I may find out if Pawlenty is the running mate today...

[The Duke]

You've made the point well that if we were casting the Vice President in a movie, Ridge would beat Pawlenty.

Don't cite Ridge's experience asa  Congressman.  He was an awful Congressman.

For the nuclear freeze and against aid to Contras?  I'm sorry, that doesn't do it for me.

If he delivers PA I'll be happy, but I can't say I'd be excioted about Tom Ridge as Vice President or heir apparent.

And Pawlenty, while I'm sure he's a nice guy, is no prize.  He's a big government guy.  And speaking of guys who might not deliver their own state...

[The Duke]

Super,

The Department of Homeland Security is a punch line and its a punch line in large part because of Tom Ridge.

If you don't think picking Bush's Homeland Security Secretary is going to be a major negative, you're just not seeing clearly.

And calm down a little, man.

Phil,

Let's be honest about why people say Pawlenty is going to satisfy the base.  What people actually mean is that he will satisfy the evangelicals because he is one.  Pawlenty is not a conservative, he is only seen as a conservative because he is an evangelical married to another evangelical.

Pawlenty does nothng for the small government folks because Pawlenty with his "Sam's Club not the country club" nonsense is in favor of Bush-style compassionate consertvatism.

In other words, he's for big gvoernment.

And as I've said before, he isn't ready for prime time and probably never will be.  He is just not a commanding presence.

I've heard you employ this line about Dan Quayle not costing us the election in 1988 therefore it doesn't matter how stone cold stupid Tim Pawlenty is, but it's a terrible argument.  Dan Quayle did cost Bush votes in 1988, it just wasn't enough votes to cost him the election.  In this election, we are not riding Reagan's record to victory over a horrible candidate.  We're running against the failures of the Bush years and against a very skilled candidate.  We don't have the margin for error that Bush had in 1988.  Pawlenty won't be a disaster at Quayle's level, but he will be a mistake and will cost us votes everywhere outside Minnesota.

[The Duke]

Okay, I just said he wasn't going to be a Quayle-level disaster.  Did you read the post or simply assume your usual Pawlenty apologist position?

As for big government, how about Pawlenty's support of S-CHIP expansion?  This was the key size of government issue of the last year.  Democrats wanted to hugely increase the number of people dependent on government for their health care and Tim Pawlenty wanted to go along with them.

Not to metnion he was against the surge, demonstrating total empty headedness on foreign policy.

If you aren't good on defense and you don't believe in small government, what precisely do you bring to the table that is of interest to me?

As for the soft-soken bit, it won't play anywhere outside the upper midwest.  Outside the upper midwest people want a little bit of panache.  If there was ever an election where it should be obvious to everyone that style matters, it's this election.

Pawlenty doesn't have the style and he doesn't have the substance.  What does he have?

[The Duke]

Romney is not my ideal choice.  But between Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, and Lieberman, I am going with Romney

I have said I don't think Pawlenty helps the ticket and don't think he's an adequate heir apparent.  I don't feel the need to repeat why.

I think Ridge is a better choice politically than Pawlenty, but is an even worse heir apparent than Pawlenty.

Please, someone make the case that either of these guys can actually be President.  I didn't think so.  Once you realize doing the job of President has nothing to do with what state you're from, these guys both look less appealing.

Lieberman is the riskiest politically, with the greatest prospect of helping and the greatest prospect of hurting the ticket.  He won't be the heir apparent, so that is not a consideration.  Since McCain looks like he can win this race without throwing a hail mary, Lieberman shouldn't be the pick.

Mitt Romney is not my favorite guy on earth, as everyone knows.  But if you don't think he helps in Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, and (a little bit) in Colorado then maybe politics isn't the sport for you.  Is he the ideal heir apparent?  No, he is not.  But he is the smartest guy in the party on domestic policy issues and was actually a good Governor of Massachusetts.  As to who wold make the best President between Romney and Pawlenty and Ridge, the answer has to be Mitt Romney.

That said, the best choice available is Sarah Palin.

Enter Phil: But she's even less experienced than Pawlenty.  We'd throw away our best argument!

No, Phil.  We wouldn't.  Experience is not our best argument.  It will do us as much good as it did Hillary.  Obama's weakness isn't that he's inexperienced, its that he isn't ready for the job.  Readiness has very little to do with how many years you've been in elective office.

This is a huge difference between Pawlenty and Palin: Pawlenty comes off as not ready, Palin comes off as ready.

So what is our best argument if not experience?  Drilling is our best argument.  McCain's comeback started in large part because he won the energy issue.  You want a VP that reminds everyone that Democrats are responsible for $4 gas, pick Sarah Palin.

A little identity politics won't hurt, either.

[The Duke]

Mitt Romney is not my favorite guy on earth, as everyone knows.  But if you don't think he helps in Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, and (a little bit) in Colorado then maybe politics isn't the sport for you.

If Romney helped so much in New Hampshire, wouldn't he have done better in the primary there?

McCain is a New Hampshire made Republican.  He's never lost an election in New Hampshire.  Romney had a tall order ahead of him against McCain.

And Romney did do well in New Hampshire.  Well enough that I was worried on primary day that he'd beat my guy.

Romney's strength was the area near the border, where he actually beat McCain.  McCain does best upstate and Romney does best in the south, the part of the state in the Boston media market where many people commute to Massachusetts to work everyday.

Combne McCain's strength in the north with Romney's strength in the south and the Republicans will probably win New Hampshire.

[The Duke]

Ridge is not palatable enough for conservatives and he leaves us open to attacks so therefore... we should go with Romney?  I don't follow your logic.  And while there might not be polls that show that Ridge would boost the ticket, there are defiantly ones that show that Romney would kill it.

The last poll I saw showed McCain Romney within the margin of error and McCain-Ridge getting blown out.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1546

Yeah, its a Zogby poll, but we don't have any ohter useful data.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why, because Ridge voted against funding a murderous terrorist organization... ?

You're starting to lose it.

As for his time as SHS...

You've defended his time at DHS before.  I don't buy it.  He was a disaster.  You're defending duct tape and plastic sheeting?  Who cares what state DuPont is located in?

Even if he wasn't a disaster, he was in Bush's cabinet.  That is toxic.  You're arguing that we need to pick Ridge to move to the middle, then you ignore the fact that he was one of the most recognizable members of the administration McCain has to take great pains to run away from.

Romney doesn't help enough in Michigan to carry it... not by a long shot.  He might know people there, but they are the wrong crowd to appeal to.  The people Ridge knows in PA and Ohio are grassroots types, who are real Reagan Democrats, Hillary voters, and would be enticed to come out of us if Ridge is on the ticket.  The only way we don't win PA with ridge is if McCain himself proves to be too unpalatable for voters here... and if Ridge is a move to the center, then good.  McCain has swung so far to the right now to risk being unpalatable to the country as a whole.  We need to play to the middle.  As go those other states... if we absolutely need Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire to win, then this thing is already over.  That's barely a third as many EV's as Ridge assists us with.

"Wrong crowd to appeal to", I don't even know what that means.

And the Romney name won Michigan in the primaries, so...

And you can write off New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado if you want but take any of those states from Bush in 2000 then Gore is President.

Palin is one o fthose choices that looks good on paper, but I don't think she gets us a whole lot... women will still likely go more for Obama, and feminists will not support Palin.  We don't need to bring in Alaska.  And, with all due respect (and I really mean that) her family situation makes it difficult to justify the long hours.  I would rank her as maybe #3 out of the top 10 serious choices, but I still think Ridge puts us at more an advantage.

No one is talking about dedicated feminists.  Suburban women, though, will like Palin.

Long hours as VP?  Does VP include duties I don't know about?  She's Governor of a state, I have to presume she's up to breaking ties in the Senate and greeting the girl scout who sold the most cookies.

If you mean the campaign hours, its a 60 day sprint.  She'll be fine with that.

[The Duke]

Expanding on my last post, those numbers are low for Ridge, because the one thing most people remember about him right now is that Limbaugh and Hannity have been bashing him.  That will change.  The only reason Romney is ranked so high is, along with Rice, he has high name recognition.  That'll only make a difference in the short term.  Everyone else on the list polls exactly the same, because they are unknowns.  Compare this to a recent poll where Romney had the highest unfavorables of any GOP VP prospect.  John, your a brilliant strategic thinker, why are you buying into to this short term sh**t that won't matter by October?

It's not all name recognition.

Tom Ridge once had a nationally visible job as Homeland Security Secretary.

Folks know who he is.  Maybe not as fresh in their memory as Romney, but people know who he is and a mention of the words "color coded alert system" will surely jog their memory.

I think you are badly underestimating the negative effect of putting someone from this administration on the ticket.

if you had ever lived in Erie then you would easily understand why.

I get it, he does well in Erie.

The office of Vice President is more demanding, even if it isn't that glamorous.

I'd say its the reverse, Vice President is a much coveted post who's actual value in governing is very overrated.  People our age overrate the position because our main experience is the very involved Dick Cheney.  But most VPs are not former Chiefs of Staff in a White House with a weak Chief of Staff.

BTW, John if we are gonna go for a female governor, why Palin... why not Linda Lingle?  I hope it has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.

Does Linda Lingle have an 80% approval rating?

Does Lnda Lingle have a compelling personal story and family life?

Does Lingle redirect every question she gets asked to drilling for more oil?

Does Linda Lingle make pro-life activists want to knock on every door they can  for this ticket?

Is Lingle as personally engaging as Palin?

I say no to all of these.  This is why Palin>Lingle.

[The Duke]

It sounds more and more like you were personally touched by your experience with Ridge and are thinking emotionally about this.

I concede that Ridge does well in Erie, and you refuse to let me agree with you.

I suggest Palin would be a good VP, you suggest its because she's pretty.

I produce data on McCain-Ridge compared with other tickets and you dismiss it out of hand.

Sigh.