So according to Byron York at NRO, it's down to Pawlenty and Lieberman for VP, with Romney as a sleeper pick.
I agree with Allah that it's ridiculous to go the pro-choice route with a VP just for the sake of "maverickness," but there's a more pragmatic argument against Joe Lieberman that I haven't seen anyone mention. He's already lost this race. It didn't work out for Bob Dole, the losing VP candidate in 1976, twenty years later at the top of ticket. Granted, there were more problems with the Dole election, but Republicans just don't seem to tolerate known losers. And of course, when Lieberman lost last time, it was on the other side of the ballot, but how horribly bad karmic would it be to place a presidential election loser on the ticket, particularly now that McCain is edging ahead of Obama?
Don't kill the momentum with a loser, who is also pro-choice and pretty un-Republican on a host of other issues, to boot. If it has to be between these two (leaving Romney aside), the choice is pretty clear.
UPDATE: Perhaps it's Romney now. I guess if he's the guy, it doesn't go much better for my " no loser" argument, but it isn't exactly a fair comparison. I like Romney more than Pawlenty; he's a known quantity, and I think the supposed evangelical backlash would be minimal. Liberals would LOVE for evangelicals to be that bigoted, but don't count on it.
Comments