McCain-Romney?

like Graham or Lieberman. Let's not knock this one for fear it blows back at us.  

Some time ago there was an article on this blog about how Romney wouldnt take the VP spot because he would like to run for the top spot again in 2012.  I agreed with that article then and do now.

The key reason i think Romney will not be the VP nominee is the fact that for better or worse I dont see how John McCain can win this election.  There are tooooooo many things going against the Republican brand.  And, we saw how being the VP nominee is a losing effort doesnt lead to success the next time around with John Edwards.  If Romney were on a losing ticket he would have that hanging over his head four years from now when he makes another run at it.

So my pick....Pawlenty

-I should also add that i would love to see McCain win; but, as i think we all know the odds are not in his favor.

I agree Romney is a smokescreen....I still like Cantor he's fallen off the radar which is a sign...of what who knows

I've said for awhile now that I think  Mitt is the best strategic choice for McCain, and I still believe that's true.

But it's hard for me to believe the campaign would allow this much to "leak" about Romney if he's really the choice. I can't help but wonder if this just a distraction to generate press while Obama's announcing his own VP this weekend, and to deflect attention from McCain's true VP.

Romney brings Michigan AND Nevada into play. And if Michigan is in play, the race will be much more difficult for Obama.  He's already pulling back in Florida and is down a point in Ohio.  What states will he have to concentrate on? Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

I think we're really starting to see the cracks in a once invincible campaign. 

I don't buy it either.  I suspect McCain has wanted to pick Pawlenty for some time now.  With his trial balloon talk about Lieberman or Ridge, the base, as evidenced by Richard Viguerie came out and said Pawlenty ot Romney would be acceptable to Conservatives.  That may or may not have been his intention, but  that speculation served to  make choices that  the base felt so-so about to become acceptable.  I think Pawlenty gets the nod over Mitt because 1) He was an early McCain supporter, while Mitt challenged him and 2) Huckelberry  has been raising such a ruckus trying to prevent Romney's selection.  While I think  that's pretty childish,  a safe pick acceptable to the base seems more in line with what  McCain would be looking for.  At the same time, I feel Romney's skills are a better match for running the RNC and making Republicans a legitimate political force in more parts of the country.  Mitt's a turnaround expert, and the RNC is definitely a business in need of a turnaround.  

Having said that, I still think Romney would be a good choice. I also think Rob Portman or John Engler would be solid picks because of their economic gravitas and potential to win votes  in the industrial midwest.  But at the end of the day, I  think it will be Pawlenty.

His wife is on the Freddie Mac board. Oops.

As for Eric Cantor, I recall the last time a sitting House member ran for VP was William Miller on Barry Goldwater's ticket.  Geraldine Ferraro on the Mondale ticket (Even worse---won only one state!)(I think better after a few slices!)

especially considering the goose-eggs out three (female ex-CEOs, Liberman, Ridge, Crist). None of those other choices could ever match Romney's 4 million primary votes cast for presiden, and none have gone to bat as Romney has on multiple conservative issues.

 Mitt had great Catholic support, did well in west and in MI. Romney had good mainstream conservative support, and the anti-mormon vote might not be an issue when the guy on the other side went to a black liberation theology church that spouted anti-american bile.

The businessman Romney compliments the warrior McCain quite well. And he has executive political experience, which other picks (like Cantor) do not. There are some real Mitt-hating detractors out there in some conservative circles, but most of the conservative establishment was behind Romney in January as the 'last best hope' for conservatives vs McCain. And Romney hit a home run in CPAC.  In fact, in thinking about it, the only other choices in the same league would be Owens (CO), Pawlenty (MN), and Sanford (SC).

Add to that business acumen, articulate and agile in debates, And he makes a great co-pilot in the White House due to his private and public executive experience.

Romney's downside is simple: He's not a proven conservative leader. He moved right in the nomination race, but people wanted more than promises. That's why he didnt win the nomination. We were looking for Reagan and he wasnt quite it (neither were any of the others of course, so its no hit on him per se). Well, that's kind of where GHW Bush was in 1980; runner-up, establishment Republican, good man, but he lost to Reagan. And the Reagan/Bush ticket fit pretty well.

As others have said ... McCain could do worse. Most of his other picks are less conservative than Romney.

One pick that IMHO would be better would be Sarah Palin. If the Hillary news is right, then Obama will go white-guy route, and we've got a potential pairing that would emphasize appealling to women and put a conservative with a great prolife and pro-domestic energy perspective on the ticket.

Whether it WILL happen, I don't know. I do know that if McCain puts a pro-choicer or a Democrat, he's throwing the election away.