Here's what I think

Bird Dog's picture

Romney was the least worst out of the third-rate second team of candidates. And yet, according to Nate Silver, the GOP nominee is within 3% of the incumbent in the popular vote (although it looks much better for Obama in the Electoral College). Romney may be a nice guy with a nice family but it should be obvious to anyone that he's a brass-knuckled campaigner. Also obvious is that the Obama campaign is worried enough to pull its brass knuckles out. So that's where we are.

Since Romney doesn't have much of a message, his tack is to make this election a referendum on the president's performance in office. The Obama team, of course, denies such a referendum, but they're constrained because they can't brag about the economy, they can't brag about a massive and polarizing Obamacare law, they can't brag about the WAMI (except for offing bin Laden), and they can't brag about Hopenchange. What's left are Bright Shiny Distractions to veer attention away from Obama's mediocrity and Romney's success in the private sector, the Olympics and in a governor's office. The BSD's appear to be working.

Do I think Romney will win? No. The incumbent has too many advantages and the challenger is second-tier as a candidate.

Do I think Romney would be a better president? Yes, but not by much. He won't get his tax proposal passed and he won't repeal Obamacare. The former has already been shredded and the latter won't make it past a filibuster. But Romney actually does have a solid record of executive experience and he has a record of working with legislators on the other side of the aisle. Obama didn't (prior to getting elected) and doesn't, respectively. His record shows little success at working with political adversaries and he has no maverick in him. He's an uncourageous straight party line Democrat. Romney is little better, but still better, in my opinion.

Similar to 2008, the GOP candidate is behind at this stage and now he needs a good vice presidential pick to tip the scales. Who are the best picks? Here's what I think, from first to worst.

Colin Powell. A black man who actually does have executive experience before going into the nation's highest office. He probably has said or will say "no" if asked unless Romney can coax him to a "yes". "Colin, your country needs you, etc." His drawbacks are his moderate political views (to conservatives), and Dems will attack him for his UN testimony on Iraq. His pluses are many. Will Powell get the nod? Extremely doubtful.

Condi Rice. A black woman who actually does have executive experience before going into the nation's highest office. She has said "no" already but perhaps Romney could coax her to a "yes". Dems will attack her for working for Bush. Her pluses are many. Will she get the nod? Extremely doubtful.

Bobby Jindal. Smart and effective. He's younger than Obama but has a better job history than Barry did before getting elected to POTUS. He has already said he would decline if asked, but never say never.

Susanna Martinez. Smart and effective, with a good record as prosecutor and governor. Her favorable-unfavorable gap is solid, but she's in a fairly inconsequential state.

Marco Rubio. A gifted politician but a little young. But then, so was Barry back in the day. And Rubio can sway the vote in a swing state. I'm sure he's already been thoroughly oppo-researched. The first wave was earlier this year when the WA Post dug into his family history.

Nikki Haley. A promising governor but also a little young. Romney would do better with the above.

Brian Sandoval. Brian Sandoval is an ethnic minority with a decent resume, but my response upon hearing his name is "who dat?". 

The Rest. If Romney picks one from this category, he will lose. That's how I see it.

Of course, my top picks are racial/ethnic minorities. Romney needs one of them to balance the cultural ticket. If there's ever a plasticky whitebread political candidate straight out of central casting, it's Romney. If he picks one of The Rest to run with him, then Romney just exposes himself all the more as a rich, privileged white dude who is running with a somewhat less rich and privileged but still white dude. He needs a little color in his campaign, both physically and figuratively.

EDIT: I added Nikki Haley after hitting "Save" and I made a few grammatical adjustments.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sounds like you might as well stay home on election day

(#286087)

This isn't too far off what I believe, except coming at things from a different angle.

 

But I think you underestimate how willing and ready the GOP is to push through tax reform and slash spending. They did the former under Bush II with very tiny majorities and no popular mandate. It can happen again and is my main motivation for voting for Obama, who will slash spending slightly less.

I notice you don't mention the fact that Romney

(#286091)

is one of the most mendacious, lying, hypocritical politicians of our time, which as we all know is saying quite a lot. It's passing strange that a person who spends so much time saying "words mean things," citing fact-research organizations, and calling out politicians for perfidy and distortion, would give the biggest liar of them all a complete pass.

 

Sure, sure, "they all do it," and "there are bigger liars the fact-checkers have missed," and "conservatives know the real Romney," but seriously, he is up in the top 5 liars in American politics. 

 

At least that's what the fact checkers say.

M Aurelius was probably right.

What we do know is that...

(#286093)
Bird Dog's picture

...Romney has been less truthful than Obama. Is he the most mendacious of all time? Arguable opinion, especially since it wasn't that long ago that an unusually good liar was president.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

"less truthful than" his opponent

(#286097)

In other words, Romney's a lying scumbag.  

 

 

And so, by extension, is Obama

(#286112)
Bird Dog's picture

Since less than half of his statements are true or mostly true, the best he can say is that he's less dishonest than his opponent, which doesn't make for a great campaign slogan.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

"I'm less dishonest than my opponent"

(#286260)

That's a pretty remarkable thing for a politician to be able to say truthfully, and certainly counts in that politician's favor.

 

Even if the opponent is a lying scumbag like Mitt Romney.

Oh come on

(#286123)

To make the top 5 list you have to be good at mendacity, lying and hypocrisy,  and he's not.  He's clumsy.  2nd tier at best,  not in the same league as a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.  

Fair point. Maybe "Most Egregious"? "Most Shameless Liar"?

(#286125)

The paradox, as you suggest, is that the truly great liars are never caught, by definition. Mitt is...not one of those.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Most obvious

(#286129)

shameless too, but most obvious is the one that really gets under the skin.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Cross out Colin and Condi

(#286105)

They're both pro-choice, and Romney has committed not to choose anybody like that. It's going to be Marco.

 

You could talk about Obama's lack of executive experience in 2008, but it's a little late now, isn't it? He actually has experience doing the job. How would I rate his execution, policy preferences aside?

 

Scandals? Pretty thin pickings by any modern standard. There have been very few distractions.

 

On message? Very much so. Best message control since Reagan's first term.

 

Communication skills? High.

 

Personal brand? Again very high. His approval rating has outperformed the economic fundamentals by a lot.

 

Picks good people and holds them accountable? Almost to excess. It seems like if you forget to put deodorant on in the morning, you get asked for your resignation.

 

Legislative success? Unquestionable. Most success since LBJ.

 

He hasn't gotten the cross-the-aisle cooperation, but frankly, he can't control that. I'm curious to know what criteria you come to in assessing his skill as an effective Chief Executive, regardless of how he might differ with you policy-wise. For example, I didn't like what Reagan did, but I'm happy to concede his first term was extremely effective.

 

 

 

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Two main criteria

(#286141)
Bird Dog's picture

The economy and the WAMI. The former is stagnating and the latter has been muddling, with bin Laden's demise the only real high point.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

On those criteria you have to vote for Obama

(#286164)
HankP's picture

The GOP screwed up the economy and Obama has been repairing the damage, even if it's been at a slower pace than you would like. Same with the wars. So your choice is clear.

I blame it all on the Internet

Heh

(#286170)
Bird Dog's picture

And here I was thinking that liberals didn't think in terms of black and white, or lacked nuance.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Way to avoid the points I made

(#286171)
HankP's picture

they're still germane, and Republicans don't have any answers for them.

I blame it all on the Internet

What points?

(#286198)
Bird Dog's picture

You're guilty of engaging in gross hyperbole. Not worthy of a response.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Just stating the facts

(#286206)
HankP's picture

the economy was in free fall when Obama took office, he managed to stabilize it and in the face of unprecedented Republican obstruction it's at the point where it's slowly growing. Not great, but certainly better than his predecessor and better than the Ryan plan would be if Romney won.

 

On Iraq he pulled us out in accordance with treaty. On Afghanistan, he evaluated the situation with his foreign policy team and the military, then implemented the best available plan (one which you supported as I recall). He gave it two years, the plan did not succeed and showed no signs of ever succeeding, so he re-evaluated the US position there. That's a damn sight better than what the Bush admin did.

 

So by any reasonable metric, if you mean what you say abut those issues being important to you the choice is clear.

 

 

I blame it all on the Internet

But hank

(#286204)

Once Romney gets elected he will change the GOP from within and they will all be common sense burkean conservatives . And will grow the economy by managing the USA like a CEO. 

 

Amen.

Every week that goes by

(#286210)
HankP's picture

I'm becoming less and less worried about a Romney victory. This guy could f(*k up a glass of water.

I blame it all on the Internet

Famous last words.  By me.

(#286211)

Famous last words.  By me.  In November 2000.

I worry about the republican war on voting

(#286214)

in those battleground electoral college states. That's where the rubber meets the road & I just hope democrats are sufficiently organized to counter GOP efforts to repeat their successes in FL 2000 & OH 2004.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Oh, things could change

(#286217)
HankP's picture

but something's happened to Republican presidential campaigns. This year and in 2008 they just seem really clumsy and disorganized.

I blame it all on the Internet

Okay...

(#286190)

On the economy, frankly, I don't think Presidents have much control. External factors like demographics, business cycles, and advances in technology come first, then monetary policy, then Congress and the President after that. I know we all like to pretend otherwise, but Presidents don't really own their economies.

 

As for WAMI, I have to suspect you're more attached to the tactics than the objectives, because by any measurable metric WAMI is a big success. Al Qaeda leadership has been decimated and their ability to carry out an attack on US soil is now judged to be negligible by our intelligence agencies. There has been no other organization that has risen to take its place. Syria might bring a different outcome, but whatever Islamism can be found in the Arab Spring movements has been moderate. There is now a distinct strain of democratization running through the Arab world. The Taliban and their Pakistani sympathizers are still in battle, but far from gaining power in either country. It is doubtful that they would be eager to be a haven for terrorists after the experience of the last decade, and even more doubtful that any such attempts could escape the reach of the US military. This is what success looks like.

 

But also... these are policy differences. You spoke of executive experience, making it sound like Obama's problem was one of execution, not policy. I still haven't heard of much evidence to that effect. I think frankly Catchy makes a more compelling case from the left on his incompetence than you or other people on the right do.

 

 

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Like it or not,

(#286203)
Bird Dog's picture

presidents are rewarded or penalized depending on where economies go. A cratering economy was one of the reasons McCain lost. Obama has had three years. Other than a whopping spending bill and a few stopgaps, what has he done? Passed a half-baked Dodd-Frank? Side-tracked his focus on the economy to pass Obamacare? Extended all of the Bush tax cuts? 

 

On the WAMI, Obama merely executed an agreement that Bush signed re Iraq. Afghanistan sucked when Obama came into office and it still sucks. He crowed that it was a war we needed to win, and by his policies, it's now a war we need to escape from. Al Qaeda was hiding in Pakistan and various locales before he came to office, and they're still hiding in Pakistan and various locales. The only major crowning achievement was killing bin Laden. He alienated Pakistan by amping up drone strikes, he engaged in constitutionally questionable activity when he putt American citizens on a kill list without an iota of due process, he violated the War Powers Act re Libya, he talked big about shutting down Gitmo and did exactly nothing. I'll agree with catchy. Obama has displayed incompetence, and I suggest that a good chunk of that incompetence is borne of inexperience. Had he actually had experience before running for office, we might've known his managerial abilities, but he came into the presidency as an unknown and he's been mediocre at best. We know Romney's abilities in three different venues, all performed with success.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Which 3?

(#286208)

I can only think of one. He's very rich.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

It's funny how every single complaint you make about Obama

(#286230)

leads straight back to Congress: economic stimulus, Dodd-Frank, tax cuts, Gitmo, Libya. Every failure in those areas was caused by the most recalcitrant, obstructive do-nothing Congress since Truman was in office.

 

Now you can argue that Obama lacks the "leadership" to get Congress to do what he wants, joining catchy in blaming the President for the failures of Congress. Or, you could recognize that Congressional Republicans have decided they'd rather break the government and the economy than let any other party have a say in running them. I know which way I'm betting your shrewd analytical technique will bend on this question.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Hmm

(#286257)
Bird Dog's picture

Doesn't Obama's lack of getting his preferred legislation through a sign that his leadership abilities are deficient? Clinton somehow managed it. Bush, too. The fact that Obama had to delegate the Obamacare negotiations to Biden, the more experienced pol, speaks for itself.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Only if you don't factor in Mitch McConnell

(#286261)

and the GOP's top political objective.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Yep. No President in history has ever faced a Congress

(#286264)

as willfully and deliberately obstructive as the 112th.

 

Bird Dog, you should read this slowly and carefully, because this is not an opinion I'm typing here. It's not spin, it's not cant, it's an objective historical fact. There has *never* at any prior point in US history been a Congress that blocked more legislation or did more to stymie executive action than the clown circus currently installed in the Capitol Bldg.

 

Facts matter.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Right

(#286274)
Bird Dog's picture

And Obama had absolutely nothing to do with his abysmal relationship with Republicans. Got it.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Right

(#286280)

And the (D) after Obama's name isn't the sole reason for that abysmal relationship. Got it.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Again, I'm not seeing the evidence

(#286253)

You might disagree with his views on civil rights. I do too. But that has nothing to do with managerial competence.

 

Managerial incompetence is things like overloading the agenda or micromanaging as Carter did. Or choosing a clueless crony like Brown for FEMA, or allowing a Defense-State civil war as Bush Jr. did. Your differences with him sound entirely to be policy-based.

 

And again, it doesn't matter if Afghanistan didn't go as well as you hoped. That is not the metric that matters in the war on terror. (And no, I'm not giving Obama all the credit for it... many of the policies were already in place.)

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Romney would be a horrible President

(#286110)
HankP's picture

given the crazy Republicans he'd be working with in Congress.

 

Out of your VP picks, the only two who are possibilities are Jindal and Rubio. Jindal is in the middle of a complete clusterf&k of a charter school "reform", and I doubt Romney would pick an exorcist as a running mate. Rubio is a possibility but I still think Romney will make a safe choice like Portman.

I blame it all on the Internet

Agreed - It's not so much Romney

(#286127)

who seems to have very few political convictions of his own.

 

It's that a Romney victory would mean it's the GOP's turn. 

 

And Romney already endorsed the Ryan budget, ergo medicare itself is on the chopping block in this election. And the GOP can pass it with 51 votes.    

Your top two are non-starters

(#286126)

A VP nominee's job is to attack, especially when you're running against the other guy's record rather than promoting your own.  The main appeal of Powell and Rice is that (despite their crimes in 2003) they come off as polite, dignified, and reasonable.  Even if they had it in them to turn vicious they'd be giving up their main asset.

 

I'm still going with Huck as a long shot,  but from your list Jindal and Haley look like they could do attack. 

So, is Biden an attacker?

(#286137)
Bird Dog's picture

I don't recall him doing much attacking in 2008, and I'm not seeing much attacking this time around. Seems like his main priority these days is to avoid gaffes.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

That's my impression

(#286140)

Dick Cheney's been in the headlines doing more attacking than Biden.

Mostly Avuncular, With The Occasional Sucker Punch

(#286157)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I kind of like old Joe, truth be told. I just think that he's a few hearts short of a flush and is pretty much a spruced up version of Quayle as far as actual competency to be President if the need arises goes.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Nah

(#286166)

Joe would make a good stand-in, just like the haberdasher from MO.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

IIRC

(#286142)

Dan Quayle kept a low profile the second time around, also.  

 

Back in 2008 voting for a black guy for President was a bit novel and I'm guessing Obama wanted someone very mainstream to reassure voters.   But yeah, keeping Biden in the basement this time is probably good strategy.   

I Still maintain that Huckabee is Romney's Winningest Choice

(#286150)

 

...it has to be the Huck-man to balance out the Mormonism, and the evangelical right loves the Huckster...

 

Most importantly, he is extremely likable...with a high Q factor or Q score.

 

I don't want to see Romney win, but this is his window to seize and his only chance to ascend to the Presidency.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

That would be an interesting choice

(#286193)

You're right, he is likable.

 

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Huckabee only has one drawback

(#286209)
HankP's picture

which is that the vast majority of Republicans hate him. Other than that he'd be great.

I blame it all on the Internet

They don't think much of Romney either

(#286213)

but they will vote for him anyway because he will be the republican nominee and their only means of removing Obama from office. That much is clear from recent commentary here.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Here's what I think

(#286145)

Vote to put this on the F-P or have a mod promote it. 

 

It's a good diary by a conservative, which we need more of.

More affirmative action for conservatives nt

(#286165)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Keep It Classy -nt-

(#286200)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Coming from the guy who says "scumbag" every other post nt

(#286205)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hey, let's let the free market decide this....

(#286169)
Jay C's picture

It has five points already: surely there must be at least ONE more Forvmoid reading this who'll step up to re-decorate the FP?

ONE?

PLS??

dumb

(#286184)

question, but how do you vote for a diary. I'm sure I'm missing an important button that's right in front of my nose.

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864

When you're logged in

(#286195)
HankP's picture

there's a number to the left of the beginning of the diary with a plus sign underneath it. Just click on the plus sign and it will add a vote to the diary.

I blame it all on the Internet

And...

(#286220)

...we will soon outsource the plus sign code to Diebold, because your vote is so important to us we want nothing but the polling technology that yields the very best, reliable results.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

Re: Romney being a better president

(#286189)
stinerman's picture

He won't get his tax proposal passed and he won't repeal Obamacare.

Actually we'll get the Ryan budget.  And the ACA will be repealed.  They'll run it through reconciliation if they have the majority in both houses.  Mark my words.  If the Republicans hold majorities in both houses and Romney wins, Medicare will become a voucher program.

he has a record of working with legislators on the other side of the aisle.

That's largely considered to be a liability with the Tea Party crowd.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Dem chances to hold on to the senate

(#286202)

Have improved a few ticks today.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Bless his heart

(#286218)
brutusettu's picture

believes liberalism is based on "a hatred of God," believes the Bible should be a "blueprint" for American government

 

Call me crazy, but there's some tells in there that Akin almost certainly doesn't care for a good deal of other denominations of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."

Major Kong

I see Nikki Haley is an ethnic Sikh.

(#286212)
mmghosh's picture

It is pretty impressive for a second generation immigrant anywhere in the world to get to be the Governor of a historic State, in spite of ethnicity and her public respect for both native and foreign faiths - shown by attending both Christian churches and Sikh temples.  An excellent example, for us at the least.

Well

(#286216)

her parents had the sense/caution to give her an American sounding name,  and she was born and educated here so she doesn't have much of an accent.  Also, we're talking about South Carolina. Until recently the only recognized categories there were "white" and "black",  and she's not black.  Beyond that southerners don't pay much attention to ethnicity for someone who was born here.

 

But forget all that.  She's more Republican than Sikh and in most of the south "Republican" has replaced "white" as the group you want to be in if you're trying to get ahead.