George F. Will: Romney's running mate should be a heavy hitter

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    Romney's running mate should be a clown. Just to keep the circus going. Hang on to your seats and get your popcorn. Obama will rip to shreds Mitt Romney in any debate. On the economy, on jobs, on basicly anything. Wonder how many times Romney will change his posisition. Your guess is as good as mine. It sure will be entertaining. Kinda like AM talk radio, or the circus.

  • Sabrecat South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    I would love to see a Romney / Rice ticket. The VP debates between Condoleezza Rice and Joe Biden would be hilarious.

    Talk about bringing a dull spoon to a gunfight....

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    Lagomorph. I agree with you but it seems much harder for the left to "fabricate" the truth than is does for the right. And the only sociopath associated with the Will commentary is Mr. George Will himself. Mr. Will, your vaunted objectivity and fairness is now seriously in question.

  • Lowonoil Clearfield, UT
    April 9, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    Mark B: Grover Norquist? No, nobody named "Grover".

    Why not? If we can entertain the notion of a president named "Willard" (like the rat guy).
    What, you didn't know Mitt's real first name was Willard? Don't feel bad, only 6% do.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    Will: "Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy — his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth..."

    That would be as opposed to G.W. Bush's certainty about Iraqi WMD, Rick Santorum's statements that California universities do not teach American history and the Dutch wear bracelets saying "Don't Euthanize Me," and John Kyl's and Orrin Hatch's claims that 90+% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions?

    It was not a Democrat who coined the phrase "not intended to be a factual statement." The right finds it just as easy as the left to fabricate "truth" out of whole cloth for political expedience.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    April 8, 2012 10:26 p.m.

    I wonder why none of the comments here acknowledge what a train wreck the Obama administration has been. Do you not recognize that he is taking us in exactly the opposite direction from the principles of freedom, personal responsibility and accountability that made this the greatest nation in the world? We are becoming more and more like the disasters that we see in Greece, Portugal, Italy et al.

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    April 8, 2012 3:02 p.m.

    Why does Romney need a heavy-hitting running mate? Because he's a lightweight himself?

    If there's any one malady the Republican Party suffers from it's a lack of credibility. Republicans in general have difficulty with being consistent (Democrats are expected to be inconsistent, so they don't have to deal with that as a liability). Mitt will have a very difficult time finding anyone who will offset his flip-flopping reputation. Any if there is anyone like that, would they want to be associated with Mitt? This is going to be a train wreck you can't turn away from.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 8, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    Will is a little late. Romney is already on record as wanting a running mate like Dick Cheney. Really. He said it months ago. Assuming the real thing won't be available, who does that leave? Agnew? Too late. Franklin Graham? Too much like Mitt. Grover Norquist? No, nobody named "Grover". Sarah Palin? She might garner a few sympathy votes from '08, but that's it. Bob Dole? Too honest. I guess that leaves Herman ("9,9,9") Cain or Rick Perry, who makes Mitt seem like Einstein.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 8, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    I guess two unpaid for wars are great for the country but paid for entitlements are bad. Great Logic Will.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 8, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    As a Democrat, I would support Romney choosing either Ryan or Jindal. Ryan is tied to budget plans that largely dismantle Medicare and Social Secuirty, while giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy. (Incidently, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, that drives a death spike through the heart of conservative Social Security reform. You can't force individuals to participate in markets, ie, retirement investments.). Jindal has the charisma of a cereal box.

    Romney has 15% support among Hispanics, and trails Obama 55-37 among women.

    So, yeah, either Ryan of Jindal would be fine with me.