Romney Is McCain's Best VP Option

Weekly Standard: Former Rival Has Superior Ratio Of Virtues To Drawbacks Over Other Choices

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Fred Barnes.

---

When John McCain begins his search for a vice presidential running mate, he'll quickly come upon a sad fact. He wants a candidate who will be seen as a plausible president. That's criterion number one. He also wants someone who won't subtract from his campaign in any serious way. That's criterion number two. The unfortunate truth is that few Republicans meet these simple criteria. McCain doesn't have much of a pool to choose from.

But his selection matters enormously, all the more because of his age. McCain will turn 72 on the eve of the Republican convention this summer. Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a presidential nominee makes. And the nominee is judged by the quality of his pick and even by the smoothness of his selection process. So McCain had better choose well.

He has the right idea in mind. McCain thinks three vice presidential picks from the recent past were wise: Republican Dick Cheney in 2000 and Democrats Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Al Gore in 1992. They were nationally known political heavyweights who passed the most important test. They were accepted almost instantly as ready to replace the president if necessary. And they had no significant drawbacks.

The list of plausible presidents is short. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman qualify. That's about it. There are a number of popular Republican governors - Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Haley Barbour of Mississippi - but they fall short of Cheney-Lieberman-Gore stature. It's not their fault, but it's nonetheless true.

So how about Lieberman in 2008? He's a pal of McCain, a brave backer of the war in Iraq, and now the most prominent Democratic supporter of McCain's presidential bid. He would surely enhance McCain's appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He's a political adult.

But he's no Zell Miller. Lieberman is a liberal on domestic issues, including abortion. McCain already has trouble with conservatives and picking a Democrat would make things worse. Lieberman would probably subtract more votes from the McCain ticket than he'd add.

So would Giuliani and Ridge. True, Giuliani was a hero of 9/11 as mayor of New York, and Ridge, a former Pennsylvania governor, was President Bush's first homeland security chief. But both are pro-choice on abortion and would horrify social conservatives, an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. Giuliani or Ridge might prompt a third party pro-life presidential challenger.

Fred Thompson, the ex-senator from Tennessee and now a TV actor, is also a close friend of McCain. If he'd run a more spirited presidential campaign of his own this year, he'd be the obvious pick for running mate. But his campaign was dreary and disappointing. McCain needs someone more vibrant and upbeat.

That leads to Romney. He has run a vigorous national campaign and been vetted by the press and his opponents for the Republican nomination. These are very strong pluses. A pick who produces unhelpful surprises, as Geraldine Ferraro did in 1984 (her husband's business deals) and Dan Quayle did in 1988 (his National Guard duty), is exactly what McCain doesn't need. Romney is a known quantity.

Romney has three other add-ons. He's acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns. He's unflappable in debates. With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain's admitted weakness on economic issues.

Romney has allies in the Bush wing of the Republican party. President Bush favors him as McCain's veep. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries, but never endorsed him publicly. Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, has hinted that he considers Romney to be McCain's best running mate.

Is there a downside to Romney? Possibly. It's not his Mormonism. He lost the nomination to McCain, but religion wasn't the reason. As a corporate turnaround artist, he rescued companies, sometimes by laying off workers. When he ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 1994, the incumbent, Teddy Kennedy, raised the layoff issue with punishing effect. No doubt Democrats would use it again, and it might have resonance if a recession hits and unemployment is increasing.

Mike Huckabee's name is bound to come up in the veepstakes, since he's now run nationally and been vetted. According to Rove, he would "double" McCain's trouble with conservatives. Both foreign policy and economic conservatives would scream bloody murder if McCain chose the Huckster.

Presidential nominees once tried to balance their ticket with someone who'd helped win a state they might otherwise lose. This hasn't entirely gone out of fashion. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is often mentioned in this regard. Former House member John Kasich and ex-trade representative and budget director Rob Portman, both from Ohio, are too.

McCain has also been advised, at least by the media, to pick a much younger person for vice president. Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri, 37, and a handful of others have had their names trotted out. Some of them have impressive credentials. Blunt, for example, is an Annapolis graduate and a Naval Reservist called to active duty after 9/11.

But I don't believe the option of choosing a running mate for purely political reasons is open to McCain - not during wartime, anyway. His strong suit against Barack Obama, his likeliest Democratic opponent, or even against Hillary Clinton, is experience. In fact, Clinton has set up Obama to be attacked by McCain on this front.

Her TV ad raising doubts about Obama's readiness to be president was critical to her victories last week in the Ohio and Texas primaries. She also said in a campaign appearance: "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience [to the White House] and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference." In Obama's 2002 speech, he opposed the invasion of Iraq. One can envision her comment in a McCain TV ad zinging Obama.

McCain would throw away the experience issue if he named a much younger running mate or someone without national stature or a background in world affairs. Obama's response could be devastating: "If experience is so important, why did you pick a running mate who has so little, indeed less than I do?"

Romney thus appears to have the best ratio of virtues to drawbacks. But there's just one problem: McCain doesn't like him. Just how important compatibility is — that is something McCain will have to decide.

[tjc4usa]

McCain should *not* choose Romney for VP:
1. He is disliked by many, which will hurt, not help you.
2. He can''t win in the South. McCain needs a VP who can.
3. He called McCain a "liberal" and compared him to Hillary--which the Dems would use against McCain.
4. His flip-flopping is notorious and would reflect badly on McCain: Bush used this issue effectively against Kerry; the Dems would use it against McCain and Romney.
5. He is not truly prolife and pro-traditional-family-values, as his horrible record shows. His family even has ties to Planned Parenthood! McCain needs a candidate who is truly strong on these two issues, very important to "social conservatives."
6. McCain could never be assured that Romney shares his values, because he changes his views on major issues too often.
7. Does McCain really want to be that close to him--a man he apparently doesn''t like too much (to put it lightly)--for four years?
8. McCain needs a VP who can excite the young people in this nation (as Obama does). That''s not Romney.

McCain needs to choose someone who is truly strong regarding the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. That''s *not* Mitt Romney.

p.s. The best choice would be Mike Huckabee. But there are others who also would be good. But *not* Romney, and *not* Giuliani.

[davide73-2009]

Fred Barnes is systematically destroying his credibility by adhering to a philosophy that supports capitalism without conscience. Anyone who would support Mitt Romney is part of the problem that needs to be fixed. Too bad, because I used to consider him a good man.

[davide73-2009]

IF MITT ROMNEY IS THE CHOICE FOR VP, 10 MILLION REPUBLICANS WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN. I AM ONE OF THEM. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MORMONISM, BUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY.

[johnandsonia]

Yes, Romney will work as VP. First of all he and McCainn are definitely not cronies or bed buddies, and will only have one common ground: what is best for the country.
McCain is a seasoned politician who knows he can''t pick someone with whom he can down Bud Lights and Scotch while catching updates on the war(s) (around the world) as well as important sports events.
Yes, Mitt is a very smart choice for McCain as he needs (and we need) to be certain that there will be someone sober in the White House if ever the need trully arrises.
Although I am a HUGE fan of the brew, I believe we need someone who really understands the economy and is not a professional or lifetime politician in the White House, and that someone is not Obama, Hillary, or McCain, unless the latter chooses Romney as a running mate.

[gouldnen]

Romney, Giuliani, or Bloomberg would all work for McCain if he intends to take California. Any of the other named VP hopefuls will not. McCain will need someone who is well-vetted and already on the national stage, like Romney, or Giuliani, with no real skeletons coming out in the last minutes of the election. Romney has also won the Mid-West which is important to McCain if he is to win. Romney won Minnesota, so contrary to this article, Pawlenty can give McCain nothing. Giuliani gave McCain California, New York, and other North Eastern states, also important to McCain. Any one of the three can help with economy which seems to be the most important part of this election and will likely become more important as the year extends into November. However, it was Romney that drove a record Republican turnout in Minnesota. Minnesota''s Governor looked a "little tired" to the Republican base, and gave McCain nothing. Go Romney, Good-bye Pawlenty.

[guysdigdirt]

While I think Romney would do a great job and bring a lot to the table, I thing Condie Rice would be a great pick for the VP roll. She is intelligent, accomplilshed in the political and non-political arena, and has two other atributes that would make her a great counter to the other parties pathetic canidates.

[todd_i-2009]

Romney is a very good choice for VP. He has a proven ability to lead and during the primaries he was the candidate most able to see the problems, formulate solutions, communicate ideas, and he has a record of actually accomplish his goals. He is the golden %u2018under study%u2019--he would make President McCain look brilliant.

[lone-star5]

Good article!

[silampa]

There is no doubt in my mind, that the best VP option for Mcain is Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Rudy is a 9/ 11 hero, turn one of the most difficult cities in the country around.
Cut taxes 23 times and left the city as one of america''s safe largest cities in the country.

[shadfurman]

(Renson) I don''t think anti-mormon bigotry killed his campaign as much as people saying things like he "ran and governed as a social liberal in Mass". He ran in the state he lived in that needed major reform and he did it. That is quite commendable. As for bigotry, there has been more one bigoted comment left on this board regarding mitts religion, when I defended his religion the same people said (to paraphrase) why are we even talking about his religion? you shouldn''t judge someone based on their religion.
Funny to me, obviously there are enough people with bigoted views of Romneys religion that some of them have shown up on this board. Romney dropped out of the race to unite the GOP. Hes on our side, just as Huckabee is (even though he has made comments himself about Mitts religion). I wish many of you could see that. Instead I hear what appear to me as half construed conspiracy theorys.

[ediewrites]

I love Mitt Romney. He is not a flip flopper he changed his mind. As most Christians grow and learn. He is more Conservative now then in his early days. People didn''t like him being Mormon. I don''t care. What is important he has the same values as me a Conservative Christian. Listen to him talk about family values.

[loveitaly]

Right on, "Rensen"!!!

[rensen-2009]

Romney''s supporters have decided that Huckabee''s supporters are religious bigots.

If you google Mike''s name, there are more blogs deriding Mike and his ''know nothing'' red neck, knuckle dragging, cult followers, that you will EVER find about Mitt''s mormonism. The anti- christian bigotry revealed this season, makes me deathly afraid for the direction this country is taking.

Our problem with Mitt is that he ran and governed as a social liberal in Mass. and then ''saw the light'' when he decided to run for POTUS.

For values voters, life and marriage are THE issues through which ALL other issues are judged. Romney earned a D in that area, and Mike has an A+. Why is it so hard for Romney''s supporters to see that we support Mike because he CHAMPIONS our cause.

Come on, you put a guy who says he''ll do more for gay marriage rights than Ted Kennedy in front of social conservatives and expect them to throw one of their own with a proven record under the bus? We aren''t even sold on McCain, and his socon record is stroner than Mitt''s

I''m sorry, I''m not going to believe Mitt until I see him DO something that proves he really has had a change of heart on social issues, that''s not just convenience.

Mitt Romney''s supporters need to get over the great lie that anti-mormom bigotry significantly affected his candidacy. We just liked our man better. He was a closer reflection of our social values, and that has not changed.

[shadfurman]

HAHAHAHA!!! whatever

[loveitaly]

Shadfurman: "a choice between two evils" and you''re telling me that I use catch-phrases- Don''t make me laugh...paleeezzeeee!!! BTW I was referring to Obama (empty rhectoric) as he is just an "empty vessel"-in my opinion, of course!

[shadfurman]

(LoveItaly) funny you should say that as you posted that after I went to bed. You know, Huckabee almost made my considerations list, but I believe he has shown plenty of his true character that I don''t believe he would make a good president, better than McCain, I would have NEVER voted for McCain, but with a choice between two evils... who do you choose? I CAN support McCain with Romney on the ticket. Emotional catch phrases like "empty rhetoric" that the democrats use is evidence enough to me that you don''t really take this seriously (no, I don''t take these conversations too seriously. Not enough cordiality.) I am extremely not impressed with the way many of you who comment on here string together little pieces of construed "evidence" and build your little conspiracy theory''s and then jump to "CROOKED all the way" (as an example) shows no exercise in logic when you call people you don''t even know names, like what is that going to do. Silly.

[loveitaly]

Let''s be honest...Fred Barnes is on Fox, right? And, doesn''t Romney have an interest in that station or is part owner? That''s the home of Hannity, too. So you''ve got Romney pushing himself and his $$$ on those newscasters because of that fact...so how legitimate is that? Not very.....CROOKED all the way..can''t trust the guy....slick "Mitt"....flip-flopper from the get-go... Sorry, I can''t imagine a situation that if something would happen to McCain during his presidency-if it even happens-Romney would be our president!! HORRIBLE...we''d never know what to believe and what not to believe...MIKE HUCKABEE-he''s honest and he''s the genuine article.

[loveitaly]

Shadfurman: Don''t you EVER go to bed? Let''s put to rest this discussion centering around religion. Either you believe or you don''t but it''s about a candidate''s policy beliefs; how one is going to change this country for the better (and I''m talking about real ideas here,...not just empty rhectoric). I still believe, given all the facts out there, that Mike Huckabee should be our v.p. He has the skills, the compassion, the believablity, and the CONSISTENCY, that makes him the best choice. He also has the millions of us who still support him and back him to the max. SO, my vote is for MIKE!

[maggieone2]

I want to register my opinion that Mitt Romney is by far the best choice McCain could make for Vice-President. His record in business and economics will be of great help to USA as we face what appears to be a very serious economic slow-down. Read that (Depression). He carries no baggage. If the only reason McCain would not consider Romney as V P is "he doesn''t Like him", that is a disgrace for McCain and a great loss for our Country.

[florida2009]

I have read these comments and it is clear
alot of folks here are ignoring Reality.
No Republican has ever won the White House
without Ohio.
Ohio is the real Test here.
If McCain cannot win Ohio he will not win
the White House,unless he puts California
in play?
I really like John Kasich for reasons I stated
below. Rob Portman would also be a good pick.


***********************************

Regarding the VP Running Mate Derby,


John Kasich is the
clear and logical choice here.

He must be given strong consideration
if McCain wants to win.

Ohio is a must win,

Ohio,Ohio,Ohio
McCain cannot win the White House
without Ohio.

Pennsylvania is in play also
because John Kasich is from there.

Missouri and Florida are also key.

Deny these four states to the Democrats
and put California on the GOP side
and McCain will win.

Kasich wins everytime
the mantle of a fighter for the middle class.

Clinton cannot compete with John Kasich
on that theme in any way ,shape or form.

He is the true champ and fighter for the Middle Class.

He is a Budget/Economics Whiz,McCain needs his skills
as former House Budget Chair.
Can hold his own in debates.
Has Roman Catholic and Evangelical Leanings.
Been out of office long enough to be
considered a Outsider.

John Kasich would be the
clear and logical choice here,I feel.

Romney would be better in the cabinet
running the Treasury Dept.
He is needed there,for sure.

And Huckabee would make a great HHS Dept Head.