Author’s note: This is the first of a two-part column, which
itself is the last of a multipart series of columns, on the topic
of John McCain’s vice presidential options. The final installment
will run on Monday.
It’s hard to pay much attention to Number Two. But (as I argued
here in the case of the vice presidency),
conservatives this year ought to understand that the conservative
movement’s future depends on it. Call it the Prince of Wales
theory, named after the heir to the British throne: Whoever is the
Republican nominee for vice president becomes the front-runner for
the presidential nomination the next time around. That said, (and
noting that I’ve already
written
plenty
about
my own take on the subject), it’s time to ask other conservative
veterans what they think about who John McCain should pick for a
running mate:
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative
Union: “A home run: Mark Sanford” (governor of
South Carolina). Another good choice: Indiana Gov. Mitch
Daniels. “If he wants to anoint or push ahead to the next
generation of conservatives, then he might go to a Paul
Ryan [U.S. Rep. from Wisconsin] or Mike Pence [U.S.
Rep. from Indiana].” “A single, if he just wants somebody who won’t
hurt his chances”: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Keene’s criteria: “First, it must be somebody who could be
president. Second, it should be someone who won’t hurt you and
may help you, and who might be able to get along with him.
Next, if the choice can patch [McCain] up in some part of the
country where he’s weak, and maybe give you some outreach.
But if McCain wants to solidify his base, he has to realize the
Right has energy problems with him and fears he wants to re-shape
the party in his own image.”
Jeff Bell, longtime Republican strategist and author of
the forthcoming book Social Conservatism: “My
first choice would be [LA Gov.] Bobby Jindal. I think he
does the most for McCain through his demonstrated knowledge and
abilities in domestic issues. He’s head and shoulders above other
choices.”
Former Ambassador Jerry Carmen, onetime key Reagan
strategist: “Two choices. One would be [former Mass. Gov.
Mitt] Romney. I’ve always been interested in how
government is managed, and Romney would add a lot in that area. The
other one…is [former Arkansas Gov. Mike]
Huckabee, who would go a long way to solidifying the base
while McCain would move to attract independents.” Others who would
be good: Sanford and Daniels.
Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax
Reform: First choice: Jindal. “He’s young, he’s got an
incredible record of accomplishment in a very difficult state. He
has four times the managerial experience of Obama; even though
Obama is ten years older, he’s accomplished next to nothing. So if
Jindal is more accomplished even though he’s younger, that’s a
double-whammy against Obama. Also, our guy speaks very well without
looking at a script; unlike Obama, he is AWT, which means
‘articulate without teleprompter.’”
Other acceptable choices: Pawlenty and Romney.
Lee Edwards, PhD., Heritage Foundation Fellow and
conservative movement historian: Edwards would not name
names. But his criteria were rather specific: “Somebody with
executive ability. Somebody with some young legs. Somebody
preferably from the Midwest.”
Al Regnery, publisher of The American Spectator
and author of Upstream: The Ascendance of American
Conservatism: More interested in criteria than names,
but the first names he mentioned: Sanford, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox. Also mentioned
Romney as being acceptable.
Criteria: “First, it cannot be a member of Congress. Second, it
needs to be a Reaganite conservative. It probably should be a
governor or somebody who has run something big; and the last
criterion is that it needs to be somebody who just exudes
responsibility and American traditional leadership. Obama’s worst
points are that he is just not trained to do this sort of job. It
used to be a key thing that people had to feel confident that the
president could sit down across from the head of the USSR and not
get hoodwinked. I think there is that sort of feeling again, and
that Obama just doesn’t meet that test…so our choice needs to be
somebody of real substance.”
Conservative strategist and author Craig
Shirley: Sanford. “The only choice. A reformer. He can
united the base. He’s an outsider, and he’s not afraid to take on a
fight.”
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum: “It doesn’t
matter. I’m a believer that John McCain can’t win the race, but
that Obama has to lose it. This is not a knock on McCain; I don’t
know of any Republican candidate who can overcome the
Democrats in this environment without the Democrat disqualifying
himself. But McCain has to remain an acceptable alternative if
voters do disqualify Obama, so his V-P choice has to be safe —
somebody who can’t disqualify McCain. At the same time, he can’t
tick off conservatives. The answer, long story short, he’s got to
pick a safe, conservative Republican. There are probably ten
members of the U.S. Senate, and some governors, who are
conservative, who have solid records, who are good people, who
would not stir controversy.”
Pressed, Santorum mentioned as examples Richard Burr of
North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada, John Thune
of South Dakota. He said Pawlenty “wouldn’t hurt.” Two other names
he liked, once he was asked about them: former House Budget
Committee chairman John Kasich of Ohio, and current House
Budget Committee ranking Republican Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin. “I like Paul Ryan. He’s a great guy. I think he
would be a good choice.”
Finally, I decided it would be good to move outside the Beltway,
to a judge and two heads of state conservative think tanks….
Former U.S. Appeals Court Judge Charles Pickering of
Mississippi: Criteria: Conservative, young, and with
proven leadership ability. He said he hadn’t given the subject much
thought, but that Romney and Pawlenty both seemed acceptable.
Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy
Institute: “I would have said Mark Sanford….[but he
might be better four years from now]. The ideal candidate is not
only a fiscal conservative but a social conservative. He needs to
infuse some personality in the campaign, and somebody who will run
on ideas and issues.”
Palmer volunteered Kasich and Pence as “guys who fit the mold.”
And, when asked, said Cox “would be an attractive candidate” if he
would raise his profile.
John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation (North
Carolina): Caveat: “I’m not sure there’s a lot of
historical evidence for the importance of a vice-presidential
choice. But McCain, for obvious reasons, needs to pick wisely.”
“A month ago, I would have picked Mark Sanford, but I’m
persuaded that McCain is not going to pick him. The most important
thing is, who is qualified to be president. He should be perceived
as being capable of stepping into office and running the government
without a year or two of tutorials. Probably the best choice is
Romney. He was the governor of Massachusetts and an accomplished
private sector manager. And arguably Romney has some appeal in
Michigan.”
Another good choice: Kasich.
IF YOU ARE KEEPING SCORE, of ten people who mentioned names, there
were six mentions of Sanford as acceptable (two as first choice)
five for Romney (two as first choice), four for Pawlenty (none with
real excitement), three for Kasich, two (both first choices) for
Jindal, two each for Cox, Ryan, Pence, and Daniels, and one each
for Thune, Ensign, Burr, and Huckabee. Of the qualities listed by
top conservatives as essential, executive ability seems to top the
list. Conservatism and immediately recognizable qualifications came
next. Geography played only a small role in the considerations.
Making moves to the political “center” was scoffed at: McCain,
these conservatives think, does that all by himself without needing
help from a running mate.
Come back to this space on Monday for my final column in this
intermittent series on this topic.
