Who do you like in the second?



Patrick is a mid-40 year old geek with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a master's degree in Information Systems. Nothing he says here has anything to do with the official position of his employer or any other institution.

Related Post Roulette

117 Responses

  1. Avatar Mike Dwyer says:

    There are people I would pick and people that are likely to actually get the nod. If I was picking someone I would go JFK-esque and pick a Southern governor (JFK picked a senator but it’s the same strategy). Maybe Haley Barbour.

    As for who he WILL pick – man, I’m at a loss. I definitely agree it won’t be anyone from the presidential race.Report

  2. Avatar Kyle Cupp says:

    Who would I like to see?  Well, I won’t be voting for the Massachusetts Cylon, regardless of whom he picks, but, if it has to be Mitt, then I’d like to see a civil-liberties-minded VP, someone like Rand Paul, but with less animosity toward progressive domestic policies.


  3. Avatar boegiboe says:

    Nikki Haley. Southern governor, as Mike suggests, and easy on the eyes. As a Christian not born into the faith, she’d be able to excite those religious conservatives who don’t trust Romney’s Mormonism, and as a child of immigrants, she would validate Republican policies against undocumented immigrants. She’s got Tea Party cred, too.Report

    • Avatar boegiboe says:

      Yeah, the more I think about it, as a social liberal concerned mainly about Supreme Court nominees, I really hope Romney doesn’t pick Nikki Haley, because that might really work out well for him.Report

      • Avatar Rose Woodhouse says:

        Haley had an extra-marital affair issue, didn’t she? That might matter more in a national race. I think she’s also being investigated for tax fraud.Report

    • Avatar Plinko says:

      I agree Haley is a strong candidate for the pick. She supported Romney when the tide of South Carolina went heavily for Newt, other than said endorsement, she was a definite Tea-Party favorite. I’ve not seen much from her that leads me to know if she’ll fare well on a national stage but I can’t imagine she’ll the the worst veep candidate of my adult life in that regard.Report

      • Avatar Mike Dwyer says:

        I think Haley might get passed if for no other reason than it stirs bad memories of Palin.Report

        • Avatar Plinko says:

          It’s definitely possible – I certainly don’t think Romney will feel he needs to pick a candidate for identity reason outside of ‘not a Mormon’ .

          With Romney, I feel like if we can settle on the right formula, his pick is going to be so blindingly predictable that this exercise will only be filing in the variables.

          The question for me is what does he need most in the general election? Is it Southern enthusiasm and money? If so, someone like Haley or Mike Huckabee make sense. Is it enthusiastic turnout among Tea Party conservatives in purple states, then they certainly don’t.


    • Avatar Michelle says:

      Aside from the potential extra-marital affair, looks like she’s about to get indicted for tax fraud: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nikki-haley-could-be-indicted/

      So, probably not a good idea. I don’t think Mitt will choose a woman. Not his style.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        Four women, maybe.  (Newt would pick a woman, dump her in September, pick another woman, etc.)Report

      • Avatar Tom Van Dyke says:
        IRS not investigating Nikki Haley for tax fraud
        By Alicia M. Cohn – 03/30/12 07:21 PM ET

        South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s office Friday provided IRS documentation that she is not facing investigation for tax fraud, calling accusations that she was “totally contrived.”

        Haley denied the rumors of a looming tax indictment on Thursday. The rumors were based on an anonymously sourced blog post alleging that the Internal Revenue Service was investigating possible tax fraud at a Sikh center where the governor’s parents are top officials. The Palmetto Public Record claimed Haley managed the temple’s finances as recently as 2003 and implicated her in a failure by the temple to pay contractors. The governor denied keeping the books for the church.


        Haley’s office provided The Hill a copy of the letter from the IRS to the Sikh temple that finds no investigation was warranted. 

        “After further consideration of your organization, we have determined that an investigation is not warranted at this time for the above tax period,” the letter states.

        The Public Record alleged that an investigation into possible wrong doing had been ongoing since March 2011. According to the IRS, the letter was sent in late September or early October.

        “As we said from the very beginning, there was not an ounce of truth to any of these accusations – they were totally contrived, totally false, and it is a tremendous shame that once again the good names of the governor and her family were dragged through the mud by a media all too eager to believe anonymous sources and unaccountable bloggers,” said Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey.



  4. Avatar Rose Woodhouse says:

    I hadn’t thought of Nikki Haley, but she’s a good one. Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan?Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer says:

      I thought about Rubio and Ryan but I think b oth of them have plans for 2016. They won’t want to risk getting the stink of defeat on them running with Mitt on the possibility that he loses. Think Liberman and Edwards.Report

      • Avatar Rose Woodhouse says:

        Well, Lieberman had pissed off Dems in the meantime. But I hear you on Edwards (Dems didn’t yet know how much he stank).Report

        • Avatar Michelle says:

          Maybe Lieberman will agree to be part of the ticket. I’m sure he would have taken it had McCain offered. Then again, Mormon and Jew really won’t play well to the base.Report

  5. Avatar Kimmi says:

    Analysis: Mitt ain’t got nobody.

    1) His base is OLD. They gonna bitch and carp if he don’t find a foreign policy candidate for VEEP.

    2) He needs to get the Teapartiers to be happy. This is mutually exclusive to point 1, for choosing a politician as runningmate.

    3) He needs to settle the evangelical South down, and that means picking an Evangelical, if possible, and definitely a Southerner.

    4) Most importantly, he can’t choose someone who’s gonna want to stab him in the back.

    If this was the Democrats running, I’d say Wes Clark would be a decent choice (Arkansas, General, willing to make statements that are a little left of what you’d expect from a general: “global warming is the biggest national security issue of the next century”).

    If I were Romney, I’d dig up a Southern general, get him to make a few wild statements, and pretend like the teaparty likes him. Since the teaparty gets most of its news from Fox, expect this to go over pretty well.Report

    • Avatar Tom Van Dyke says:

      Rubio’s a star.  Great looks, great rap.  Longshot:  Jim DeMint.  He owns the Tea Party, speaks libertarian.


      Bobby Jindal is eminently qualified, excellent record as Louisiana gov, ex-congressman, ex-undersecretary of something or another.  But probably needs more polish on the national stage [whereas Rubio’s a natural].

      Gov. Mitch Daniels, who would have won but didn’t run because of funky stuff his wife did [ran away from him and the kids, although she eventually came back].  Mebbe they’ll go easy on the gossip if he’s only VP.

      My man has always been John Kasich.  He’s already straightened out Ohio’s financial mess, and has finally got to break-even in the polls, after being underwater almost since his election in 2010.  A little more in the plus column, and if he could swing Ohio for Romney, he da man.


      A rising economic tide appears to be lifting the political fortunes of President Barack Obama and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

      A new swing-state poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute shows that Democrat Obama and Republican Kasich are benefiting as Ohio’s economy improves.

      While Ohio voters still disapprove of Obama’s job performance by 2 percentage points — 49 percent to 47 percent — they nevertheless favor him over the two leading Republican presidential candidates, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

      If the election were held today, according to the poll, in Ohio, Obama would beat Romney 47 percent to 41?percent, and Santorum 47 percent to 40 percent.

      Ohio voters are evenly split, 42 percent to 42 percent, in their approval of the job Kasich is doing, his best score since he was elected more than a year ago. In Quinnipiac’s mid-January poll, 48?percent disapproved of his performance and 39?percent approved.

      “Ohio’s economic numbers are getting better — jobs are being created, unemployment rates are down below the national average — and for the first time in a long time there seems to be some optimism about the future,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the institute. “That’s very good for Barack Obama and John Kasich, who have very little else in common.”

      During Kasich’s tenure, Ohio’s unemployment rate has dropped from 9.4 percent to 7.6 percent. Kasich says 81,500 jobs have been created since he took office in January 2011.


    • Avatar Katherine says:

      A general?  Wonder if he could get Petraeus… Republicans like him well enough, and he seems to lean more toward the Republicans than the Dems.Report

  6. Avatar Hari says:

    Why not Santorum?  He hasn’t ruled out running as VP (which is as good as saying he wants the job), he’s obviously a great attack dog, socially conservative, and not stupid.

    The ones who poll best, like Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie, probably won’t accept the job.Report

    • Avatar Hari says:

      Just thought a of reason not to pick Santorum – no way Pennsylvania goes into the Republican column with him on the ticket!Report

    • Avatar Kazzy says:

      “…not stupid.”

      Are we sure of that?  I thought Santorum rounded into form back in January.  He fared better in debates and seemed to understand his role in the campaign and took to it.  Then all hell broke lose recently.Report

      • Avatar Hari says:

        I don’t think he’s stupid.  Poor impulse control, maybe?Report

        • Avatar Kazzy says:

          I suppose simply saying he’s stupid is oversimplying.  He doesn’t present as particularly intelligent and makes a lot of dumb mistakes and says a lot of dumb things.  If your opponent can easily portray you as stupid (which I think can be said of Santorum), than perception quickly becomes reality.Report

          • Avatar Hari says:

            Biden says dumb things all of the time, but I don’t think anyone thinks he’s stupid.  Santorum can play on his level at least!Report

            • Avatar Kazzy says:

              True, but hasn’t Obama pretty much locked Biden in a closet?  He’s not exactly front and center, maybe for good reason.

              Santorum, fairly or not, is already the butt of jokes on the left.  The GOP needs to choose someone that makes Dems shit their pants, not laugh.  Interestingly enough, Palin did this, at least initially.  I knew someone who worked deep inside the Obama campaign who said they were thrown for quite the loop when she was announced (she said this in early September ’08, so it was not revisionist history, but a genuine response in the immediate aftermath of the announcement).  They didn’t have a file on her and didn’t know how to respond.  Unfortunately, it seems, neither did the McCain campaign.  Still, the GOP, besides seeking a qualifed VP, would be wise to choose someone that gives Dems pause instead of giggle fits.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi says:

                Biden works with Hillary, going places and talking with people he knows (foreign policy guy). He plays “bull in the pen” when needed, but he’s not a very capable rabble-rouser.Report

    • Avatar Michelle says:

      I think Santorum is a definite possibility. He actually wants the job and would be far less odious than Newt. He’s got experience on the national stage and has shown that he can appeal to the base. And, should Mitt win, he can basically lock Santorum in the closet and only let him out when he needs to rile up the Tea Party types.Report

  7. Dare I say, Huntsman might have the broadest appeal in a general election, but…

    what’s that thing that’s separated from State that matters so much to people called again?Report

  8. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    I’ll go with Gordon Smith.Report

  9. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Is JEB doing anything?Report

  10. Avatar BlaiseP says:

    Ecch, if the last few outings are any guide, they’ll pick some cheerful female unknown.   Hopefully not as divisive or stupid as Palin.   Maybe Lynn Jenkins or someone like her.Report

  11. I think Mitt should pick the Ghost of Ronald Reagan – both literally and metaphorically – as his running mate.Report

  12. Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

    He doesn’t need a governor, he’s got that.  Oddly enough I see Kimmie as hitting the right notes: he needs foreign policy and an evangelical.  He can’t get both..

    Time to think outside the box.  The best thing that could happen to Mitt right now would be for SCOTUS to uphold PPACA.  Then it doesn’t matter who he picks, because whoever he pisses off in the base by not picking towards them will vote for him anyway, and they’ll still turn out because they need the seat.  At which point he can pull a rope a dope and pick someone who appeals to the independents and actually still have a shot at winning the prize.Report

    • Avatar Kimmi says:

      Christie’s, Rubio’s and Bush’s backers all have the knives out for Romney. I don’t think he’s got a prayer.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Christie’s thrown his support to Romney (and threw it early).

        This, of course, should not be read as me saying “therefore his backers have too” but insofar as Christie has influence over his backers, I imagine the knives are aimed elsewhere.Report

        • Avatar Kimmi says:

          Zilch. Christie’s backers want Christie as president. which means keeping 2016 open.

          And good boys and girls throw behind the frontrunner — even fi they want a go the next time.Report

  13. Avatar b-psycho says:

    I don’t have a specific name in mind, but considering where Mitt’s continuing shortcomings with his base & the image he gives off to the general electorate come from, I’m thinking his campaign settles on a congressman from the South that’s more socially conservative than him, has either been involved with foreign policy or is a veteran, and can give a passable nod at populist pandering.

    I can’t think of who matches that off the top of my head, so obviously this would be another pluck from relative obscurity pick if true.Report

  14. Avatar Will H. says:

    I think Romney would go for someone with cred inside the Beltway; a Senator.
    It would have to be a Senator from a solid R state, with Tea Party & so-con cred.
    But all I’m coming up with is Kyl– not a good choice.Report

    • Avatar Will H. says:

      Coburn maybe.Report

      • Avatar Michelle says:

        He wouldn’t be a bad choice for Mitt. He’s got some whacky positions (he’s a right-wing Republican after all) but he’s an evangelical budget cutter who’s shown some willingness to compromise with the Democrats (not the compromise is appealing to the base but it definitely appealing to the more sane elements of the party).

        Now, does he meet that all important non-android test?Report

        • Avatar Hari says:

          I’ve read that Obama and Coburn are good friends, ideology notwithstanding.  If that’s true I wonder if he’d be willing to run against him.Report

          • Avatar Jesse Ewiak says:

            Yeah, Coburn’s the type of guy I’d hate if it was 1994, but seems reasonable in 2012. He’s a right-wing socially conservative budget-cutter, but at least he accepts the idea we might need to raise revenue.Report

    • Avatar karl says:

      I’d bet on a westerner like Kyl, only younger.  My real hope is that whomever he picks will be a gamechanger.Report

  15. Avatar Koz says:

    McDonnell, not about ticket balancing or gender politics or any of that, but clearly reframing the narrative of the election. Our team has demonstrated intelligence and competence, your team is a bunch of droolers.

    Time to put Jordan and Pippen back in the game, time to put Cliff Levingston and Luc Longley back on the bench.Report

    • Avatar Jesse Ewiak says:

      You mean Bob “Sticking rods up women’s vaginas sounds like a good idea to me” McDonnell?Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        That’s the thing, the state legistature almost screwed him by pushing that thing, but he managed to get them to back off.  (It still may stick to him in the general, but not nearly as much as it would if it had reached his desk)Report

        • Avatar Kolohe says:

          And to clarfy “he managed to get them to back off” should probably be put in a more passive voice, but nontheless, that thing is tabled (in the chamber where the Republicans have an overwhelming majority to do whatever the heck they want).Report

          • Avatar Jesse Ewiak says:

            Do you think that if the bill hadn’t come up during the height of the birth control stuff, that it would’ve been tabled?

            Hell, I’m sure there’s plenty of speeches from the campaign/early part of his administration where he supported the idea fully.Report

            • Avatar Kolohe says:

              If the bill hadn’t come out during the height of the birth control stuff, the bill might have been the thing to kick the whole thing off.   But that Republicans are anti-abortion is a given (and longstanding) fact.

              The political center of gravity overall on abortion is formed by a majority who want to keep it legal in most cases, but a different (and necessarily overlapping) majority who dislike the practice.  So ‘ultrasounds before abortion’  seems on the surface to be enough of a Solomonic political figurative baby split to be acceptable enough to squishy moderates – until everyone realizes that they’re not just signing up for someone putting a wand on a jellied belly.   But that *is* what most everyone thought they were (and I’ll bet you it’s what McDonnel thought he was) were signing up for.Report

              • Avatar Koz says:


                For good or ill Jennifer Rubin and I are reading this the same way, so either we’re both right or we’re both wrong.

                Politically this is a way different world from 2008, where among other problems John McCain was on the wrong end of the equation GOP = W = GOP = W = GOP. In the current environment Romney has the winning hand, he just has to play it. Romney must demonstrate and convince the voters that stratospheric unemployment is some immutable fact of nature, but a contingent reality occurring as the result of particular policy/cultural choices.

                Time to put Jordan and Pippen back in the game.Report

    • Avatar Scott Fields says:

      Romney’s Jordan in this analogy?  Will Perdue, more like…Report

      • Avatar Koz says:

        No. Will Perdue et al is the Obama Administration, led by Captain Unemployment himself, with a dash of Solyndra and gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:


          The IMF estimates the cost of the worldwide financial crisis at just under 12 trillion dollars.  Just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that any Presidency was going to prevent extended unemployment after that?Report

          • Avatar Koz says:

            No, but the fact it went to double digits, and the fact that it stayed there as long as it did, really is the President’s fault, and that of his lib enablers in Congress and scattered throughout the country.

            I know most of the threads are a matter of partisan jabbing back and forth. But no bullshit Pat, it really didn’t have to be that way. And it won’t be that way just as soon as Willard “Mitt” Romney takes the oath of office. Use just an ounce of imagination and vote Republican.

            There’s no percentage in getting locked into a mindset of pessimism. Sometimes it seems like the smart move at the time, but that is just an illusion. What often appears to be an intractable situation is often a crumbling facade which dissolves away when we get properly grounded with our own intent and resources.

            In this case, our real resources are the ability of us to engage each other in a spirit of trust, curiosity and aspiration. It is Democratic policy and the Democratic establishment that is the primary obstacle of that spirit. Get fkking rid of them yesterday.Report

            • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

              You can’t imagine away things like basic economic principles, no matter how hard you try. Sorry buddy, reality doesn’t work that way and no matter of you parroting the party line will change that fact.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

                One obvious thing he could have done, if he hadn’t been trying to imagine away basic economic principles, is cut employer side payroll taxes instead of cutting them on the employee side. Wages may be sticky, but that doesn’t mean cost of employment has to be.Report

              • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

                Re basic economic principles, I was talking more about the magical notion that anything in Romney’s policy playbook (and the stuff he’s shown so far is boilerplate supply-sideism bullshit) would actually cure anything.

                There’s an argument to make that if employment is your chief concern, you want an employer side payroll tax cut versus and employee side. But it was my understanding that at the time they actually came up with the cut, they were more worried about a consumption/demand shortfall, rather than employment  juicing.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

                Yeah, I agree on the topic of Koz’s magical thinking. But the irony of defending a guy whose campaign platform is basically “Seed corn in every pot” by reference to the impossibility of imagining away basic principles was a bit much for me.Report

              • Avatar Koz says:

                What do you think basic economic principles are? The study of resources and their deployment perhaps? My guess is if you look at at the textbook you’ll see something along those lines.

                You spazzed out at me the other day. Contrary to what North wrote, I didn’t bait you into that. Nonetheless it’s not a huge surprise either. It’s pretty typical reaction when fundamental building blocks of our psychology are crumbling away. Let’s make a wild guess that there was nothing too traumatic in your personal life at the time. In that case it’s pretty clear you are distraught over the possibility of PPACA being overturned by SCOTUS.

                Instead of spazzing out, why can’t you take some responsibility for the corrupt advocacy of libs, of which you are obviously one. “I, as lib, who given America a gift of unemployment and misanthropy now have the opportunity to choose something different and I’m going to do that.”Report

              • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

                If you had anything remotely useful to contribute to a discussion, I would actually engage your point rather than “spazz out” as you say.

                But rather than that, I’m simply going to state that in the future, I’ll remember not to actually respond to you. Oh as a simple matter, you’re not welcome regarding comments on my own blog posts. Keep your shit to where I don’t have to see it.

                As for my personal life, I do have a fair amount of drama and hardship going on. But you’re right, you’re not worthy of any response. I apologize, won’t happen again.Report

              • Avatar Koz says:

                “If you had anything remotely useful to contribute to a discussion, I would actually engage your point rather than “spazz out” as you say.”

                Oh but I do, Nob, I absolutely do. And underlying most of it is this: as we correspond with each other, either you and I in particular or people in general in forums such as this, we have to engage each other as we are situated. That means we have some measure of intelligence, imagination, private resources, and part of a collective claim to public resources. Good faith advocacy happens as we engage each other in these terms. Corrupt advocacy happens when we refuse to acknowledge each other this way or denigrate our interlocutors for the sake of stealing a base forensically.

                Specifically as it pertains to libs, the problem is typically this: they want to claim private resources as public and following that, that public resources are theirs personally or proprietary to their political affiliation. For PPACA, it’s been pretty clear for at least a couple of years that libs have zero intention of forgoing or postponing their desire to have universal coverage in the American health care system no matter what the American people think or believe. That is simply corrupt advocacy and that’s what was exposed this week, much more than whatever we can reasonably blame SG Verrilli for.

                “But rather than that, I’m simply going to state that in the future, I’ll remember not to actually respond to you. Oh as a simple matter, you’re not welcome regarding comments on my own blog posts. Keep your shit to where I don’t have to see it.”

                Lovely. Got to protect the precious SWPL eyeballs from the uncomfortable consequences of what they want to impose on the rest of the world. For at least a few months that there’s been a decent-sized constituency among the regulars here to turn the League into an SWPL Journolist, and that may yet end up happening. Whether it does or not, the desire for it should be seen for what it is, cultural insularity. And the important consequence is this: you can enforce the cultural boundaries of what you’re willing to engage, but you can’t force the rest of the world to accept your boundaries as its own. And what happened this week is just one example of the cocoon being burst.Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

                Corrupt advocacy happens when we refuse to acknowledge each other this way or denigrate our interlocutors for the sake of stealing a base forensically.

                “The problem is the libs.  Just get rid of them and the country will work fine”.

                This kind of blanket statement issued by you (usually once or more on every single comment thread in which you participate) leads me to believe that you do not, in fact, regard anything said by anyone upon which you hoist the liberal flag as worthy of any sort of interest, Koz.

                You start off most conversations on your own third base, where… “Ignore a third of the country and they’ll just go away” is base number one and “ignore all of the evidence that points to the fact that my team does most of the same things that I accuse the other team of doing whenever they get actual power to do them” is base number two.

                You accusing anyone else of cultural insularity quite frankly blows my mind to smithereens.Report

              • Avatar Tom Van Dyke says:

                Yah, PatC, I’m not good with Mr. Koz doing this tribal thing, and it’s prob forgotten how I’ve gone on record asking him to back off the Team Red/Team Blue stuff in the past.

                “The problem is the libs.  Just get rid of them and the country will work fine”.

                PatC: This kind of blanket statement issued by you (usually once or more on every single comment thread in which you participate)

                Lately, I’ve had my own school of piranha on my every word and phrase, so I’ve been just a little busy, preserving my own existence here @ LoOG.

                Koz is mostly the only one who attacks back.  Not that it helps him any.  You can’t counterattack a school of piranha. It doesn’t work that way.

                Haven’t had space enough to ask Mr. Koz again to chill the partisanship-ideologue game.  I used to do so.  The funny thing is, the lefties attack [g]libertarianism just as they attack conservatism.  Everybody’s on the defensive around here except the piranha.  That’s the LoOG dynamic here lately.

                I would ask management to pause and give our present predicament some thought.

                Due the extremely negative tone, and lack of productivity and constructiveness of the conversation, I have decided (with permission) to close this thread.

                I won’t say that negativity and lack of constructiveness has become the rule, but it has become accepted.  I mean, I can hang with snark if it’s actually witty.  “Actually witty” means that you tried to make the other guy chuckle, even if he’s the butt of the joke.

                That’s sport, that’s good will.  That’s how a “league of gentlemen” goes about its business.  No gentlemanship, no “league.”  League of barbarians.  League of cannibals, we eat our own.  Well, no.  Leagues don’t work that way.  Who would want to join a league where your fate is to be eaten by your own?  Sign me up!  I don’t have enough enemies or people who want to bite my balls off!  League of Ordinary Ballbiters—where have you been all my life?


                It’s a pretty simple rule to require affirmative argument.  It should be our gentleman’s agreement.  Add a fresh argument or fact with every post, or don’t post until you can.  Move the discussion forward or stay out of the way.

                And in between the noise, Mr. Koz did make an actual argument here:

                For PPACA, it’s been pretty clear for at least a couple of years that libs have zero intention of forgoing or postponing their desire to have universal coverage in the American health care system no matter what the American people think or believe. That is simply corrupt advocacy and that’s what was exposed this week, much more than whatever we can reasonably blame SG Verrilli for.

                And give him some props here for using the preferred Democrat locution—“PPACA” instead of “ObamaCare.”  He’s not a total brute, eh?  He did try to speak the other fellow’s language.


              • Avatar Koz says:

                “This kind of blanket statement issued by you (usually once or more on every single comment thread in which you participate) leads me to believe that you do not, in fact, regard anything said by anyone upon which you hoist the liberal flag as worthy of any sort of interest, Koz.”

                Whether I do or not is a contingent result of whatever it is the libs happen to argue, Pat. It’s not my fault if the libs don’t make worthy arguments. Take a look at the very comment you are responding to. It’s been pretty clear for at least a couple of years that the libs have no intention of forgoing their desire to have universal coverage in the American health care system no matter what the American people think or believe. Whenever they do that (and I think you’d agree that it’s the default intent of politically active libs in America), that’s corrupt advocacy. End of.

                Note that corrupt advocacy is something different than bad policy (though I do believe PPACA is bad policy as well). And one of the typical consequences of this is that libs put themselves in a place of empty bewilderment when as a consequence of some course of events that’s not too difficult to understand.

                “You accusing anyone else of cultural insularity quite frankly blows my mind to smithereens.”

                I don’t know why it should be so difficult. We can see it play out right here in the health care debate. See


                and the related discussion.Report

              • Avatar Koz says:



                You can manipulate a narrative by enforcing the cultural boundaries of resources that you control, but you can’t force the rest of the world to accept your boundaries as its own.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        Romney’s Todd Fuller.Report

  16. Avatar Kolohe says:

    I really don’t think Romney needs nor should want a heavy foreign policy person as his running mate, despite his lack of experience.  For starters, foreign policy isn’t going to be all that big.  Plus, the one foreign policy area Obama is actually unpopular on – Afghanistan – the Republicans don’t have the inclination to go after him on it in a way that would be actually be popular – i.e. get the fish out.  And last, just about every foreign policy ‘expert’ (scare quotes deliberate) in the Republican party is either sabotaged by the Iraq debacle, or has worked/is working for Obama. (e.g. Huntsman, Gates)

    I mean, putting either Condi Rice or John Bolton in there would be a gift to the Obama campaign.Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

      Well…it might help Romney if he had someone who could keep him from saying stupid shit, like his recent Russia debacle.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

        Wow. I hadn’t heard about the Russia thing. I’m used to stuff Romney says being taken out of context (“Corporations are people”), but that was indeed legitimately stupid.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        That”s my point though.  Just about everyone currently in good standing in the Republican Party (and certainly the internet and talk radio crowd) doesn’t have a problem with what Romney said.

        (alternatively, he’s not listening to the advice he’s already getting)Report

  17. Avatar Scott Fields says:

    Romney needs purple states, so he will use the VP pick to help him there.

    The solid red states are gimmes, as the base would vote for tree stump as long as there’s an R next to its name if the alternative is Obama.  The inverse is true for the solid blue states by the way.   Roughly, Romney needs to win 2 out of 3 from Virginia, Florida and Ohio.  Kasich, Rubio and McDonnell will be the leading contenders.Report

    • Avatar North says:

      My impression has been that FL favors the GOP and that VA favors the dems so Ohio is the big enchilada.Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

      I don’t see Rubio hooking himself to a Veep slot this time around.  If Mitt looked better, maybe, so that he could be a two-term veep running for Pres in 8 years.

      This is sort of Mitt’s problem.  Most of the guys who I’d pick as credible veeps are probably disinclined to run.Report

      • Avatar Scott Fields says:

        I agree Rubio would rather not, but I can see him being convinced.  The Tea Party folks are pining for him BAD and that’ll be attractive.Report