Well, all Mormon men are priests. Romney was stake president. Is that really a big deal?
I wouldn’t let him near the table if I were you, especially if there’s any pie left.
Yeah, I went with a fat joke. So sue me.
And “Morman” makes it sound like Romney’s got gills. It’s “Mormon”. Think “moron” with an M in it.
I’m here all week! Try the veal!
Technically, all white young boys of a certain age (12, maybe?) are brought into the priesthood in the Mormon church. In 1978, it was extended to all non-whites, as well. There is no meaningful distinction between a Mormon man and a Mormon Priest. (Though South Carolinians don’t know that, so I suspect push-polls.)
Actually, thinking about it, Priest might be a particular order within Mormon, like Elder. It’s still not all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things, but it’s not accurate to say “all ordained Mormon men are Priests”. It’s like saying “all D&D players are Mages”.
It’s a big deal, meaning it’s a very respected role within the church, but it’s more of an administrative role I think. My brother is LDS and he’s an advisor to the stake president - it seems like it’s a lot of HR and management type stuff that they’re doing.
The host of Quirks & Quarks? That’d be awesome! But isn’t he Canadian?
Yes, Stake President is a big deal. And no, it’s not merely an administrative role; Measure for Measure’s link got it right when it described him as “the highest-ranking Mormon leader in Boston”, presiding spiritually over a dozen congregations and about 4000 Mormons for 8 years.
A Stake President is not just a Priest. All active Mormon male members age 16 and up are Priests. All active males age 12 and up are priests in the sense that they are ordained to a “priesthood”, but their responsibilities are those of a Deacon. At age 18, all worthy male members are eligible to receive a higher priesthood and be promoted to Elder. And anyone who is called to a bishopric or a stake presidency gets further promoted to High Priest.
The Bishop is the head of a ward (congregation) of a few hundred people. The Stake President is the head (spiritual and administrative) of approx 10 wards. From 1986 to 1994, none of the 4000 Mormons in Boston could receive their temple rites (believed by the LDS to seal families together eternally and to give them the passwords and handshakes needed to enter the highest heaven) without passing a VERY personal interview with President Romney.
Yeah, I thought of Karl Rove too but he likes to work behind the throne.
Susana Martinez.
Which would be ironic considering how Gary Johnson was almost unknown among the electorate.
My family attended an LDS church for a few years when I was a kid (we were never baptized though).
In the Mormon faith, someone with the title of Bishop would be the equivalent of a priest or a pastor in other denominations, in that they oversee a single congregation and handle the day to day duties of running their home church.
The Stake President would be the equivalent of a Bishop in, say, the Catholic church, and would oversee a group of churches in a particular territory.
ETA: Or what Rhodes said above.
Huckabee (if he’s willing). Balances the ticket geographically, has conservative credentials, gets the Evangelical vote who might stay home because of the Mormon thing.
Gingrich is the first on your short-list?! I think a Romney/Clinton ticket would be more likely, at this point!
No, no, Romney is not a Mormon. He is a Mor-Man. From the planet Mor-Man. Their empire is allied with the Ro-Man Empire. Our only hope is to drive a wedge between them.
There are two aspects to consider. The larger is whether having Huckabee on the ticket will energize the base (the Evangelical voter would go from sitting home to manning a phone bank), and the cohort that would stay home on election day entirely but will head out if Huckabee’s on the ticket.
I think the latter is fairly small (just instinct, no cite), and wonder how much of an impact the VP choice will have on the former. Palin did energize a massive movement (though her polarizing nature made that number small compared to the general electorate), would Huckabee do the same?
Now that’s comedy. 
Not if she doesn’t look like a vacuous bimbo. If the Republicans put up someone who looked and sounded intelligent, they would be taken seriously.
That is the problem the Republicans have these days. Batshit crazy is effectively what you need to bring in the base. So what you really need is batshit crazy but pretty likable anyways. Thats why so many people are saying Huckabee.
I have heard that Ron Paul will not mount a third party challenge because he is building a movement within the Republican party that he would like to bequeth to his son one day and running as a third party candidate (when he is sure to lose) would torpedo his son’s political career.
I keep hearing people say that Obama is sure to win. I don’t know HOW you can feel at all confident of that if Romney wins the Republican nomination unless he picks Ron Paul as his VP.
Its not the job that held him back. It was the money. Money simply wasn’t lining up behind him and he didn’t do taht but if he just has to go along for the ride on the Romney train and debate Joe Biden once or twice, I think he might do it.
Christie did a better job of balancing the NJ budget than McDonnell did of balancing the Virginia budget. I don’t see what McDonnell adds.
I don’t think that will be an issue considering that his opponent is a secret muslim terrorist.
Joe Lieberman?
But seriously folks…
Besides the already mentioned DeMint, I think Rob Portman is a name to keep an eye on.
Sam Brownback.
He is politically ambitious and has serious conservative credentials.
As far opposite as I am from him politically, I must admit that he is principled and devout–he is not a hypocrite.
He would be 56 if elected VEEP, positioning him to run as an incumbent VEEP in 2020 at 64. He knows he’s too conservative to win national office outright, yet coat-tailing an incumbent President might be possible.
He would balance Romney’s perceived moderatism and placate the base. As VEEP candidate his arch-conservative views would take a backseat to Romney’s positions in the general election. And despite the fact that he is the only current national figure (I think) to be elected Representative, Senator, and Governor, his political stances would give him at least some cover from any anti-establishment fire.
And I say this part as an agnostic who disagrees with him vehemently on almost every issue–he is both sincere and a “compassionate Christian” in his understanding of the term. He is serious about AIDS work in Africa. His immigration position is informed by a belief that Christians should “welcome the stranger.” I’ve never caught even a whiff of impropriety about his personal life.
I’ve always respected the man far more than our other Senator, who is a horse-trader extraordinaire. On the other hand, I prefer my national politicians to be horse-traders instead of True Believers.
So while I respect and admire (for certain values of the words) my current governor, I hope he never occupies an elected role in the executive branch. If I were the RNC or Romney’s campaign, though, I’d be on the horn every day.
Marco Rubio. Young, conservative, Latino, hasn’t done enough to be hated by any major voting bloc yet, and probably puts Florida squarely in the GOP column for November.
I was listing by category. I think like Lincoln, Romney should create a Cabinet of rivals, Secretary of State or Treasury for Huntsman, Defence for Gingrich.
Some Tea Partyistas think he shouldn’t be President or VP because his parents weren’t citizens when he was born and when the Constitution said “natural born citizens” they believe it means those born of citizens. All this is laughable and furthermore would exclude me from the Executive Office.
I thought he’d pair with Santorum.
Naw. Too much of the same is too much of a good thing.