marco Rubio’s vision may be less developed and obvious, the Weekly Standard has argued that he would be an ideal candidate to provide a contrast to Obama’s vision of the American dream:
The moment he’s picked, Rubio will become by far the most prominent Hispanic politician in the country. And in a contest largely about competing visions of the American dream, against a president who has minimized the importance of hard work as a road to success, Rubio’s personal story, of a father who worked as a bartender and a mother as a maid to provide opportunities for their children, would provide a powerful counterargument.
As John argued earlier today, Romney’s policies need to be more than wooden props in a stump speech. His choice of running mate may not give him a big, instant bump in the polls. But the right pick could help sharpen and fortify Romney’s own vision for the country, providing him with the support (and ideological confidence) to get below surface-level on his proposals.
I like the idea of Ryan and Rubio both, but I'm hearing some doubt as to how much of an "oomph" factor Rubio would actually bring, and if he would really draw in the Spanish-speaking vote in general or just the very narrow Cuban vote. He could also be a two-edged sword, in that alongside of being a "diversity" candidate on the ticket, there might well be some backlash over the perception of some kind of condescension on our part, or accusations of cynical tokenism (which of course the Left and the Collaborationist Media will wallow in). I think Ryan would balance both oomph and "safeness" (the other buzzword I've heard) and his "vision" is a more immediate appeal — less government, freer people.
The Left and the Collaborationist Media will character assassinate Romney's VP choice from day one, regardless of who that will be. Soon enough we will hear that that person is responsible for all the unsolved crimes for the past 20 years, and has plans to drown all the children in America AND their kittens; so that should absolutely be not a factor in Romney's decision. nThe Collaborationist Media (and that pretty much includes everyone other than Fox and explicitly non-liberal Internet-based Media) should no longer be regarded as anything other than mortal enemies of all decent Americans, and treated as such. n
….has a vision for the country that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country… n nAll speculation but my call on reading these verbal tea leaves is they point to Ryan: a vision, and adding to the discourse.
The American masses want security even if it means poorer rather than work hard, take a chance and hope for the best. There is very little hope in Pr. O message. Security in mediocrity. That is how it sounds.
It is definitely going to be RUBIO and Florida and the Spanish speaking group, with emphasis on Romney's father living in Mexico for many years. Even California may flip towards Romney/Rubio. Rubio is good looking (for those women who find that appealing in a candidate – and unfortunately there are too many of those) and he is well spoken. He has more time in congress than Obama had in 2008 and not as many skeletons in the closet such as the not so reverend Wright.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. Not me. Romney. Already a target on Social Security and Medicare. The seniors and Hispanics in Florida, a must-win state, must be disgusted. And Romney had the seniors in his bag – had and lost them. He now could possibly get Wisconsin, but won't. I'll vote for Romney. Too many others won't. I've got to condition myself now to another four years of Obama. How sick.
I hope so. Go big, Mitt. As Krauthammer says, this election cannot be won by the Republican version of Dukakis. Gotta present the people with big ideas. Ryan is the perfect choice to articulate those big ideas. If he picks him and the people reject the ticket, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves as we become the largest "Greece" the world has ever seen.
Well you were right. n nWhat scares me is that if this is only about the economy and we ignore foreign policy, we will wind up making the same mistakes that were made prior to WW-II that let Hitler rise to power.