Who should be Mitt Romney's VP???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

Not a criticism but how would Rubio rock the boat? Guy seems pretty grounded to me, not hard right and well spoken.

And young.........

---

I will be honest I missed the Rubio part in the comment and I agree with you. I don't agree with Rubio on some key issues (I know try to suspend the disbelief) but I don't see how he rocks the boat. Unless that boat is rocked by the Republican party selecting a person who is not white, Rubio supports many of the planks of the GOP platform and is able to do so in a professional and non-belligerent tone which many of our politicians can't grasp.

Do I want Rubio or Romney in the White House, absolutely not (again try to suspend the disbelief), but would I fret over a Rubio being the VP, again no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Maybe, but certainly political inexperience is not a disqualifier, in fact it would feed into Romney's narrative.

I think the view that people will think Obama's record is grounds for a new president is a dangerous game. There is a substantive portion of the country that will vote for Obama regardless of what he does, there is a portion of the country that thinks that Obama's desired policies would have fixed the country by now but he was blocked, and there is another portion of the country that is distrustful of Romney and/or what they view as his agenda. These three portions put together plus any stragglers that don't quite fix into the groups I outlined can easily add up to 50+% of the electorate. The notion that the entire country is fed up with Obama and ready to give Romney a shot is unfounded in my view.

---

There's a difference between political inexperience, and a potentially flawed character that could lead to negativity for the campaign. Romney has a carefully constructed image, may too carefully constructed. Someone like Bondi has a real chance at destroying the carefully designed image of Romney and his campaign, which could be very, very bad for him.

No less dangerous than making an incredibly risky VP pick. The risk/reward margin for choosing a VP is very slim. Even if a choice energizes the base, so to speak, that bump will almost certainly not last in full until November. Palin is obvious evidence of that, but even outside of her stupidity and unpreparedness, the excitement will simply wear away over the months. Those three groups you defined aren't going to vote for Romney anyways, so what is the point of trying to do something to please or turn them? You simply run the risk of alienating or angering your already solid base. He doesn't have to try and win over the Obama loyalists, he simply needs to win enough of the people that are unsure. Heck, Romney doesn't even have to win over 50% of the population as long as he wins over people in the right states. No one said the entire country is fed up with Obama, but I think enough of it is fed up with Obama that if Romney stays the course and weathers Obama's negative ad blitzes, he has a very good chance to come away with a victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

Not a criticism but how would Rubio rock the boat? Guy seems pretty grounded to me, not hard right and well spoken.

And young.........

---

That was my point. He doesn't rock the boat much, but he is a minority and young, like you said. His rhetoric is a little more fiery than the other three that I mentioned. Romney isn't going to rock the boat more than that, which is almost zero. Pawlenty, Portman, and Jindal (although a minority, being Indian is not as potentially polarizing in the US today as being Latino) are basically zero risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homestarunner93

There's a difference between political inexperience, and a potentially flawed character that could lead to negativity for the campaign. Romney has a carefully constructed image, may too carefully constructed. Someone like Bondi has a real chance at destroying the carefully designed image of Romney and his campaign, which could be very, very bad for him.

No less dangerous than making an incredibly risky VP pick. The risk/reward margin for choosing a VP is very slim. Even if a choice energizes the base, so to speak, that bump will almost certainly not last in full until November. Palin is obvious evidence of that, but even outside of her stupidity and unpreparedness, the excitement will simply wear away over the months. Those three groups you defined aren't going to vote for Romney anyways, so what is the point of trying to do something to please or turn them? You simply run the risk of alienating or angering your already solid base. He doesn't have to try and win over the Obama loyalists, he simply needs to win enough of the people that are unsure. Heck, Romney doesn't even have to win over 50% of the population as long as he wins over people in the right states. No one said the entire country is fed up with Obama, but I think enough of it is fed up with Obama that if Romney stays the course and weathers Obama's negative ad blitzes, he has a very good chance to come away with a victory.

---

Less engineered of an image that the current president? I don't think that republicans have as big a problem with minorities as those outside of the party would have you believe.

Rubio will be the guy and it's his stance on immigration that will cement the deal. Mark your calender, I'll own it if I'm wrong.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I will be honest I missed the Rubio part in the comment and I agree with you. I don't agree with Rubio on some key issues (I know try to suspend the disbelief) but I don't see how he rocks the boat. Unless that boat is rocked by the Republican party selecting a person who is not white, Rubio supports many of the planks of the GOP platform and is able to do so in a professional and non-belligerent tone which many of our politicians can't grasp.

Do I want Rubio or Romney in the White House, absolutely not (again try to suspend the disbelief), but would I fret over a Rubio being the VP, again no.

---

Are you sure we're not on the same side? Personally I like Rubio as the pick of the litter. Just a gut feeling here but this will be the guy that puts the ticket over the top in November....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

Less engineered of an image that the current president? I don't think that republicans have as big a problem with minorities as those outside of the party would have you believe.

Rubio will be the guy and it's his stance on immigration that will cement the deal. Mark your calender, I'll own it if I'm wrong.....

---

Well, there's a difference between Obama's "engineered" image and Romney's "sculpted" image. Romney's father was in politics and even ran for POTUS, and Mitt certainly had at least an idea that he might be involved in politics from a fairly young age. I believe he has been carefully groomed for these moments for the rest of his life. Obama, on the other hand, puts up a facade of what he wants people to think he is, but his actions show he is realistically something far different. That's another discussion for another time, though.

I have my doubts, but I won't be shocked if he's the guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

Are you sure we're not on the same side? Personally I like Rubio as the pick of the litter. Just a gut feeling here but this will be the guy that puts the ticket over the top in November....

---

Only if the side you are referring to is wanting both sides to nominate the candidates that best represent their views. I want both sides to throw out intelligent people who simply have a difference in interpretation, not the one who throws the strongest bombs and doesn't care about the damage to discussion that those bombs cause.

When Al Sharpton or Rush Limbaugh spout off X, Y, or Z; it just prevents those of us in between from discussing what we agree and disagree about in a reasonable manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homestarunner93

Well, there's a difference between Obama's "engineered" image and Romney's "sculpted" image. Romney's father was in politics and even ran for POTUS, and Mitt certainly had at least an idea that he might be involved in politics from a fairly young age. I believe he has been carefully groomed for these moments for the rest of his life. Obama, on the other hand, puts up a facade of what he wants people to think he is, but his actions show he is realistically something far different. That's another discussion for another time, though.

I have my doubts, but I won't be shocked if he's the guy.

---

interesting, "engineered vs. sculpted".

I like it.

But this is the whole reason why voters are unsure who to throw their support behind. Who are the real candidates and what will they do once the votes are secured.

Obviously I don't know Rubio personally but I sense a genuine and honest quality in the guy, a big plus in what I look for.

Obama is a chameleon, and you're right. New thread come November.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Only if the side you are referring to is wanting both sides to nominate the candidates that best represent their views. I want both sides to throw out intelligent people who simply have a difference in interpretation, not the one who throws the strongest bombs and doesn't care about the damage to discussion that those bombs cause.

When Al Sharpton or Rush Limbaugh spout off X, Y, or Z; it just prevents those of us in between from discussing what we agree and disagree about in a reasonable manner.

---

In that respect we're there. Best for the job, bring that man, or woman on....

I say Uncle Cracker! The thread about why Blacks don't vote Republican usaly inspired this thought to make this fine musican VP.