For several weeks now, Washington insiders have been furiously engaged in the quadrennial ritual known as “veepstakes speculation” — trading theories about the identity of, in this case, Mitt Romney’s future running mate. Journalists and pundits love this ritual because it’s impossible to tell in advance who the person will be, so everyone feels free to speculate wildly, which is easier, and a lot more fun, than actually reporting.
But it isn’t very edifying. And to the average person seeking to understand the significance of the choice, it’s often misleading because the qualities prized by the activists and media handicappers are rarely the same ones found in a good vice president. With signs suggesting that Romney is about to announce his decision, perhaps as soon as this weekend, it’s worth cutting through the hype to explain what this choice will reveal about the state of the race.
Comments
This strikes me as a plausible argument. Good job.
We have exciting now, where are we? 5 trillion more in debt....high unemployment...highest poverty level since 1965...I'll take dull.
Remember hose John Kerry added charisma to his ticket? John Edwards. It did not help the campaign very much, if at all. Romney is wise enough to see that a pick that would be a "game changer" (like Palin) would be viewed as a sign of desperation. In this light, he needs to focus on competence, and possibly electoral advantage. This leaves Rubio or Portman, who could deliver Ohio or Florida. The month of October is when the searing light of examination will be focussed on Barack Obama, and all his missteps and errors. The VP pick should in no way be a distraction from highlighting the ghastly results of Obama style governance.
Please let him surprise everyone and pick Scooter Brown.
Any move Willard makes is a desperate move. He knows he has ery little chance at this point.
Last week Willard held Richard Cheney up as his ideal Vice President. Could he speak any more clearly about how little he values truth, openness, and equal voice for both sides?
No Republican VP choice will compensate for the litany of Romney's failings on display in recent weeks: 1) horrendous review of his tax plan by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center [ http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/romneys-tax-hike/ ]; 2) disastrous trip abroad exposing his complete incompetence in foreign affairs [ http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-flunks-his-foreign-policy-tryout/L5J03b8p91MNACApq5YrwM/story.html ]; 3) exposure of his secretive, paranoid, and anti-democratic document destruction related to his time as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics [ http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/07/23/after-romney-pledged-transparent-olympics-key-documents-were-destroyed/MRBRtSitxnSgVLhGbIq1jI/story.html ]; 4) inexplicable stonewalling about releasing his tax returns highlighting that he likely paid little to no taxes. Romney is a disaster.
It appears that Mittwit's campaign is self-destructing! Since most presidential candidates choose a vice president who won't upstage them, we'll end up with Bland and Blander on the republickin' ticket.
If Mitt had any luck finding anyone willing to actually take the job as VP candidate, don't you think he would be thrilled to tell everyone about it?