Your kidding right? I mean don't these two guys basically hate each other? I can understand the Mittster putting this little inconvenience aside in the interest of the pursuit of power -- actually this would totally be in line with his, ummm..."ability to adapt."

But McCain? Doubtful. The man is as stubborn as a mule, which is actually one of the reasons I admire him (even though I'm a dyed in the wool democrat).

Nope. If you ask me, the guy actually running for VP is the Huckster, not the Mittster. And Huck's ability to deliver the bible belt will prove far more valuable to McCain this fall.

-Glen

It's not totally far-fetched. Kennedy and Johnson hated each other's guts as well, but teamed up because it was politically expedient for both of them.

Still, in this instance I agree with Glen that the Incredible Huck would seem a more likely bedfellow.

"I mean don't these two guys basically hate each other?"

Friends, close; enemies, well you get the idea.

And Glen, please address Romney by his official* nickname: Mittens.

* - officialness pending

I thought it was Mittzi.

I think Mittens would be better suited to his wife. Kinda reminds me of "Muffy" or some preppie name like that.

But the "Mittster" suits Romney's whole smarmy used car salesman persona perfectly.

-Glen

I believe the expression is "Keep your friends close, and you enemies closer"

I don't think Romney and McCain actually hate each other. I think Romney's supporters hate McCain, but that's an entirely different problem, and you should have heard some of them backpedaling and trying to think of nice things to say about McCain today.

As for the Huckster, he's a lost cause. He can't be VP because he's too southern and too left-leaning to run with McCain. Because McCain is falsely perceived as liberal he needs a more conservative appearing running mate than Huckabee. And just being a religious nut isn't enough to make you a real conservative.

Dave

Just wanna point out that bing's political fortune telling skillz are proven, yet again, lacking.

remember his "the republicans are going to take over the congress in '06" rant?

now his "mitt romney will be the next american president" guarantee just adds another point in bing's loss column.

I think Mel Martinez is McCain's best bet, and I'm not sure what he gains -- other than access to Romney's deep pockets -- from Romney. The perception is that Romney's conservatism is as young as McCain's is shallow (I disagree on the latter part, at least, but that's the perception), so McCain needs an unquestionably authentic conservative as his running mate to assure the base while he reaches out to independent and swing voters from the top of the ticket.

He would do well with someone quite young, as well, but I still favor Martinez.

P.S. I think Huckabee has been aiming to be somebody's VP from the beginning; first Giuliani's and now McCain's. Still, I think he has too many liabilities to be a good choice for McCain's VP.

It's about time someone realized this is the plan. It was obvious to me minutes after the announcement.

Though not a righty-tighty, i think these two coculd give the left a serious run for the money in the fall.

Gee, now that Romneys 5 strapping sons are no longer needed on the home front in his relentless campaign against heathens they are free to enlist for duty in Iraq where the real action is.

I'm waiting an announcement with eager anticipation.

McCain needs an unquestionably authentic conservative as his running mate to assure the base while he reaches out to independent and swing voters from the top of the ticket.

Then perhaps his pal Joe Lieberman fits the bill..!

The problem as I see it is that everyone would see straight through that scenerio as just a ploy to capture the ultra far right, and write off that decision as just politics.

Romney's parting shot at the Democrats during his speech [accusing them of "surrender"] was simply disgusting. He is an awful man who deserved to lose.

McCain fed the CPAC loudmouths some ugly 'national security' rhetoric too. Disappointing.

Does the GOP really think this kind of bully-speak will win them any more elections? I hope - and believe - they are dead wrong.

No way.

Ceremonial duties and Cheney's power grab aside, we all know that the real purpose of the Veep is to understudy the President in case he's unable to fulfill the office. And that will be an issue in this campaign, considering that McCain would, if elected, inherit the title of "Oldest elected president." Even if it's not explicitly asked about - and it will be, of course, it will weigh on the voter's minds that they're putting a 72-year-old man into office for four years.

In other words, people who go to vote will have to seriously consider the prospect of the vice president's assuming office. And I'm not sure if the already-divisive McCain wants to put ANOTHER divisive Republican on his ticket.

Romney's parting shot at the Democrats during his speech [accusing them of "surrender"] was simply disgusting

Actually, Handy, that was my favorite part of the speech! I was fascinated to hear that THAT was Romney's only reason for quitting, and that his complete lack of support was apparently not a factor at all.

...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest Mike. Most GOP candidates seem to have their own alternate reality.

The many, many people voting for Huckabee in those Southern primaries on Tuesday probably do see him as a conservative - "a good Christian man," they might say. Dave's view of him as a liberal is not shared by everyone. And now Limbaugh is saying he should be the veep nominee. Weird.

Gee, now that Romneys 5 strapping sons are no longer needed on the home front in his relentless campaign against heathens they are free to enlist for duty in Iraq where the real action is.

I'm waiting an announcement with eager anticipation.

Romney's fear-mongering was indeed disgusting, if predictable from this poor candidate. A vote for Hillary or Obama is a vote for the terrorists. Yawn.

McCain won't be the oldest elected president. William Henry Harrison was 73.

I say draft Bob Dole for VP and make McCain look young.

Having Romney as his running mate would help him with his weakness on the economy and economic matters.
I don't see it happening though.

Lumpy, in an odd way, Bob Dole comes off a lot younger than McCain. Personally, I can't think of a better choice for McCain than Bill Bennett. I'd guess that Fred Thompson is a possibility, if McCain really is worried about the South. I don't think McCain will have a problem with the southern states, though. Charlie Crist seems to want the VP slot really badly, but he doesn't bring much to the ticket.

Kennedy and Johnson were an effective ticket, mainly because Kennedy was a natural wholesale politician, and Johnson was a master of retail politics. You can't have the second place guy be more likable and outgoing. A Johnson/Kennedy ticket would have been a catastrophe.

Obama could have Clinton as the VP nominee without being overshadowed. Clinton would probably be better off with Edwards as a VP than rock star Obama.

McCain has to worry about being overshadowed, for the obvious reason that it makes him look like a weaker candidate. But also because of his personality. He's not a guy who likes the passenger seat. Neither is Romney. Huckabee could handle being a VP nominee.

McCain doesn't have a chance. Even avid warhawks are fedup with the Iraq Disaster. They may say different and act bold as ever when talking to friends or poll-takers, but in the privacy of the voting booth they will vote their disgust.

"McCain doesn't have a chance. Even avid warhawks are fedup with the Iraq Disaster. They may say different and act bold as ever when talking to friends or poll-takers, but in the privacy of the voting booth they will vote their disgust."

Dead on bliffle.

That's why no one has voted for him in the primaries...

Good grief, Dave, unlike a hitter in baseball, you need to guess right more than 30% of the time to be taken seriously. There's no way Romney is going to be the VP for McCain. I'll put $20 on it if you are so sure. btw, wasting $35 mil of your own money on a failed campaign does not show "sound business judgment."

Phillip's Martinez pick is a good call being from FL, although I wouldn't completely rule out Huckabee. He did well in the South and McCain does owe him something for helping to defeat Romney. At least, a cabinet position of some sort. When Guilani dropped out it looked like he was going for VP or AG. I think the Dem ticket will help shape McCain's decision on what he needs.

According to Wikipedia, WH2 took office at 68 and died 31 days later. Then Reagan took over the oldest title at 69.

ElB - I just don't see why Romney would give up this early without having an incentive like the VP slot.

And like Romney or not, he would be one of the best possible people to balance McCain and make the ticket appealing to a broad spectrum of voters.

I agree that Martinez might be a good choice if McCain wants to continue the GOP efforts to appeal to hispanics, but because he's already perceived as being soft on illegals there's no way he's putting a hispanic on the ticket.

Dave

"I just don't see why Romney would give up this early without having an incentive like the VP slot."

Well, what political benefit is there in losing week in and week out? You become another Buchanan, Bradley, and Jackson. A guy whose name is in the headlines between the words "another" and "loss". His best chance for the presidency is 2012, if McCain loses in the general election. Romney will have gotten out of the race with his head held, um, middleish.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying there was some back-door dealings to get Romney to drop out early? To whose benefit? McCain was steamrolling. Where the incentive to ofer it to him?

Baronius is right, and obviously, the silver medals weren't generating enough donations to keep up the fight. Mitt needed a much better performance on ST to stay in the race. Where was his next big win going to come from?

He might get the VP spot, but I don't see what Romney brings that plenty of other Republicans, who aren't flip-floppers and Mormons, can't.

The big story that seems to get little coverage in the horse race is turnout between the parties. I know there's no guarantee of the same numbers showing up in November, but on Tuesday I was surprised that how often the 2nd place Dem was outdrawing the Rep field in some states.

Dave:

I just don't see why Romney would give up this early without having an incentive like the VP slot.

Perhaps he merely saw the writing on the wall in garish flourescent red paint.

Lumpy (re #21):

William Henry Harrison was 68. The oldest person ever elected U.S. President is Ronald Reagan, who was 69.

And if William Henry Harrison HAD been 73...well, that wouldn't have been a very good example the viability of a President of that age, would it?

Mel Martinez was born in Cuba.

I think we decided on another thread that we can't have someone who is foreign born as VP, because of the possibility of succession.

I have known Martinez personally since he was an Orange county commissioner; he's a good man, but I don't think he can serve as VP.

Dead at 68 he's an even more alarming example of the viability of a 73 year old president.

As for VP candidates - how about Condoleeza Rice? She pretty much negates the gender/ethnic advantages of the possible democrat candidates all by herself.

Dave

If I'm British, but as a result of an implausible string of events involving a missed tube, a petrol shortage, a flock of startled pigeons and an unsympathetic policeman, I was born under the statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square (which is on American soil), can I run for VP?

Yes, mate, you can - obviously, if that's the prerequisite, because Washington said he would never set foot on English soil again, so the soil on which Washington's statute stands was actually imported from Virginia (the pragmatic Jefferson never had the same problem. When he was fed up with the frogs while on ambassadorial duty in Paris, he would go and stay in London for a time to get his head back together). I digress, though ... it IS, therefore, American soil - a little bit of America, literally, right on the edge of Trafalgar Square.

Except the Poms paid for the statue.

Actually Doc, legislators in the US are now seriously considering changing that "natural-born American" aspect of the law relating to the Prez and Vice Prez because it's discriminatory.

In reality, ANY American citizen should be able to run for either office, regardless. See, that's another bloody reason why I didn't move to the US.

What, if I became at citizen I can pay income tax, be drafted and die for the United States, sit on a jury, but I can't run for Prez because I wasn't born there and you're frightened that I'll put the Union Jack back in the corner of the flag and call Liz at Buck House and ask if we can all come back???

I probably WOULD do those things, but still ... it'd only be for the good of the country. Just a matter of setting restoring what could have been had history been kinder to America those 200 or so years back.

"As for VP candidates - how about Condoleeza Rice? She pretty much negates the gender/ethnic advantages of the possible democrat candidates all by herself."

Plus, she's damned smart and an experienced diplomat...a hell of a good choice.

As for VP candidates - how about Condoleeza Rice?

Practically? Perhaps a good choice. Politically? A disastrous one.

Even for the GOP candidate, the point here is to DISTANCE oneself from the unpopular current administration. Remember?

"the point here is to DISTANCE oneself from the unpopular current administration. Remember?"

One would think so, MJ, and yet the GOP electorate is apparently racing toward the finish line with McCain (who wants to continue the Iraq war, the single worst,and most unpopular, policy of the current administration) as its standard bearer...

If the choice of McCain proves not to be politically disastrous, Condy as veep isn't going to make it so.

Clavos,

"...with McCain (who wants to continue the Iraq war, the single worst,and most unpopular, policy of the current administration) as its standard bearer..."

McCain is going to try using that to his advantage. He will push hard to get the Democrats to go on record as opposing the Bush's 'surge'. The U.S. population has NEVER opposed the Iraq war. There were many complaints about how it was being prosecuted and that it has not been successful.

The 'surge' HAS been, to a degree, SUCCUSSFUL. This has done much to undercut the complaints. McCain has positioned himself as OPPOSING how the war WAS being prosecuted, and takes credit for calling on the administration to do just what it did, in moving forward with the 'surge'.

I believe the Democrats will find it hard to explicitly oppose the 'surge'. They will attempt to nuance their position.

Les

An interesting analysis, Les, and a good point about the surge.

But note that the Democrats and Democratic supporters are already trumpeting McCain's somewhat infelicitous remark about remaining in Iraq for "a hundred years." They will surely focus on the war issue even more intensely in the months to come, and I think it will work for them.

As a communist, you place a lot of faith in the intelligence of the masses (particularly the workers) to discern and understand (and act on accordingly) these nuances of which you speak.

As you know, I'm somewhat more skeptical about much of the electorate. I see little evidence that most voters have actually thought out their vote to the degree necessary to take such a sophisticated stance; rather, I think most are voting viscerally, on issues that they perceive to be affecting them directly, while others are voting based on purely emotional considerations.

Clav,

The working class has no choice in this election. I advocate looking for a working class alternative on the ballot. There's currently little prospect of such a choice to find its way into the consciousness of any large section of the working class. That may change. For my part, I'm going to support, and vote for Róger Calero.


Les

Fixed it, Les. You had just forgotten to close a tag properly, is all.

Condoleesa Rice? What has she ever accomplished? Nothing. On the other hand, her failures are dreadful: she ignored the 8/11/2001 report that said OBL was determined to attack in the USA and then did nothing after 9/11. She LIED when she testified "nobody thought they'd steal airplanes and fly them into buildings" when there were 11 reports that predicted exactly that.

She doesn't do her job when she goes into the office. She just promotes herself for her next job up the ladder.

That's the rep she had in Palo Alto and at Stanford also.

She should have been fired for cheating on her timesheets and defrauding her employer of salary money.

She will do NOTHING in any job she has except to promote herself for her next job. She's just a climber.

"how about Condoleeza Rice? She pretty much negates the gender/ethnic advantages of the possible democrat candidates all by herself."

Considering many Republican African Americans appear to be looked upon poorly as sell-outs and worse by others of their ethnicity, I don't see how she negates Obama's advantage.

She certainly didn't look too smart at her testimony to the 9/11 commission with her claims no one could have imagined terrorists using planes as missiles. For one, it was a concern at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. She either showed herself to be a fool or lied to cover asses because 9/11 happened on her team's watch.

"the GOP electorate is apparently racing toward the finish line with McCain"

Someone forgot to tell Kansas.

Clavos,

"I see little evidence that most voters have actually thought out their vote to the degree necessary to take such a sophisticated stance; rather, I think most are voting viscerally, on issues that they perceive to be affecting them directly, while others are voting based on purely emotional considerations."

The rhetoric from these candidates is NOT designed to be able to withstand any sort of critical analysis. Most of the electorate, including those that consider themselves quite sophisticated, will hear what they want to hear. Some, of course, will express some disappointment, in that 'their' candidate may have a position on some issues that are not quite to their liking. They quite often end up voting for the lesser of two evils.

It's actually a relatively small part of the population that gains from these elections. Many of the most supportive, that will most rationalize anything, are some of the most vociferous at the grassroots level of the left and progressives. Among those is a not insignificant layer that gets their paychecks 'working' as poverty pimps. On the right, I just read today that the percentage of the workforce that's working for the government will be the highest since 1950. This, all the while the party of 'small government' reigns.

As for the working class understanding of any of this, well quite a few of them don't vote. That's a good start.

Les

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

"Someone forgot to tell Kansas."

Obviously they ignored the memo...

Les,

Two excellent points re the "poverty pimps" and the enormous growth of the government workforce in recent years.

Ironically, many of those sucking on the government teat with USPS jobs, etc. are among the most vociferous critics of both the size of the government and the amount of taxes they have to pay.

You're right about both groups.

I'm still waiting for those 5 healthy sons of Romney to announce that they're enlisting for Iraq duty. You know, to fight the infidels in McCains Hundred Year War.

Clav,

"Ironically, many of those sucking on the government teat with USPS jobs, etc."

I don't know about the etc, but have observed that there have been cutbacks in postal services, at least in post offices that I deal with occasionally. And besides, they do render a useful service, albeit somewhat antiquated and inefficient.

It seems like services, in general, are being cut back. So, where are all these new 'employees' going? Homeland Security? Cops and prison guards? I've noted that many schools have an extensive 'criminal justice' programs. Some universities have a College of Criminal Justice.

They trying to build a police state?

Les

Les,

Trying to create a police state? How conspiratorial and paranoid can you get? In the land of the free, and home of the brave, with checks and balances on the three branches of government? And the constitution which the prez swore to faithfully protect and serve? IMPOSSIBLE

First they created drug laws to protect us (aww)from ourselves. Now they have created Homeland Security to protect us from the bogeyman, it makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much they care!!

Btw did any of you Americans out there in the 50 states EVER hear when you were growing up, ANYONE, referring to our country as the HOMELAND? I have yet to come across one person that said that they did. Odd.

Don't worry they are putting up cameras EVERYWHERE, and gps systems in your autos and cars, to PROTECT you, our government cares that much about its citizens!! We should all feel so proud.

In fact anyone who says that the govt is trying to create a police state should im my opinion be held without bail for THEIR protection, and put into a mental institution so that they can be deprogrammed. Smile your on Candid Camera folks!

In fact they care so much about YOUR safety and security the Dept of Homeland Security has hired former East German Stazi chief Markus Wolfe, and former KGB General Yevgeni Primakov to help in keeping you FREE!!

Enjoy America, a police state here, how utterly preposterous! I suggest we do what that stalwart american patriot Newt Gingrich has called for which is to infringe free speech, particularly if it is political in nature. Now there is a true conservative!!

"In fact anyone who says that the govt is trying to create a police state should im my opinion be held without bail ..."

I was ONLY asking.

Pablo,

"Don't worry they are putting up cameras EVERYWHERE, and gps systems in your autos and cars..."

I know, and I know how well they work. I went to Toronto in December. I'm not familiar with driving there. I got on some major highway by mistake. Soon realized it was a toll road with nobody to collect any toll. I was suppose to have some thingy on my windshield. What could I do? Anyway, I saw a sign informing that if I didn't have a thingy, they would bill me. And, I did get the bill.

But seriously, what are you goin to do about it? Telling everyone, everywhere you can ain't getting you anywhere, is it?

Every issue that is under discussion needs to be seriously and patiently addressed. We need to take concrete actions where we can and always educate. We need not only know who are natural allies are, but also the enemy, concretely. The enemy that controls the media is going to do its best to confuse you, misdirect you, and tell you who your enemies are. We need to analyze everything concretely. Calling the U.S. a police state is NOT correct. We DO, in fact have much democratic space. We need to use it.

Les

Rice is pro-choice. Whatever other benefits or drawbacks she'd bring to the ticket, that position would be an impossible hurdle for her nomination.

Maybe Huckabee could have nominated Rice as his VP. She would bring foreign policy credentials, and social conservatives would be able to tolerate her under Huckabee. But she'd bring no benefits to McCain, alienate the conservatives beyond repair, and freak out the anti-Bush independents.

Watching McCain speaking this evening in Alexandria, VA after sweeping the so-called Potomac Primary, I note that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is with him on the stage.

I wonder if Crist might be in the running to be McCain's veep?

She will do NOTHING in any job she has except to promote herself for her next job.

That sounds pretty much like a job description for Vice President.

dave