Ryan's Fancies

Ezra Klein seems to share my misgivings about the wisdom of the Ryan pick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-will-be-mitt-romneys-vice-presidential-pick-heres-seven-thoughts-on-what-that-means/

Paul Ryan

Was it a good pick?

Not great. Because of his age, Ryan looks a lot like a sidekick, an understudy. This historically does not turn out well; as witness Ferraro, Quayle, Palin. Nor, I suspect, should it, for it suggests the presidential nominee may not choose the best people for the jobs in his cabinet and judiciary. On the other hand, Ryan is not coming from obscurity. Despite his youth, unlike Ferraro, Quayle, or Palin, he is a genuine star in the Republican party.

I worry too that Ryan does not balance Romney well in terms of expertise. He's another numbers guy, his reputation built on budgeting. This is all very well if Romney can count on the economy remaining the central issue in the campaign. But can he? What happens if, as is entirely possible, either Israel or the US strikes at the Iranian nuclear facilities between now and November? Suddenly foreign policy matters too, and Romney-Ryan do not have the natural authority there.

Others point out that Ryan has a detailed record on budgeting that can now be attacked. Just so. Former prominent finance ministers do not have a terribly good record, in England or Canada, when then running in the top spot. They have too often needed to be the bearers of grim truths; they can always be saddled with this or that unpopular tax. Think of John Turner, Paul Martin, Gordon Brown.

Romney's VP Pick

Now that Romney is about to name his choice for running mate, everyone is speculating about who it will be. So that's getting a bit boring. But more generally, who in the past has stood out as a good pick?

Is he still available?

In recent memory, Joe Lieberman stands out as a great one, one that really seemed to boost the ticket, even though it was not enough to win Al Gore the presidency. So great that McCain reputedly wanted to pick him again four years ago. Clinton's pick of Al Gore seemed similarly to give him a real boost. Reagan's pick of George Bush senior was seen as good at the time—though Reagan tried for something yet more spectacular, a ticket with Gerald Ford. Reaching back a bit, many believe that Lyndon Johnson made the difference in winning JFK the presidency. I think Mondale helped Carter, and Muskie helped Humphrey, significantly. Dukakis's pick of Lloyd Bentsen turned out to help when Bentsen did spectacularly well in the VP debate against Quayle.

Any idea who this is?

Which brings us to bad picks: Quayle seemed to diminish the Bush Sr. ticket. Yes, they still won—the first time, not the second. Geraldine Ferraro seems to me to have hurt Mondale, again diminishing his stature. Many say Sarah Palin hurt the McCain effort, but I really dispute that—the polls never showed it, but the reverse, and Palin's power is demonstrated by the fact that she has remained a major figure in political discourse since. Compare Ferraro or Quayle. Tom Eagleton hurt George McGovern, but that was a matter of unforeseen circumstances.

How about this guy? Any idea?

Here's the moral I take from this: a strong VP pick is a strong VP pick. That is, if a candidate picks a VP candidate who seems as qualified as he is or even more so, as much a leader as he or even more so, it looks good and helps the ticket. If not, not.

We are talking about someone who looks like a possible co-president; not a sidekick or a successor being groomed.

So who is available who would do this for Romney? Maybe David Petraeus. Bobby Jindal has the chops, but might look a little too young and adenoidal. Condoleeza Rice; but she seems to be out of the running now. Marco Rubio looks too young; so does Paul Ryan. Pawlenty and Portman look too much like sidekicks, too much like Romney.

Maybe Chris Christie. Or, actually, Newt Gingrich.

He's ba-a-a-a-ck!

Rice for Vice Would be Nice

The fact that I personally have a massive crush on Condoleeza Rice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Drudge Report is headlining a claimed leak that Condoleeza Rice has suddenly jumped to the top of the list for Romney's VP choice.

I've said here before that she'd be a perfect matchup with Romney. If he's smart, he'll go with her, instead of rumoured alternatives Portman and Pawlenty.

Rice balances Romney well because she adds foreign policy expertise, which Romney lacks. She also balances him South/North. Obviously, if it matters, she balances him male / female and white / black. She is seen as on the right of the party; he needs that too, for the base. I suspect she will help a lot of voters feel better about voting against the first black president; she insulates them, in their own minds and in the public eye, against accusations that they are voting against Obama because he is black. It would also be helpful in terms of the social consensus in this regard; it would prevent blacks from feeling they had been rejected in such a vote. That would make Romney's presidency easier if he won.

But the biggest reason is this: Romney has an enthusiasm problem. People find him boring. The worst thing he could do, therefore, is just what he has been rumoured to be planning to do: a "safe" choice for VP. A traditional sort, a man in a suit, a Pawlenty or Portman. He needs someone interesting, someone charismatic, someone who can draw the public interest. It is my sense that Rice has just that kind of charisma, and that kind of personal story.

Apparently, she can also deliver a fiery speech.

Give it to her: don't offer the American public four years of pure boredom.