Leaks, lies, auditions part of veepstakes

Return To Article
Add a comment
    July 9, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    Rubio - I don't see that happening due to his support for the DREAM Act.

    Then there is Rob Portman - but I don't see where having Bush's budget director as VP would really help his campaign.

    Jindal - Again, this would help shore up his base, but would do nothing to engender independents. Especially with Jindal wanting churches to take over the public school system in Louisiana.

    I can see Pawlenty as a possible. It would enrage a lot of the base, but those aren't really the voters he has to worry about.

    Ayotte is plagued with investigations that would be a major distraction.

    I think Nikki Haley would be a good choice. Her Sikh background may be a stumbling block for some (same with her name - Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley - but she is a conservative republican governor from a southern, safe, red state. I don't think she would help much with independents, but I still think she would be a good choice.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Bachmann get the nod either.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    July 9, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    Rubio will not help Mitt with Latinos. It might help him in Florida, but Rubio is Cuban and the larger Latino community sees Cubans as different because when a Cuban sets foot on American soil, they are no longer illegal. They are refugees from a Communist country on the path to full citizenship. This preferential treatment is looked at suspiciously by the larger Latino community. Rubio claiming to speak to Latino issues will look as out of touch as Romney is with the average struggling middle class family.

  • Tlingit Orem, UT
    July 9, 2012 12:10 p.m.

    Christie seems too volatile; I think Romney should select Marco Rubio.

    In 2008, Florida's 27 electoral votes went to Obama. If Rubio can reverse that, and attract Hispanic voters in other swing states, then finally a vice president will have done more for the president than just hang around in case he dies.

    BTW, Doug10's comments are funny. Whether it's sports or politics, partisanship seems to always be accompanied with a certain measure of irrationality. After declaring he's about to tell us what the "real problem" is, he launched into a series of fallacious points based more in personal hopes than in fact.

    Even the prosperity of the CLINTON years is due in large measure to supply side economics.

    First, Clinton kept Reagan appointee ALAN GREENSPAN in charge of the Federal Reserve to continue Reagan's fiscal policies.

    Then when the Republicans took over Congress, Clinton had 4 balanced budgets in a row, paid down the national debt with surpluses, and REDUCED CAPITOL GAINES and ESTATE TAXES.

    Seriously, the problem isn't so much Republican or Democratic policies, it's that THEY DON'T WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    July 9, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    Here’s the real problem: Romney supports supply-side economics doctrines that haven’t worked in 20 years. His economic plan makes the deficit worse, not better, precisely because it favors the huge tax cuts the Republican base loves. And there’s absolutely no evidence his plan to cut corporate income taxes will create jobs, but it could make the deficit worse, too.

    So, although Romney has published voluminous programs, none of them would actually solve the problems.

    Of course, Romney could tear up these plans and boldly try something new. But that would mean slapping the Republican base upside its head.

    Real leadership requires the guts to sometimes tell your supporters what they don’t want to hear, and on that front, Romney has been missing in action since the campaign began.

    The VP candidates such as Christie do not want to be with Mitt. Once a vp you are supposed to be out of the limelight which does not bode well for those seeking to enhance their political futures.