Pawlenty!?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not just yet, I don't think.

Besides, she would TOTALLY outshine him, in every conceivable fashion.

Not that I agree; but that's a problem why?

I'm guessing you and your lib friends are scared of Rice; just like you were arguing Mitt was the wrong guy cos you were scared lol.

What the **** is up with you retards always assuming we're "scared" of your ass backwards candidates?

That's a horrible way to live life, with blinders over your eyes that your opponents are scared of everything you have to offer and so you don't have to worry about anything.

I don't assume anything. C Rice is smart and likeable and libs are worried that she would take away from the female and minority vote. I know that the Dems love to play the out of touch white man card whenever possible. It's simple math dude for anyone that's paying attention.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Pawlenty would make a great VP choice for Romney. I don't know how it will sit with the TeaBaggers

I thought they liked him. Lots.

Who are teabaggers? I know not of these people you speak about. I do know many concerned responsible citizens that want fiscal responsibility.

 

[swizzlee]

Most excellent choice!

In addition to the positives heaped upon Pawlenty in the article, this is also a very competent man who performed very well as Gov of MN. My cousin in Minn/St Paul is a moderate Dem who gave a thumbs up for Pawlenty when I asked for his opinion of him.

I have never been a fan of Rubio and have always thought of him, not as Romney's choice, but the media's choice. He SEEMS to have all the traditional positives necessary to be a VP but I also don't think Romney is your traditional politician - just the opposite.

I see Romney with his business background wanting someone who can actually assist in solving this country's problems and not just a pretty face who may or may not get you a few votes. I don't see Romney allowing anyone to sit around doing nothing more than breaking tie votes in Congress. Nor do I think Pawlenty would like that.

When speaking of "working" VPs, Ryan and Christie have always been high on my own list, but I also believe Ryan would be far more effective as Sed of Tresury and Christice as AG.

If Romney chooses T-Paw, it'll add a few more points between him and the O in November.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Most excellent choice!

In addition to the positives heaped upon Pawlenty in the article, this is also a very competent man who performed very well as Gov of MN. My cousin in Minn/St Paul is a moderate Dem who gave a thumbs up for Pawlenty when I asked for his opinion of him.

I have never been a fan of Rubio and have always thought of him, not as Romney's choice, but the media's choice. He SEEMS to have all the traditional positives necessary to be a VP but I also don't think Romney is your traditional politician - just the opposite.

I see Romney with his business background wanting someone who can actually assist in solving this country's problems and not just a pretty face who may or may not get you a few votes. I don't see Romney allowing anyone to sit around doing nothing more than breaking tie votes in Congress. Nor do I think Pawlenty would like that.

When speaking of "working" VPs, Ryan and Christie have always been high on my own list, but I also believe Ryan would be far more effective as Sed of Tresury and Christice as AG.

If Romney chooses T-Paw, it'll add a few more points between him and the O in November.

Paul Ryan is too polarizing IMO. It'd be like the dems thinking Pelosi or Reid would be a good VP pick.

 

[swizzlee]

Yes, that, too.

He's the guy who's really stuck his political neck on the chopping board and that tends to "polarize" things.

But he's also far too talented in the financial arena to be taken out of action and put into the VP slot.

 

[percysunshine]

Now that I have thought it through a bit, I think Romney should choose Dan Qayle for VP.

Imagine how much fun the Biden/Quayle debate would be to watch.

 

[Vidi]

T Paw's got a few bodies in his baggage..

(LONG VERSION) Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Minnesota Video - YouTube

13 of em.

He gutted highway and bridge funding and ignored reports that bridges needed fixing.

Aside from that..he left Minnesota with a 5 billion dollar deficit.

I hope he gets picked!

That bridge was rated much higher than many other bridges that HAVENT fallen AND that bridges was undergoing repairs when it fell. In fact, it was the vibrations from the work being done on it that is believed to be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

Youre right on about the deficit though.

 

[JoeB131]

T-Paw's a good choice. The disappointing thing was that he bailed after the meaningless Ames Poll and the crazies put Bachmann and Paul up top.

Had he stuck it out, when the GOP was honest enough with itself to realize it didn't like Mitt Romney that much, he'd have probably been the anti-Romney that lasted instead of Santorum.

Probably a safe pick, but the GOP's problem is still going to be the top of the ticket.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

T-Paw's a good choice. The disappointing thing was that he bailed after the meaningless Ames Poll and the crazies put Bachmann and Paul up top.

Had he stuck it out, when the GOP was honest enough with itself to realize it didn't like Mitt Romney that much, he'd have probably been the anti-Romney that lasted instead of Santorum.

Probably a safe pick, but the GOP's problem is still going to be the top of the ticket.

You're dreaming. Pawlenty wasn't connecting and he had abysmal showings in the polls. I think Bachman's criticisms took him off his game. He got into the mud and that's not where he wanted to be.

That's why the article even said that he's more comfortable campaigning for Romney than he had even been campaigning for himself.

I do agree that T-Paw is likely a great choice though. He doesn't have the personal baggage or gaffes that the media loves to obsess about.

 

[Chris]

Romney has to choose someone more boring than he is.

That's not easy.

 

[Sallow]

T-Paw's a good choice. The disappointing thing was that he bailed after the meaningless Ames Poll and the crazies put Bachmann and Paul up top.

Had he stuck it out, when the GOP was honest enough with itself to realize it didn't like Mitt Romney that much, he'd have probably been the anti-Romney that lasted instead of Santorum.

Probably a safe pick, but the GOP's problem is still going to be the top of the ticket.

Well he's the "best" choice..in that he doesn't add or subtract much.

 

[Dr.House]

T Paw's got a few bodies in his baggage..

(LONG VERSION) Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Minnesota Video - YouTube

13 of em.

He gutted highway and bridge funding and ignored reports that bridges needed fixing.

Aside from that..he left Minnesota with a 5 billion dollar deficit.

I hope he gets picked!

Yeah, that's why my OP had "!?" after his name because this is my state - and Minnesota remains unamused with his ass.

You speak for Minnesota?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

T Paw's got a few bodies in his baggage..

(LONG VERSION) Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Minnesota Video - YouTube

13 of em.

He gutted highway and bridge funding and ignored reports that bridges needed fixing.

Aside from that..he left Minnesota with a 5 billion dollar deficit.

I hope he gets picked!

Yeah, that's why my OP had "!?" after his name because this is my state - and Minnesota remains unamused with his ass.

You speak for Minnesota?

She doesn't. I lived in Minnesota for some of his governorship. The people liked him and Dems could barely touch him. He didn't even make personal calls from his office phone. That's how weary he was of avoiding their nonsense.

Also, he governed pretty much down the center to work with the Democratic controlled state legislature while still towing the line with conservatives.

 

[JoeB131]

You're dreaming. Pawlenty wasn't connecting and he had abysmal showings in the polls. I think Bachman's criticisms took him off his game. He got into the mud and that's not where he wanted to be.

That's why the article even said that he's more comfortable campaigning for Romney than he had even been campaigning for himself.

I do agree that T-Paw is likely a great choice though. He doesn't have the personal baggage or gaffes that the media loves to obsess about.

He was polling in low single digits at the time in Ames. SO were Santorum and Gingrich.

And look where they wound up.

If T-Paw had stuck it out, being from a neighboring state, good with Evangelicals, he'd have won Florida and then SC, and he wouldn't have had the baggage of Newt or Santorum.

He miscalculated. Maybe he can get a bit of redemption being the lower half of Romney's losing ticket. Maybe.

MOre likely, Jeb will run in 2016, and the whole establishement will get behind him.

 

[JoeB131]

T-Paw's a good choice. The disappointing thing was that he bailed after the meaningless Ames Poll and the crazies put Bachmann and Paul up top.

Had he stuck it out, when the GOP was honest enough with itself to realize it didn't like Mitt Romney that much, he'd have probably been the anti-Romney that lasted instead of Santorum.

Probably a safe pick, but the GOP's problem is still going to be the top of the ticket.

Well he's the "best" choice..in that he doesn't add or subtract much.

But here's the thing.

The best thing anyone can do with a VP pick is "Don't **** it up".

Because no one votes for the VP. They vote against the VP.

I remember in 1976, my parents were not decided between Carter and Ford, until Carter picked MOndale. They though Dole was a hatchet man and kind of mean.

But a Veep pick never really swings an election in the guy's favor. Because the only point where he's relevent is if you think your guy might die.

Bush-41 was a good pick because he was highly experienced. So there was a certain level of assurance that if Reagan (the oldest man to hold the office at that point) died, he had someone who could take over and do a reasonably good job.

A bad pick would be Eagleton. Someone who wasn't in sync with his running mate and had stuff in his background that made you wonder what they were thinking in the first place.

So Good picks - Dole. Bush-41, Benston, Al Gore, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney, Joe Leiberman, and yes, I'll say it, Biden. All guys you knew would do an okay job if the Secret Service pulled them aside and said, "The President has just been shot!"

Bad picks- Mondale. Dan Quayle (although I think he gets abit of a bad rap), John Edwards, and Sarah Palin.

Really, the best Romney can hope for is "Don't **** it up."

I kind of hope he does.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're dreaming. Pawlenty wasn't connecting and he had abysmal showings in the polls. I think Bachman's criticisms took him off his game. He got into the mud and that's not where he wanted to be.

That's why the article even said that he's more comfortable campaigning for Romney than he had even been campaigning for himself.

I do agree that T-Paw is likely a great choice though. He doesn't have the personal baggage or gaffes that the media loves to obsess about.

He was polling in low single digits at the time in Ames. SO were Santorum and Gingrich.

And look where they wound up.

If T-Paw had stuck it out, being from a neighboring state, good with Evangelicals, he'd have won Florida and then SC, and he wouldn't have had the baggage of Newt or Santorum.

He miscalculated. Maybe he can get a bit of redemption being the lower half of Romney's losing ticket. Maybe.

MOre likely, Jeb will run in 2016, and the whole establishement will get behind him.

This is just simple minded analysis. T-Paw had to beat out players like Bachman and Santorum for the evangelical votes. It was a matter of practicality. He wasn't going to get the donations he needed to sustain his campaign otherwise. It's not a coincidence that he was the first person to drop out.

Beyond that, could he have done better than Santorum? Probably not. Mitt had the base that had been building for years. The reason that Santorum came in a relatively close second is b/c he effectively dominated the evangelical votes in certain states; really killing Gingrich and even then it wasn't enough.

And frankly, that's not even in Pawlenty's bread basket to harp on evangelical issues in the manner that Santorum did; so Gingrich would have likely gotten more of those votes in that scenario and it'd only have contrasted that much better for Romney if they were splitting it more evenly.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

T-Paw's a good choice. The disappointing thing was that he bailed after the meaningless Ames Poll and the crazies put Bachmann and Paul up top.

Had he stuck it out, when the GOP was honest enough with itself to realize it didn't like Mitt Romney that much, he'd have probably been the anti-Romney that lasted instead of Santorum.

Probably a safe pick, but the GOP's problem is still going to be the top of the ticket.

Well he's the "best" choice..in that he doesn't add or subtract much.

But here's the thing.

The best thing anyone can do with a VP pick is "Don't **** it up".

Because no one votes for the VP. They vote against the VP.

I remember in 1976, my parents were not decided between Carter and Ford, until Carter picked MOndale. They though Dole was a hatchet man and kind of mean.

But a Veep pick never really swings an election in the guy's favor. Because the only point where he's relevent is if you think your guy might die.

Bush-41 was a good pick because he was highly experienced. So there was a certain level of assurance that if Reagan (the oldest man to hold the office at that point) died, he had someone who could take over and do a reasonably good job.

A bad pick would be Eagleton. Someone who wasn't in sync with his running mate and had stuff in his background that made you wonder what they were thinking in the first place.

So Good picks - Dole. Bush-41, Benston, Al Gore, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney, Joe Leiberman, and yes, I'll say it, Biden. All guys you knew would do an okay job if the Secret Service pulled them aside and said, "The President has just been shot!"

Bad picks- Mondale. Dan Quayle (although I think he gets abit of a bad rap), John Edwards, and Sarah Palin.

Really, the best Romney can hope for is "Don't **** it up."

I kind of hope he does.

So because your parents voted against a VP then people can't vote for a VP? You know that's a lie. Until, Palin bombed on a couple interviews, she had effectively given the McCain campaign the lead.

We know damn well that the VP pick is huge. It can greatly affect a campaign in any direction. If you are telling people anything otherwise then you are just not being honest (as usual).

 

[JoeB131]

This is just simple minded analysis. T-Paw had to beat out players like Bachman and Santorum for the evangelical votes. It was a matter of practicality. He wasn't going to get the donations he needed to sustain his campaign otherwise. It's not a coincidence that he was the first person to drop out.

Beyond that, could he have done better than Santorum? Probably not. Mitt had the base that had been building for years. The reason that Santorum came in a relatively close second is b/c he effectively dominated the evangelical votes in certain states; really killing Gingrich and even then it wasn't enough.

And frankly, that's not even in Pawlenty's bread basket to harp on evangelical issues in the manner that Santorum did; so Gingrich would have likely gotten more of those votes in that scenario and it'd only have contrasted that much better for Romney if they were splitting it more evenly.

Again, T-Paw probably had a better shot at these evangelicals than Santorum did after people realized Bachmann was nuts and stupid. Why we let one state have so much influence is another question...

ROmney the nomination won because the Establishment has shown that they would rather lose an election than lose dominance of the party. This was the case when they sandbagged Huckabee in 2008 and Pat Buchanan in 1996. It's why they've only won one out of five popular votes in the last 20 years, and even then, they had to cheat.

 

[JoeB131]

So because your parents voted against a VP then people can't vote for a VP? You know that's a lie. Until, Palin bombed on a couple interviews, she had effectively given the McCain campaign the lead.

We know damn well that the VP pick is huge. It can greatly affect a campaign in any direction. If you are telling people anything otherwise then you are just not being honest (as usual).

Um, no, she really didn't.

McCain got the bounce they normally get from the GOP Convention. Palin didn't have that much to do with it, and when people realized she was .... um... kind of stupid, McCain sank like a rock.

Name the last time a President won because of his VP pick.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is just simple minded analysis. T-Paw had to beat out players like Bachman and Santorum for the evangelical votes. It was a matter of practicality. He wasn't going to get the donations he needed to sustain his campaign otherwise. It's not a coincidence that he was the first person to drop out.

Beyond that, could he have done better than Santorum? Probably not. Mitt had the base that had been building for years. The reason that Santorum came in a relatively close second is b/c he effectively dominated the evangelical votes in certain states; really killing Gingrich and even then it wasn't enough.

And frankly, that's not even in Pawlenty's bread basket to harp on evangelical issues in the manner that Santorum did; so Gingrich would have likely gotten more of those votes in that scenario and it'd only have contrasted that much better for Romney if they were splitting it more evenly.

Again, T-Paw probably had a better shot at these evangelicals than Santorum did after people realized Bachmann was nuts and stupid. Why we let one state have so much influence is another question...

ROmney the nomination won because the Establishment has shown that they would rather lose an election than lose dominance of the party. This was the case when they sandbagged Huckabee in 2008 and Pat Buchanan in 1996. It's why they've only won one out of five popular votes in the last 20 years, and even then, they had to cheat.

Romney won the nomination because he ran the best campaign. It's as simple as that. Nobody was going to beat him. He shouldn't be blamed for effectively working the "establishment." That's just skills. And if he didn't have a resume and message still that resonated with people then he wouldn't have won anyways. It's as simple as that. Stop being bitter dude and accept reality for what it is.