Can we please

[daveosupremo]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

[Suburbia]

Why? I like those three candidates to be a VP choice. They are the safest choices, they are battle tested, nationally vetted by the media, and won't overshadow the top of the ticket, but you are probably right they don't bring that much to the table, but uber-safe may be better than the potential untested choices that the GOP has.

[Mister Mets]

Most running mates have major weaknesses.

George HW Bush lost his two bids for statewide office, and been responsible for some of the most effective attacks on Reagan in the 1980s primary.
Geraldine Ferraro was a third-term congresswoman, and kinda obvious token pick.
Dan Quayle had a reputation as an intellectual lightweight, and did his best to live up to it.
Al Gore came from the same geographic region as Bill Clinton (and at this point, it's pretty much known that he's a womanizer too.)
Jack Kemp had major and public policy disagreements with Bob Dole.
Dick Cheney had been out of office for eight years, and had served in the administration of George W Bush's father, a guy who couldn't break 40% running for reelection as President.
Joe Lieberman seemed to go out of his way to antagonize the base and young voters.
John Edwards had a reputation for shamelessness than turned out to be well-deserved.
Sarah Palin was a first term Governor of a small isolated state. And it kinda looked like tokenism.
Joe Biden failed to gain traction in the 2008 primary, and was probably best known for his 1980s plagiarism scandal.
Paul Ryan had never won statewide office, and was best known for proposing controversial legislation.

[daveosupremo]

Please elaborate on these "tons of weaknesses" you speak of, and how they outweigh the strengths they bring to the table.

First of all, all the are very boring. It shouldn't matter but it does. As for specifics:
Rob Portman- Hes pro gay marriage. Not gonna happen in 2016. He was also Bush's OMB director. The Republican candidate will want to run from big budgets and high spending. You can't do this with the guy who oversaw the budget of the second biggest spender in US history. He's from Ohio, which makes him the only one of these three with any potential electoral benefit.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers- May I refer you to her state of the union response? Also, she's from a non swing state that she couldn't deliver, she's in the House of Representatives, and she brings nothing to the table. As someone pointed out on another thread, she doesn't pass the most important test which is will she be ready to be president on day one.
John Thune- Hes got a couple of Senate votes that conservatives won't forgive such as raising the debt ceiling and voting for TARP, but the biggest reason it won't be him is why would it be? Nobody will vote for the Republican because Thune is on the ticket, and there are a lot of other potentials who are equally qualified who people will show up for. If it's any establishment friendly senator, Rubio is much more likely.
The fact is that the VP nominee will most likely be a woman or minority, but it won't be a congresswoman from Washington who looks like she belongs on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. The VP will also have to be someone who will get the base out, and none of these will do it.

[henster]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

[daveosupremo]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

[Mister Mets]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Ayotte's up for reelection in the Senate. The party may not want to risk it.

Susanna Martinez has left the impression she's not interested in national office. Otherwise, she would be top choice for Veep.

I think Condoleeza Rice is possible, but she's pro-choice. That's a much bigger deal than Portman's support for gay marriage.

Nikki Haley was elected Governor by four points in a very conservative state in a very good year for the party. That's not an indication of a tremendous political talent.

Noem has less political experience than Rodgers (three terms in the House in 2016 VS six for Rodgers, Four years as state legislator VS eleven for Rodgers, Rodgers is in the congressional leadership.)

Fischer will only have four years of experience in Congress versus twelve for Rodgers. She's also in her sixties.

There is always the possibility that the nominee gets along with one person better than another. Someone who looks good on paper might not be the best campaigner, or might not be the best fit for a presidential administration.

[Mr. Morden]

All three of them were vetted by the Romney campaign in 2012.  Hardly ridiculous to include them in the conversation.  Though I take the point that Portman's position on SSM adds a significant complication this time around.

[pbrower2a]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Kristi Noem has a huge collection of speeding tickets -- evidence of contempt for the people that the law is intended to protect. One was for 57 in a 25 zone (probably a school zone). Speeding at that level kills.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Al Gore came from the same geographic region as Bill Clinton (and at this point, it's pretty much known that he's a womanizer too.)

Based on what? Getting divorced 20 years later? The masseuse sex assault claims were pretty conclusively debunked.

[MurrayBannerman]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Kristi Noem has a huge collection of speeding tickets -- evidence of contempt for the people that the law is intended to protect. One was for 57 in a 25 zone (probably a school zone). Speeding at that level kills.

Speeding tickets? Really?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Can we stop talking about Condoleezza Rice as well? Today's Republican party is not going to nominate a unmarried, pro-choice, African-American woman with no elective experience for Vice-President (or President). Regardless of her other merits or flaws, it is not going to happen.

[Orser67]

I disagree with the OP's contention that any of those picks are unlikely. But while we're on the topic, I don't think any of the following are plausible VP's:

Condi Rice: never was in a campaign in her life
Ted Cruz: would overshadow the nominee, be too unpredictable, and probably piss off the establishment
Nikki Haley: scandals would be too distracting despite the demographic boxes she checks

[whanztastic]

Rodgers is still possible.

[daveosupremo]

I disagree with the OP's contention that any of those picks are unlikely. But while we're on the topic, I don't think any of the following are plausible VP's:

Condi Rice: never was in a campaign in her life
Ted Cruz: would overshadow the nominee, be too unpredictable, and probably piss off the establishment
Nikki Haley: scandals would be too distracting despite the demographic boxes she checks

I actually agree that all three of these are unlikely, I'm just of the opinion that McMorris Rodgers is also very unlikely.

Cruz will only get picked by a candidate who is totally unacceptable to the base (basically Christie or Bush), in an attempt to get them to the voting booth. I think that one of these two getting the nomination is unlikely, and them using this tactic is also unlikely. It's simply the only way Cruz would be picked as the VP, for all the reasons you stated.

Condi is a good bet for SecDef, and it's the only position she's likely to take. Her autobiography pretty definitively states that she very much wanted the job in 2004, but Bush thought she was a better fit for State. She'd probably still take it if offered.

Haley won't be the pick because she's an intellectual lightweight with scandals (which have never been proven). She's also pretty unpopular for a conservative governor in SC. I included her in the list because she's a possibility, not because she's a likely choice.

[pbrower2a]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Kristi Noem has a huge collection of speeding tickets -- evidence of contempt for the people that the law is intended to protect. One was for 57 in a 25 zone (probably a school zone). Speeding at that level kills.

Speeding tickets? Really?

I'd use those against her if I were a political opponent as proof of her contempt for some parts of the law. Would you vote for a tax cheat?

[Mister Mets]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Can we stop talking about Condoleezza Rice as well? Today's Republican party is not going to nominate a unmarried, pro-choice, African-American woman with no elective experience for Vice-President (or President). Regardless of her other merits or flaws, it is not going to happen.

Several of the things you mention are negatives for Rice, but a few are not.

That she's pro-choice and not married would be an issue. I don't think the party leaders mind that she's an African American woman. It would help the white guy on top of the ticket.

As for elective experience it is worth noting that four of the last six Republican vice-presidential nominees hadn't been elected to statewide office (George HW Bush, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney and Paul Ryan.) Rice has the advantage of a higher profile than most Senators and Governors, and had a decent enough approval rating even during the lows of the Bush administration.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Portman is viable, as he comes from Ohio, and is sufficiently conservative on everything else.  Gay Marriage is not something the President is going to do much to either advance or stop it.  

McMorris Rodgers' problem is that she is merely a Representative; she's not a Governor or Senator.  She's also a religious fundamentalist, and a graduate of a strict fundamentalist college as her undergrad alma mater, and while I'm OK with that, I wonder how much of America will be.  If their goal was to broaden their share of the female vote, I don't know that this is the way to go.
She also has a position as Chair of the House Republican Conference that is kind of ceremonial; it's not the kind of thing that really adds to your Presidential qualifications.

Thune's value is that he's a safe, photogenic pick, who seems more than an empty suit.  He's a "do no harm" kind of pick who would certainly be replaced by another Republican, something a GOP Presidential candidate would think about on the GOVERNING end of things.

But any of these candidates could be selected.  They are the kind of people that are normally selected as VP candidates.

[CountryClassSF]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

Yep we can.  No one from the House should be on the ticket. Portman supports homosexual marriage, he will not receive my vote.  They have to pick a conservative or our base will stay home. 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2012 show that.

I refuse to vote for these RINOS anymore. I've had enough of being lectured on "electability" only to lose in an EV landslide.

[Flake]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

Yep we can.  No one from the House should be on the ticket. Portman supports homosexual marriage, he will not receive my vote.  They have to pick a conservative or our base will stay home. 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2012 show that.

I refuse to vote for these RINOS anymore. I've had enough of being lectured on "electability" only to lose in an EV landslide.

them scary homosexxuals are ruin amercia

#ohnoes #whatcanwedo #:(

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

Yep we can.  No one from the House should be on the ticket. Portman supports homosexual marriage, he will not receive my vote.  They have to pick a conservative or our base will stay home. 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2012 show that.

I refuse to vote for these RINOS anymore. I've had enough of being lectured on "electability" only to lose in an EV landslide.

If you're going to say homosexual marriage - at least say ho-mo-sex-ual marriage, cause that's the hick accent I tend to hear in my head when I read it.

[CountryClassSF]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

Yep we can.  No one from the House should be on the ticket. Portman supports homosexual marriage, he will not receive my vote.  They have to pick a conservative or our base will stay home. 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2012 show that.

I refuse to vote for these RINOS anymore. I've had enough of being lectured on "electability" only to lose in an EV landslide.

If you're going to say homosexual marriage - at least say ho-mo-sex-ual marriage, cause that's the hick accent I tend to hear in my head when I read it.

That's because you assume the word is used in a hateful context. It's not.