From a Democrat's point of view, who would be the best Republican VP choice at this point? Not tactically, as in who's worst for Republicans, but substantively, as in who's best for us if he takes office. Within realistic bounds, of course -- Olympia Snowe would be nice, but McCain is not gonna pick her.

Personally, I always kind of liked Romney as a technocrat who didn't seem actually to believe any of the crap Republicans go around saying they believe. Plus, he's the author of Hillary's basic approach to healthcare, so if Hillary's heathcare plan is so awesome, then Romney is your guy among Republicans, right?

The fact that I don't mind him very much pretty much makes it certain that he will not get the nod, however.

If we knew for sure that McCain were going to win in November, who would we _want_ to be VP?

Romney is a really nasty asshole under all that civil exterior!

He's currying favor with the "Big Dog" by referring to the Dem candidates as battling Chihuahuas...

This from the clueless person who subjected his dog to a 12 hour ride on the roof of his station wagon and left him there under the piss and shit was running down the windows of the car...

And then claimed his dog "really enjoyed it"!

I hope Romney is the VP candidate...he will be an easy person for the Dem candidate to take apart. His arrogant exterior hides the soul of a cockroach!

I don't think cruelty to a family dog is the main fact that you want anyone to know about your running mate.

Being gung-ho for the war and having five strapping sons, none of whom ever even dreamt of joining the services, won't help either.

But I say to McCain -- go for it, big dog!

Interesting question, Rhubarbs.  I'm a little uneasy with Romney since you don't actually know which of his hard right wing positions he actually believes.  I like the technocrat aspect, but if he really thinks that trying to deport all of the illegal immigrants in the country is a good idea, and that we should be expanding Guantanamo, I don't want him anywhere near the Presidency.  Maybe this is cheating a little, but I wouldn't mind Lieberman so much (and his name does get tossed around a lot as a VP candidate).  I'm not Joe's biggest fan, but he's mostly with the Dems on domestic issues, and he's chosen to break with them on a few of the issues where I think they're wrong (tort reform, voucher programs).  If you want an actual Republican, I'd have to think about it a bit.

Meg Whitman is a huge asset to the campaign. She's very well thought of in Silicon Valley and by anyone who's paid attention to the new economy. Sharp, honest, a decent person.

There's another aspect to Meg Whitman's elevation that is escapaing the (non-financial) press. The financial economy is truly melting down. Each day brings news of another debacle. Yesterday we learned that Carlyle Group's funding arm is about to go under. CARLYLE GROUP. Today I read that Bear Stearns is about to go under. BEAR STEARNS. Merrill, Citi, even Morgan Stanley have all required rescues from deep-pocketed Asian or ME investors. Bernanke slashes rates, and the market yawns. The dollar is in free fall.

How to prevent the collapse of our financial economy will without question be the #1 issue in the fall.

It should be obvious that in suchan environment McCain is going to try to surround himself with some of the savviest and most financially successful political-economic leaders available. It may well be that anti-mormon prejudice is so widespread as to doom any ticket with a mormon on it-- assuming Obama can poach enough evangelicals in purple states-- but if this prejudice is not so great as I assume, it would be stupid for McCain NOT to get Romney on the ticket, and also surround himself with as many of Romney's good-guy, super-sharp friends from the business world.

Frankly, if McCain develops an economic security message that focuses like the proverbial laser beam on this, the most important challenge we face and will face through 2009-2010, and our side does not, then this voter will seriously consider the Economic Security team in November. It would be nice if TNR could pay at least a wee bit of attention to the storm that's no longer gathering but breaking on our heads now.

I hear you, wagonjak and ironyroad, but it's not like Democrats are sitting pretty on pet treatment issues. Recall that the Clintons essentially abandoned Socks when they left office and Socks was no longer useful as a prop. Then Buddy, whom they kept when they moved to New York, was allowed to run loose and was hit by a car. This was the second time the Clintons had negligently allowed a dog to run loose and get killed by a car.

The Romney we saw in the Michigan primary-- bold, innovative, non-ideological, directly focused on intelligent and practical ways to turn around the economic mess we're in-- would be an enormous asset to McCain. If McCain were smart he'd push Norquist and Co to the margins and start elevating Romney's pragmatism and economic vision.

The only thing good to be said about Joe Lieberman -- in any context -- is that his choice as McCain's VP candidate would guarantee a Democratic victory.  Pretty much the only thing certain to get the Democratic base out in much bigger numbers than the Rs, even if the Hillary they loathe should somehow steal the nomination, would be the former Democratic VP candidate on the Republican ticket.

Unfortunately, McCain isn't that stupid.  The two names that I have thrown in this hopper in the past are Romney and Crist, either go for the kleptocrat wing of the Republican party or try and take Florida completely off the table.  The third option would be to assume Florida is in Republican hands and go for Ohio or Pennsylvania where Hillary's well-poisoning provides a head start.

Romney's not a "kleptocrat," or even your garden-variety money-fiddling greedhead. Same for Meg. He and she have created more economic value for this country than Soros ever did, or will.

Speaking of which, wonder if Soros the old man is getting back into his old screw-the-state, arbitrage game, now that he has the chance to torpedo the dollar the way he did sterling in '92.... Stick it to the man! America must pAy for aBeTTiNg CHiMpyBUsHiTLeR

A snapshot from the wacky world of America's New Financial Reality: a credit card offer from my preferred frequent flyer program, generously allowing me to borrow at-- get this-- 26%!

Do you guys get that our financial economy is broken? Do you still think that the Iraq War will be a bigger issue than the fact that loan-shark consumer lending rates are not only legal, but likely a true reflection of most American borrowers' financial situation?

Here's the offer:

6 Months No Payments, No Interest* Offer Details

*FINANCE CHARGES accrue on a promotional balance (which includes the promotional purchase and related fees for optional credit protection) from the transaction date and all accrued FINANCE CHARGES for the entire promotional period will be added to your account if the promotional balance is not paid in full by the end of the promotional period or if you fail to make a required payment on your account when due. See below for more details.**

**With credit approval for qualifying purchases made on the AmericanAirlines Credit Card. APRs up to 25.96%, but if your account has a variable APR, the APR is up to 25.96% as of February 18, 2008 and may vary.

The Romney you saw in Michigan?  You mean the one who boldly, innovatively, non-ideologically claimed he would return a quarter million jobs to Michigan without having the slightest idea how he would do that not to mention not the slightest intention to try?

I happen to think from a political point of view that Romney would help McCain quite a bit which is why I thought, and think, he is amongst the likely choices.  But that doesn't mean that I believe Romney is anything more than another creepy, lying Republican kleptocrat.  These are the same effin idiots who got us into this economic mess with their Laffer Curve kool-aid.  It is there fatcats who continue to make it impossible to to the slightest thing right to get out of the mess.  Romney ain't going to save us from economic disaster.  If he had anything to say about policy, it would only sink us that much faster.

Tep, what have you been smoking while you stew in your frustration that candidates for president don't really debate policy?  Get a grip.

Tep,

I got that our financial economy was broken the moment Bush got his hgh-end tax cuts and forced us into huge structural deficits that, predictably, are accompanied by huge trade deficits.  Really.  I did.  For anyone who knows anything, it was clear where this would lead.  it is only because we are such a wealthy country that it has taken this long for the chickens to start coming home.

The very idea that the same cast of characters, beholden to the same greedy, Halliburton, steal everything that isn't nailed down and then everything that is wing of the Republican party -- not just a wing really, these are ultimately the people who own the Republican party even while they seduce the pathetic Evangelicals with crocodile tears for the "innocent unborn," loving the unborn so you can screw the born -- is going to rescue our economy is sheer, utter, lunacy.  Republicans steal, tep.   That's what they do.  That's all they do.  The Republicans steal an entire year's worth of welfare graft and earmarks every day, before breakfast.

Kick Soros if it makes you feel better.  There are billions out there willing and able to take advantage of the mess created by ChimpyBush without Soros.  Did you really think that this day would not come?

I'm just grateful that the timing of the economic day or reckoning is such a Perfect Storm for the Republicans.  By November, we could be looking at a veto-proof majority in the Senate and a sweep of the Congress akin to 1932.  And when the Democrats are done cleaning up the colossal mess left by the Republicans, foreign and domestic, for what, the 10th time in the history of our Republic?, I hope they have the energy left for lots of prosecutions.  I want to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, preferably in the Hague, but a local jail in San Antonio would do.

roidubouloi,

I wasn't suggesting that Lieberman would be a strategically useful pick (he would probably piss off both the Republican base and the Democratic base, no easy task).  The question was "If we knew for sure that McCain were going to win in November, who would we _want_ to be VP?" You, and most other Dems apparently have a much lower opinion of Lieberman than I do (and like I said, I'm not particularly fond of the guy).  I think that a lot of the Democratic animosity toward Lieberman is because we feel betrayed by his shift to the right and his support of Bush on the war and McCain for president.  If you solely evaluate his  actual positions, though, rather than how he arrived at them, he's still closer to most Dems than the other names that get tossed around for McCain VP.  Any running mate is going to be with McCain on foreign policy, so the question is who you'd want on domestic issues.

As far who McCain will actually pick, I agree that Crist and Romney are probably the two most likely choices, though my money would be on the former at this point.

teplukhin2you writes:

-- [Meg Whitman is] very well thought of in Silicon Valley and by anyone who's paid attention to the new economy. Sharp, honest, a decent person.

Now there lies a true believer. Whitman's time as CEO of Hewlett-Packard was a disaster for the company which has done remarkably well since she was ousted.

Anyone who's paid attention to the new economy knows that HP is nowhere near the center of it. HP remains a specialty chemicals firm selling its chemicals inside printer cartridges. The old-line computer firm that has made the best transition to the "new economy" is IBM.

Roi, I don't disagree with you that the GOP bears the lion's share of blame for this, but unlike you I'm unwilling to let the public off the hook, either. They succeeded with their bread-and-circus, easy credit scam because the voter-consumers WANTED bread and circuses.

I've yet to see any evidence of a grass-roots desire to swap the flat-screen, and the Hawaii vacation, and the 3,500 square foot house, and the third car, for higher teachers' salaries, infrastructure improvements and investments in geothermal and other non-fossil fuel sources.

Which is to say that it's unlikely that the Dems will make much of an impact, either, on turning things around... unless, that is, one of our candidates were to start, um, focusing on economic substance, and telling some hard truths to the bread-and-circus-consuming proles.

I am dubious that McCain can really run on the economy in any fashion, except to say the Democrats will make it worse. He rode National Security to the nomination, and will try to ride it to the Presidency. If it is against Obama he will take a woman or Republican heavyweight (to say his VP is more qualified than Obama). If it is Hillary, he will take either Condi or Powell, and pick up a nice chunk of the black vote pretty much guaranteeing his election in September.

Mac - your knowledge of Silicon Valley is about as deep as your knowledge of the middle east.

Clue for you: saying Meg led HP is like saying Hariri was a Palestinian.

Clue #2 for you: Engage brain (and maybe Wikipedia?) before starting mouth.

Run along now.

teplukhin is correct. I confused Carly Fiorina ex of HP with Meg Whitman of eBay. My confusion arose from remembering this type of story (from Wikipedia):

-- Fiorina has been touted as a potential Vice President in a McCain administration. She endorsed Senator John McCain as the Republican nominee in the 2008 Presidential elections and campaigned with him. At an economic round-table with the senator in January 2008, Fiorina praised Senator McCain, claiming that "John McCain is a man who understands what the role of government should be, and what the role of government should not be."

-- On March 7, 2008 Fiorina was named "Chair of Victory, 2008," an RNC coordinated group to raise money and conduct get out the vote activities, by the Republican National Committee. She also stated then that she would additionally be a point person for the McCain campaign as related to business and economic affairs, as well as publicly advocating the Republican Party.

The Wikipedia entry on Meg Whitman indicates she supported Mitt Romney and that she is thinking of running for Governor of California. Given how successful she has been at eBay that would be a far better role for her than wasting her time as Vice-President.

Such pessimism blackton.  

First, you overrate the importance of VP choices.  Second, to the extent they matter, Obama has only to pick Biden who has more experience and knows more about foreign policy than Hillary, McCain and Obama put together.  Indeed, he would be a smart choice for Hillary (notwithstanding her claim that she has "crossed the Commander in Chief threshold" whatever or wherever the hell that is).  There is no "Republican heavyweight" who can do more for McCain than secure his base, and that will be hard enough to do considering its inherent fissures.

The only thing I can say on behalf of McCain as a candidate is that the Republicans, in the end, went with their least bad option, but it is not for no reason that polls now show McCain losing to both Obama and Hillary where previously she was losing to him.  

Tep, there are many painful truths that will have to be spoken to turn the economy around.  Among other things, I believe that Obama will have far more credibility than the other two in asking Americans to sacrifice to do that.  They are too much a part of the same corrupt machine that got us here -- including Hillary who votes Bush.  Withal, the middle of an election campaign is not the place to speak painful truths.  If you state the obvious, that certain taxes will have to go up, you lose, even though everyone knows it is true.

AlanSP,

I could forgive Lieberman for supporting the war, something I think he conscientiously believes in.  I cannot forgive him for his claim that Democrats who criticized the war were essentially traitors.  In other words, if I am to allow him his boneheaded if conscientiously held views, he damn well better not tell me that I am a traitor for my conscientious beliefs that square with the facts and evidence a helluva a lot better than his do.  That is WAAAAAAYYY beyond the pale of the acceptable, a betrayal of our country and of they party.  I look forward to having a great big majority in the Senate where they can sit him in the corner with a dunce cap.

hey Tep, I agree absolutely about our economic condition, Rome is burning and people are talking about a failed woman VP candidates ranting, or a Governor sleeping with a call girl as though these things remotely matter. Nothing will get down until the fire reaches the wealthy peoples neighborhoods.

I say let the f*cker burn, America might suffer from the fire, but the world will be better off. India China trade is at its highest. Russian is making a comback in Xinjiang province due to the enormous trade. As long as the worlds pie gets bigger I don't care if americas share is smaller both proportionately and in real terms.

Teplukhin, I can understand, only too well, how you feel. I'm at the sharp end of the global economy and it's very worrying.

But I am absolutely sure, that cutting the top rate of tax or coporation taxes; pushing for less regulation (when we clearly need more); pushing for even more Dickinson employment laws (flexibility); subsidizing the HMO's with corporate  welfare (reform); subsidizing heavy industry with an increased defence budget and doing nothing about tax loop holes, investing in education etc etc etc, will not be better than Obama's economic platform.

Of that, I'm sure.  

Not to mention, I think a Democratic administration is much more likely to get to the heart of the problem: the lack of any Corporate governance.

Would be truly bizarre if McCain-Romney ended up running against Obama-Clinton.

Iggy, you're probably right, but the big question I have about BHO is whether he's closer to Jimmy Carter or to Bill Clinton+Rubin+Summers+GOP congress to hold his feet to the fire re deficit reduction. BHO will have a strong majority in Congress. He has shown almost zero interest in economics beyond community dev and other good-guy small-bore stuff. Zero attention to the financial world.

I really have no idea how this man views the challenges facing us. IMHO they requier some real leadership above all. He's a bright guy, smooth, probably a fabulous pal to share a drink with, but I just can't see him as a forceful, canny and far-sighted leader. I'll probably vote for him, sure, but my expectations are quite low. I see more than a little Jimmah in this man.

Oh come on tep.  You can doubt Obama all you want but to compare him to that moralistic, technocratic twit Jimmah is without any basis.  If anything, the risk with Obama is that he is a Democratic Reagan, but his education tends to make that unlikely too.

What, exactly, would Mitt Romney bring to the ticket?  As noted in these pages, John McCain loathes him and that will be pretty hard to cover up.  

Agree with roidubouloi on the Dem side.  Biden would be a great choice on the foreign policy side.  

Actually, roi, I'm beginning to see a very clear picture of what an Obama admin would be like: endless pissfests, internal and external alike, over ill-advised statements by his supporters and appointees re. trivial identity-politics matters and more substantial f-p matters. In short, a reprise of the circus that was the Clinton administration in 1993-94.

Call me a cynic but the signs are pretty obvious. Power, Wright = back to the future. Military Gays, Guinier, Elders etc all over again. The big difference btween Identity Politics Pissfest v2.0 and v1.0 is that Obama will not have a hostile Congress holding his feet to the fire, redirecting his and his admin's attention to ** vastly ** more important issues than this circus that never folds.

Y'know, the boomer circus that Andrew Sullivan told us was going to be put out of business by Obama's post-boomer, post-racial, transcendent candidacy.

sigh