What conceivable Republican VP choice would be best for the country? Setting politics aside.
Not Conceivable
Bloomberg, Lieberman won’t work because they are pro-choice.
Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska would be an interesting choice. But I doubt whether the Tea Party is in the mood for bipartisanship.
Obviously, the base would have a justifiable fit if the old hand Richard Lugar were chosen. Though he is highly qualified.
Not Optimal
Condy Rice lacks domestic policy experience. She’s a quick study admittedly.
Rubio lacks experience, though he deserves mention. Hard to avoid discussing politics. So by process of elimination Mitch Daniels is worthy of consideration. Serious, experienced, informed.
The Bush name is radioactive. No way in Hell he ends up on the ticket. My choice would probably be Condi, but I suspect Rubio will get the nod eventually.
Furthermore, I would take the position that the best choice for the country would be the one who makes sure Romney will lose. You can’t set politics aside from that call, either.
And the OP is also using politics to qualify what he means by “conceivable”. Really, how can one ever set politics aside, for what is fundamentally and at every level a political question?
I think the OP is asking people put aside their own political affiliation, and choose which potential GoP Veep would be best for the country in the event of a GoP victory in November.
Right. Here’s what I mean. Rubio is considered a great candidate because he will assist in capturing part of the Hispanic vote. Huckabee is thought to have cross-over appeal to evangelicals and more mainstream people. I want those considerations set aside.
Instead say, Rubio would make a great VP, because… Those judgments will of course depend upon ideology.
Yeah, that’s what I would have said. The best Republican VP is Donald Trump’s second wife because she is unelectable. Ok, now that we’ve got that settled, let’s consider other criteria.
Another big problem with this thread is that I can jump in and explain why Mitch Daniels would make a terrible President, as he would expand the long term budget deficit like all Republicans. So what it boils down to is making a list of the most serious and qualified Republicans in public life, constrained by plausibility considerations.
ETA: If Condi is pro-choice, she has to be taken out of consideration. Or not: all of this can be argued of course.
And you can still make that call without paying attention to which side you want. Or, at least, you could if you weren’t like me and decided not to pay attention to the Republican side because you already know you disagree with them on the issues.
Buddy Roemer is inconceivable: today’s Republican party is hostile to campaign finance reform. And two Mormon’s on the same ticket would cause evangelical brains to explode, so Huntsman is out as well. It’s too bad: Huntsman would make a decent VP.
I’ll add Tommy Thompson to the mix. The only problem is that the former Governor of Wisconsin is now running for the Senate, but appears to be too neuro-typical to win the primary. We’ll see: the crazy-town vote is split three ways, so Thompson could squeak through the primaries without majority support.
I’m not a fan of Politico -they are heavy on superficial horse race reporting and light on policy- but they had an interesting article on the perspective of Romney’s inner circle. Basically they like careful planning, in contrast to McCain 2008. As for the Vice-Presidency: “If not [Ohio Sen. Rob] Portman , [former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty, [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels — some other incredibly boring white guy,” the official said. “If there was a fourth name on the list, it’s [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell.”
One argument for Pawlenty is that he would help the ticket among evangelical Christians who are suspicious of Mormonism.
Other names will be floated but, under the campaign’s current theory of the case, are long shots: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is said by insiders to want it the most and also to annoy some aides with his aggressiveness; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio , who is not being as seriously considered as popularly believed because aides don’t see him as experienced enough or appropriately vetted. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez are also seen as too untested and lacking the national experience that would assure officials at Romney headquarters in Boston that they weren’t walking into another Palin problem. So Rubio’s chances are apparently over-estimated if you believe this article. That sounds right, given the murmurs about his skeletons. And Pawlenty has a decent shot.
Nobody makes a great VP, it is the nature of the office. Only one who ever tried to kick against that, AFAIK, was Cheney; let’s not let that happen again.
Politics aside and what would be best for the country, the answer is Bloomberg. Out of all the names mentioned, he is head and shoulders above the rest. Not only a very successsful entrpreneur/CEO but also a proven administrator and leader in a city more challenging then some states. If you had an incapitated president Romney then that is the guy you would want taking over. And he probably wants to be VP about as much as he’d want to be locked in a basement with 100 chain smokers.
Why does the Veep need to be somebody exactly like the POTUS? It’s traditionally enough that they are from the same party. (Originally they were from different parties, the Veep being the runner-up in the election.)