McCain’s Running Mate Selection - The Difference Between Success and Failure
May 8 at 7:07pm by Macranger
There have been a lot of rumors of who John McCain might pick for a running mate. I have said for quite sometime that it had better be good. In fact must be good.
By good his selection must be of a hardcore, uncompromising conservative and not along the lines of what moderates and independents want such as a Pawlenty.
This however is a step in the right direction.
“For Mitt Romney, the suspension of his campaign at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference two days after Super Tuesday marked the beginning of a new and promising campaign. As he ended his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, he staked for himself a position as leader for the conservative future. It’s a good position to be in for a potential 2012 run for the presidency. And it’s a position that makes him an attractive option for John McCain’s No. 2 in 2008.
In his withdrawal speech, Romney announced that “conservative principles are needed now more than ever” — hitting the economy, the culture, and the war. One Romney adviser referred to the speech and the pullout as “a down-payment on a conservative future.”
Romney’s biggest value to McCain, though, comes from his experience in business. John McCain has no such experience and famously said during the New Hampshire primary that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” (He added that he owns former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan’s book.) That quote will come back to haunt McCain once general-election time finally arrives.
Mitt Romney’s greatest asset for McCain — who has been in Congress for almost a quarter of a century — is, therefore, his executive experience, most of it in the business world, most notably as vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. from 1978 to 1984, and as founder of Bain Capital, venture-capital savior of the likes of Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and Sports Authority. Romney famously turned around the corrupt and broke ($379 million in debt) Salt Lake City Olympics and cleaned up a Massachusetts budget running $3 billion in the red without raising taxes. At a time when the country may be in a wartime recession, Romney emanates a confident competence (and he would do it, as veep nominee, alongside a GOP presidential nominee with a mixed tax-cutting record). Choosing Romney, then, could be as practical as politics gets. When in the voting booth, partisan preferences may pale in comparison to the attraction of a guarantee of competence in the executive.”
Sabato’s cute, but the fact of the matter is if Romney gives anything to McCain it’s that conservative cover. Such as Dick Cheney did when Bush selected him in 2000.
As bad as Obama is McCain can’t win without conservative base support - period. Moderates and independents beg to differ, but then most times they’re differing anyway on a lot of things. That’s why they’re independent and moderate.
But it was the conservative base which elected Bush two time and solidly so. However Bush wasted much of that “conservative capital” by several missteps after beginning his second term and conservatives are rightly reserved about carrying on that tradition with another moderate such as McCain.
We’ll have to see but EVERYTHING depends on McCain’s choice, and again, he’d better pick wisely.
One Response for "McCain’s Running Mate Selection - The Difference Between Success and Failure"
DukeDigger
May 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
1“McCain should not pick anyone who would add to his negatives” - Carl Rove on the evening of Super Tuesday. Romney would add some credibility to the McCain administration on the economy but has become very polarizing to many likely voters thanks to his supporters constant drumbeat of perceived religious bias. That reason alone is why I would like to see him pick from outside the candidates, it shields him from the vocal 2% that will complain because he didn’t pick “their guy”. Still it will be impossible to please everyone, I believe many are just like me this year, voting against rather than voting for anyone.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.