(Enlarge.)
I think they look great together. They seem to loosen each other up. They're sort of a cute odd couple. Don't know why Mitt needs the airline blankie on his lap, but the two guys seem to complement one another, don't you think?
IN THE COMMENTS: While there is a fair amount of agreement that John and Mitt are nicely Oscar-and-Felix-y, everyone seems to think that's not his blankie that's his jacket. Do men drape their jackets over their knees? Is it a leg warming method or a trick for keeping the jacket from getting wrinkled? Whatever it is — blanket or jacket, leg-warmer or anti-wrinkle precaution — it seems a bit... well, it's Felix-y, isn't it?
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
McCain is test-driving veep candidates.
I love the idea of Romney as VP.
For the Republicans it would be the best thing. It would reunite some of the splinter factions. Also, Mitt has appeal, he is a good speaker, and has a likability factor.
Let me put my realpolitik hat on and suggest that the only thing wrong with Romney as veep is that he's too white and not female enough. That seems to matter to some voters. If there are competent minority or female Republican potentials - and there are - they should be considered over Romney.
I second Simon. Although MR would be the only one with any executive experience, I think McCain needs to look very hard at someone of another persuasion. I'm not convinced (or maybe I just dont want to believe) he needs to look to his right.
Let's see if he plans a spring fishing/hunting trip to the 49th state, maybe with a quick visit to the north slope.
Eh. I opposed Romney as a Presidential candidate, and I see no reason to suddenly get giddy at the idea of him as a Veep.
"has a likability factor"
That's not what people said in the primaries.
"he's too white and not female enough"
The Dems are set to win on that score though.
Ann - certainly in terms of the black vote. Perhaps in terms of the female vote. But I don't see any reason to concede that ground, if only for sake of symbolism - it's not as though we'd be talking about compromising on talent just for the sake of a non-white-male candidate. Michael Steele, for example, is a terrific potential veep no matter which way it's sliced.
McCain should not waste his VP choice to play identity politics. It is highly unlikely he would win over many votes by choosing a woman or non-white candidate for his VP.
McCain is centrist enough that he would get enough of the independents to break his way in the general. He shouldn't try to get disillusioned democratic voters with a VP choice, but rather hope that they will instead just sit out the general election because of the bitterness of the democratic primary.
Instead McCain should choose a candidate which would placate the Republican base, (Romney would be good) or choose a farm candidate to raise to a national level, (Bobby Jindal would have been good if he had a few years as Louisiana Governor.)
the only thing wrong with Romney as veep is that he's too white and not female enough
There being such a clear and dominating track record of blacks and women on the ticket being the thing to make the difference.
/snark off
Mitt has enough morphability to be McCain's VP quite easily. He's squeaky clean and was extremely good in the debate format. He's a net plus to the ticket. I recall when Reagan made George HW Bush his VP and it did indeed serve to unify the two factions of the party--moderate and right. It's just so crazy it might work.
Regarding demographics: he that wins white males wins the White House. Mac 'n Mitt...the whitest gosh darn ticket you've ever seen.
Ann, my friend, that is not an "airline blankie" on Mitt's lap.
It's Mitt's suit jacket.
Usually I'm in NY (I occasionally blog at nyformitt on blogspot) but happen to be in Utah today. If I'd known sooner this event was happening with John and Mitt I would have loved to have made it to the fundraiser.
"Let's contemplate Mitt Romney as McCain's VP."
Uhh...let's not and say we did.
This pairing brings new meaning to the word "creepy."
America knows better than to take these douches seriously.
If Rev. Wright stays in the headlines long enough, then I LOVE the idea of Bobby Jindal. Jindal might also help court the hispanic vote (he's the son of immigrants)
I think Jindal might actually be darker than Obama. From the perspective of a guy who looks forward to the inevitable SNL impersonations , is absolutely fantastic.
A pretty face, plastic positions, Romney nominated for President would have caused me to vote for Obama.
Romney for V.P. is almost as bad.
In the General Election, if it's the "straight talker" against the lying Clintons, McCain should be able to win handily.
If Barack gets the Democratic nomination, McCain needs to build a ticket. McCain will appeal to some independants, moderates.
Conservatives will vote for him because, to them, Obama will seem an anathema.
So find someone for V.P. who believes in the Constitution and will win over Reagan Democrats already turned off by Reverand Wright.
George, first comment, is funny.
It's okay with me if McCain wants to torture Hugh Hewitt and other Mitt geeks by making him think he might nominate Romney, as long as at the last minute he picks someone else. Kind of like what LBJ did to RFK.
Besides, as long as Dan Quayle's alive, why bother with the clone? Go with the original.
They look amazing together.
The thought has me chizzing at this moment.
I am sick of libtards and defeatocrats and commies coming here and bitching about "neutrality".
Hello, this is a republican and conservative blog. If you don't like it leave.
We are true patriots and Americans. We bleed red right and blue and we are tough on terror.
There are other blogs you nazis can go to and spew your hatred and hippie propoganda and feel affirmed.
But not here. We love this country, love our president, and love John McCain and love his family.
Mitt Romney is an incredible man with incredible principles and values and I look forward to him being our VP and then president.
Simon said...
Let me put my realpolitik hat on and suggest that the only thing wrong with Romney as veep is that he's too white and not female enough. That seems to matter to some voters. If there are competent minority or female Republican potentials - and there are - they should be considered over Romney.
1. Mitt has the whole organized, neat, nerdy Felix Unger thing down. It's not exactly "female enough", but Mitt was a manly metrosexual before it was cool to be one and after it was cool to be one.
2. If you are wearing any realpolitik hat, people are getting damn sick of America falling apart while nothing is discussed but Iraq, Iraq, Iraq! Voters this fall will focus on the economy, something which McCain, Hillary!, and Obama have little experience with.
Romney has a big track record of dealing with fiscal messes, health care crisis, turning around bad enterprises. More importantly, he knows the best people out there and has an even more impressive ability to pick teams, get consenus from opposing sides, and manage them as an executive even something he has no personal track record in. Something McCain will sorely need in the fall is someone next to him that is credible enough to replace in McCain's CiC forte, but standing by with the economic expertise and ability to supervise Administration teams while McCain looks at that will make Mccain more credible...
3. He brings "Outside Washington" creds, with a strong reputation for integrity. Strong "outside Washington" debater, no record of corruption.
4. Next to Obama's crowd, Romney put together the best team in the primaries and led all Reps in fundraising, even not counting his own funds. McCain badly could use those talents and Romney people.
5. In the General election, Romney will be a big asset in the large Northern industrial swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and in the Mormon-friendly West. I wouldn't give much of a shot for Mass, but Romney will put NH and Maine in play. He also has won over the trust of Christian conservatives that don't trust Mccain, intensely dislike Hillary!, can't stand Jeremiah Wright, and dislike Mormons - but not as much as they hate the other 3 people..
5. After watching the cancer of identity politics play out on the Democratic side, the last thing McCain needs is a Harriet Miers or Alan Keyes like brainstorm - where he trots out an inexperienced, unqualified, not really interested in being President enough to run for it - minority or female. Just "competent" as in the "black who was selected over 112 more qualified white candidates is competent" argument Democrats make won't fly with independents or Republicans. It would reek of affirmative action.
More Simon - But I don't see any reason to concede that ground, if only for sake of symbolism - it's not as though we'd be talking about compromising on talent just for the sake of a non-white-male candidate. Michael Steele, for example, is a terrific potential veep no matter which way it's sliced.
1. Symbolism is silly. It has a place in movies, not mandatory multiculti Presidential elections or the White House.
2. You would be talking about compromising on talent with a female or minority candidate compared to the conservative governors with solid economic credentials McCain needs to look at.
3. Steele was a one-term Lieutenant Governor, with few duties in that office. That's it. He has little economic or foreign policy background. Schooling and finances less than stellar. No way is he ready to step in if McCain croaks, and he would be the least qualified pick for VP since the 1830s..Opposes overturning Roe v. Wade but says it's personally bad..Great guy for a cabinet post or grooming to run for Mikulski's seat or for Governor, though.
If Mitt is wearing shorts with black socks under that suit jacket he has lost the Althouse vote.
Althouse wrote: Don't know why Mitt needs the airline blankie on his lap
You suggest Mitt is "pitching a tent" for Sen. McCain???
You suggest they are playing with his wiener under the covers???
Enough with the thinly veiled homophobia, Althouse. YOU, A LAW PROFESSOR.
Cedarford, I find it hard to get excited about Romney, but that was a pretty good case you made for him.
For all you geniuses who count Romney's whiteness and maleness against him, did it ever occur to you that the white male vote decides presidential elections, every time?*
*The only exceptions being Clinton's victories. But there was a third party candidate in those races. One on one the white male vote decides it.
McCain needs a veep who is neither white nor male.
That whole exclusively white guy thing is pretty much over.
Condi.
Just imagine a debate between her and Obama.
Haven't heard her weigh in on the Rev. Wright controversy, either.
McCain knows nothing about economics (and works hard every day to prove it).
Romney is, like Bush, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
Great, just great.
And both like the endless war-for-oil-and corrupt-contractors we are now mis-waging.
Just swell.
Nels - I find it hard to get excited about Romney
Agree. I too will never be "excited" about Romney the way I was when I saw Bill Clinton light up a room with raw charisma, or seeing the effect of Barack Obama's well-delivered "feel good" speechs.
But I am excited with what Romney might be able to do for McCain and the country in results.
When Warren Buffet has one of his Berkshire Hathaway meetings, you have one of the most placid, pedestrian everyman types on the planet come out to wildly excited shareholders that hold he is one notch down from God.
Buffet gets that excitment from his life's work of brilliant results and investment advice.
With Romney I can get excited about possible badly needed THINGS for America.
1. A national healthcare system that goes mostly private sector instead of Dems "government program". Romneycare of Mass customized by other States as the wish, but ending in a national system that would cover the 1/7th of Americans who work but have no insurance, drop cost of private insurance down several hundred bucks, end America's disgrace of being the only advanced nation not to cover all citizens.
2. Romney wanted a strategic audit of the Federal Gov to find and squeeze out a couple hundred billion dollars in waste, fraud, and duplication of services. To avoid having to raise taxes due to fiscal restraint collapsing under the Demmocrats, Bush, and key Corrupticans like DeLay - and no oversight.
3. Rustbelt State economic recovery. Romney would love championing that. Mccain would love to run in all those Swing States up North with a Plan to do just that..
4. Run the "John McCain National Security Energy Independence Plan". The Dems have no coherent plan other than new lightbulbs, save the polar bears from CO2 and count on glorious solar power and windfarms not near wealthy Democrats and no evil coal, oil, or nuclear development...
Romney always likes getting all the principals together and first getting them to agree on a goal, then guiding them as they work out how to get there.
We need affordable energy for 420 million people by 2050. How do we get there? How do we end excessive court litigation that stops us for decades from doing anything on energy solutions? What energy mix? What is the highest priority? Ending CO2 even if it impoverishes Americans, or getting energy independence from unreliable countries and working a transition off oil that will take 20-30 years to do?
Romney could have a very good chance of running a bipartisan show hashing out an agreed-to plan with industry, consumers, environmentalists all having a say..
5. Working with McCain to help end the unsupportable trade deficits with a plan different than Bush's strategy to turn the dollar into toilet paper valuation.
6. Help McCain and Republicans & Independents have a Recession strategy to fight the one we are in that sounds better than the liberal Democrat one of more taxes, more goverment programs.
7. A deal where real estate speculators with multiple properties get no bailout, but people are allowed to stay in their one principal home already bought. Where Romney assists the President and monitors the performance of several private and Fed agencies working on liquidity and credit issues that appear will take years to stabilize.
THINGS matter more than speeches. Or ability to do convincing fake empathy with audiences and tell polished jokes...
And even if McCain loses, having those McCain-Romney economic solutions out there for the public to accept or reject would have a big impact on the extent to domestic economic damage the elected Democrats could do. Some of the programs would be very attractive to the public, knowing they are a big break from the Bush screwups and would not milk the public for more taxes pissed away on socialistic solutions.
"You would be talking about compromising on talent with a female or minority candidate compared to the conservative governors with solid economic credentials McCain needs to look at."
I'm categorically not talking about "compromising on talent" - I'm talking about choosing between otherwise equally talented individuals based on political utility. If there isn't someone available who can satisfy the nation's diversity fetish without compromising on talent, obviously we can't. My point's just that it seems obvious to me that McCain should pick whoever he thinks will be a net plus in votes for the McCain/_____ ticket over the dems.
"Voters this fall will focus on the economy, something which McCain, Hillary!, and Obama have little experience with. Romney has a big track record of dealing with fiscal messes, ... he knows the best people out there and has an even more impressive ability to pick teams, get consenus from opposing sides, and manage them as an executive even something he has no personal track record in. Something McCain will sorely need in the fall is someone next to him that is credible enough to replace in McCain's CiC forte, but standing by with the economic expertise and ability to supervise Administration teams...."
That and your outside Washington point are both good. I do agree that all else being equal, McCain needs someone with solid economic and conservative credentials (although I recognize that the latter tends to swallow the former).
McCain should pick Cedarford for VP--An commonsense engineer who can see the issues--and it would drive the bedwetting liberals NUTSO!
jacket on his lap ... not blanket ...
Roger - My VP interview with McCain would last 5 under minutes. Ending when I either called him "Open Borders Juan", commented on his treachery, said the Fundies were nutballs, or said like Condi I have no elected office experience and am as almost ignorant on foreign policy as she is on domestic matters - but I'd show up in blackface every day to be his VP pick if that's what he wanted.
Maybe a pick to be Ambassador to Israel as a nasty McCain payback if the Jews stiff McCain in 2008.
Seriously, I'd love to be on an Energy Commission working with the Bain Boys again on a project. I'd show up with some experts from the Germn and Japanese renewable energy programs and have them tell Americans that renewables will only amount to 20% of Germany's power needs by 2050, 12% in Japan, and they have very good figures in those countries on minimum electric and hydrocarbon usage needed to maintain their standard of living.
And I would point out the immigration million population explosion in the US, going to 420 million by 2050, will more than cancel out any energy savings from conservation or renewables.
Then sit down with environmentalists with the options. X amount of energy needed by 2050. Y as a set of choices, with data saying no more than 20% can be renewable by EU calcs, so learn to love coal or nuclear or both. Conservation and "alternate renewables" may mean we can take up the energy consumption of up to 50 million new Juans and Abdullahs and their descendents, but the rest of our energy must come from existing sources. Until Breeder reactors and fusion come up to viability or the US and global population crash down to 160 million and 2 billion, respectively, where renewables would work in supplying the majority of power needs.
And I would push hard for Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to pass a law that all court challenges to a National Energy Plan, opposition to any drilling, conservation, new energy source or power plant coal-nuke mix, and what portion of our energy must be domestic by law - has a 5 year limit and if courts can't get a ruling, the law defaults verdict to the proposed National Energy Plan.
America can do great things, and do them fast when we are not crippled into inaction by lawyers in robes of partisan poltic poisoning of our system of government into gridlock.
For liberals, there will be lots to like in such a plan that would have tons of conservation measures and a hard drive to use renewables and start organized, nationally agreed to work on transition off CO2-hydrocarbon energy over 3 decades.
To me, energy resolution with a full implementation plan are as important and getting fiscal order back in the American economy.
***************
I believe the last two things voters will be interested in this Fall will be Iraq and divisive Racial Identity Politics. It's the economy and our kids future as Americans with good jobs and a good life that matter the most.
better hope that doesnt happen.
theocons make up 1/3 of the republican party and 1/5 of the electorate. most of them would vote never vote for a mormon.
that is why huck had all that traction in the first place.
also the MSM will gleefully provide a rev. wright style youtube collage of icky mormon theological goobers like baptising dead jews and that native americans are the lost tribe of Israel.
under the guise of educating us about mormonism.
don't you unnerstand the reason that Mitt flamed out in the primaries?
you pretend it was because he got a late sart or he was too stiff...but the truth is the theocons run the republican party now.
you know what happens when you invite a vampire into the house?
you all become vampires.
and after a while, the vampires think they own the house.
the republican party can no longer win without the theocon vote.
might as well change the party name to reflect the new values.
Daryl... LOL... "homophobia"? More like homophilia! I said they look cute together. I like them as a nice Felix and Oscar combo.
Works for me!
Yes, it will be great holding Romney responsible for all of the views the Mormon church has ever had. Such as excluding blacks, etc. After all, if he disagreed with them, why didn't he leave the church?
Romney is OK, but a look at Bush vs. Kerry, and the "most important issue" shows:
~22 mil for Iraq/WoT
~9 mil for taxes/economy/gov't programs
~26 mil for Moral Values
Pro-life folk, both small AND big gov't types, have been excluded from the Dems, so have wound up with the Rich White Males in the Reps. ... and there's a LOT more of them in numbers of voters, too.
Perhaps pro-Iraq victory, pro-good econ policy, and lip service to pro-life will be enough to win.
Perhaps not.
Instead, if not Huck, then McCain should find a clear, pro-life Christian to get the activists to be active in getting out the vote.
Or, well ... I wanted Condi in 2004 as VP, she would only be better this year. And when she would campaign on what the Dem policy would mean, there would be NOBODY, no general, no former SecState, no former President, with more current knowledge of current international affairs.
Plus she can play the piano so well.
I think Romney's problem was that there were too many primary Republicans seeking to appeal to the conservatives. Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee all sliced that pie pretty thin.
Also many of my evangelical friends fell all over themselves in moving toward Hucakbee, a big government faux conservative.
McCain also benefitted from the Democratic version of operation Chaos.
For the general election, some people think that the VP matters, and some of those people think that race and gender matter. Bobby Jindal has a future, but I sure hope he gets to stay in Louisiana to help them out of their mess for awhile.
What about the Governor of Alaska? She is female and conservative.
I still cannot vote for McCain, but with the Democrats eating each other as an appetizer, it will not matter I fear.
Trey
Let me put my realpolitik hat on and suggest that the only thing wrong with Romney as veep is that he's too white and not female enough. That seems to matter to some voters.
Those voters will be voting for a Democrat in any case. I'm quite comfortable basing my vote on record and ability instead of skin color and genitals.
Trey - you're referring to Sarah Palin. She's stunning, but I think she has the same problem as Jindal - time. She's not had long enough in her present position to really asses her. She's a strong candidate for veep (or even top-ticket) next time around if she does well.
Cedarford, at first blush, I'm deeply skeptical of your proposed time limitation. To be sure, there's time limits all over litigation landscape. You've got to file with EEOC within six months (IIRC) to get into a Title VII case; you have two years to file an FTCA claim; Rule 4(a) gives you thirty days from entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal; etc. Stopwatch provisions are commonplace. But what you're talking about seems like quite a different kind of animal: a clock that starts running when the case is filed and produces a default judgment for the defendant if the court takes too long to issue an opinion. That seems like it would be problematic, and even setting that aside, at a minimum, you'd want to provide for direct, expedited review in the Supreme Court.
Yes Cford layed out some really really positive planks. Either party would be wise to consider his ideas. Nice job.
Middle class guy: Also, Mitt has appeal, he is a good speaker, and has a likability factor.
Are we talking about the same Mitt here? I always thought (and continue to think) that Mitt has the same charm, appeal, and likability as a wet blanket (or wet suit jacket, if you prefer).
Simon -
I believe a time limit would pass if you framed it as a national emergency, which it would be if gas reaches 5-6 dollars a gallon and we see food and heat rationing. Or the certainty that voters will see it in the near future.
We know have energy projects that have been tied up for decades in litigation or just the prospect of litigation discourages energy independence.
If a national energy plan is presented as a whole solution, where we need 20,000 MW of new nuclear capacity to go with 8,000 MW of solar and wind to prevent a quadrupling of electric bills or rationing, new CAFE standards AND 2 new refineries and oil shale and ANWAR development AND 8 LNG terminals on the East Coast -
you cannot tie one element of the National Plan voters and Congress agree on in Court for 20 years without derailing the whole Plan.
After 1973, our need for reasonable energy independence has been derailed by many factors - cheap oil, special interest lobbying, mass immigration of new energy consumers adding to the energy infrastructure, and a sense of futility that anything new will be blocked by lawsuits so lets just kick the can down the road and make it the next generations bigger and bigger problem as time passes.
Its like entitlements.
The need for action only grows, and the remedial solutions will become more and more drastic each year our political system, complacent American voters, or lawyers delay addressing the problem.
A five-year limit would still give special interests their day in court to contest any aspect of an energy plan, but with recognition that courts cannot just pull pieces and parts out of a national construction and new regulatory program or stall aspects of it decades - and expect the whole Plan to work coherently after tampering.
We have highway sections in America, harbor modifications, potential oil and gas sites, city revelopment areas, medical reforms that have been tied up since the late 60s by endless litigation. The US Census Bureau says we go from 300 million to 420 million by 2050, and we either have enough energy and fix the other stuff deliberately put in legal and legislative gridlock by lawyers and other parties - or we have a dramatically reduced standard of living in America.
She's not had long enough in her present position to really asses her
She's 7 months pregnant, so let her off her knees, you fiend!
Oh, you meant "assess." Never mind.
Mitt and McCain have some complementary attributes. Kerry and Edwards (and Bill and Al) were all smiles for the cameras, too, but we know better now.
Cedarford, I'm not saying that it wouldn't pass Congress. I'm not even saying that I disagree with the concerns you're expressing about the use of litigation as an end-run around the political process (I have my legal process sympathies, after all). I'm saying that I have concerns as to whether your solution survives constitutional scrutiny.
Mmmmmm, unhhh, I think I'm gonna get sick. But, as an unashamed Obama supporter, I say "please, do it, please".
I for one have always said that McCain would do well do pick a highly qualified female/minority veep - someone who would provide a contrast to the shameless coattailing of Hillary Clinton (shameful to us females who believe in getting to the top under our own steam and smarts).
Romney? I hope not - mandated health care coverage doth not a conservative make.
McCain needs a conservative to shore up his credentials
Romney isn't a conservative, he just plays one on TV
Condi. Just imagine a debate between her and Obama.
McCain would have to be crazy to pick any White House insider as a running mate. He needs a reasonably clean Republican from a swing state who isn't associated with Bush's foreign policy. Mel Martinez, maybe?
I think Meg Whitman would be a great choice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा