Roberts, Not Rice

According to The Drudge Report, Condoleezza Rice may be on Mitt Romney’s short list of running mate candidates. Rice is beautiful, classy, and intelligent and was, I thought, an eloquent defender of President Bush’s policies during her tenure as Secretary of State. The time she spent in that role has also given her considerable foreign policy experience, which might be to her advantage.

Nevertheless, I think she would be a terrible choice for Mitt Romney, who is already struggling to win the support of his base.  As Darius Dixon of Politico puts it, a recent Gallup poll shows that “Mitt Romney has to mend gaps in the Republican voter base among Midwesterners, young voters, the highly religious and conservative Republicans.”

None of these are likely to be particularly excited about Rice.

Conservative Republicans distrust Romney partly because of his fiscal record and partly because of his record on social issues. The fact that he still maintains that “Romneycare” was the right decision for Massachusetts does not sit well with some of us. Neither are we sure we trust his sudden change from a pro-choice to a pro-life candidate.

Yet the right running mate could help rally unenthusiastic conservatives around Romney. Choosing someone like Colonel Alan West, Ken Cuccinelli or even Ron Paul might do the trick.

But Rice is weak in many of the same areas as Romney. Many conservative Republicans view Rice as a liberal Republican, rather than a conservative ally. Conservatives may distrust Romney’s views on abortion, but they find Rice’s “mildly pro-choice” views even more objectionable. Furthermore, according to The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Rice believes that “most illegal immigrants ought to stay in the country”. Meanwhile, many conservatives are against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Because Rice's positions are often quite different from those of strong conservatives, it is unlikely that she will bring Romney many new voters from the right.

This might not matter so much if she could bring in a substantial number of votes from the left. Unfortunately, I don't think she can. Liberal voters who might approve of the fact that Rice is pro-choice already have a pro-choice candidate, who also has the advantage of being an incumbent. Pro-immigration voters already have a president who signed the DREAM act. And it’s difficult to see what Rice might offer liberal voters that President Obama doesn’t already. Furthermore, many will remember her ties to the War on Terror and will oppose her for it.

Besides, we have already seen the reception Rice has gotten from the left. From legitimate criticism to the publication of racist cartoons and insults like “Aunt Jemima”, the left has offered evidence that it will not support a candidate like Rice.

In fact, Romney has quite a challenge before him. Choosing a running mate who can both please his base and attract liberal voters seems to be an almost impossible task. But I have a solution.

Romney could pick Justice Roberts as his running mate. Roberts won a good deal of praise from the left when he sided with the left wing of the Supreme Court by upholding The Affordable Care act. Suddenly at least some liberals view him as intelligent and nuances. Perhaps his intelligent and nuanced views might win over some liberal voters.

Meanwhile, the choice of Roberts for VP would deight many conservatives, despite the fact that they are, by and large, upset with him. It would give them a way to get him off the bench.

MF

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

I think Rice would be a great choice. If the Left calls her "Aunt Jemima" during the campaign, they'll exhibit a level of stupidity that I never knew they had.

[larry kurtz]

Ms. Flint: how very nice to read you.

Face it: the GOP is going to nominate a Mormon who is little more than a cockered DC gadfly added to a slasher movie CPAC casting call for the role of Ronny Reag-urgitate in something like, "2012: The White Elephants Trumpet."

Condi would be the best choice wimpy, white Willard could make: it's just why it won't happen; but, she believes in reproductive rights and Willard promised an anti-civil rights veep.

No doubt about it: Tim Pawlenty is a dork, too.

He ordered the violent crackdown on Amy Goodman and her staff at Democracy Now! during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul making him unacceptable to progressives while bolstering his cred with the Fascista wing of his own party. He appeared with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show in January and defended the decisions he made at that time.

Senator don Juan Thune (earth hater-SD) has no life outside Washington, DC. His entire career consists of bible college, law school, a master's in public administration, lobbying, and DC.

Just as Bush43 didn't select Dick Cheney to win Wyoming, adding a fundamentalist Protestant certainly builds credible earth hater voter depth to a Mormon-led ticket. Therefore: Thune is perfect for the job and doesn't have to leave the Senate to run.

If Gov. Gary Johnson can gather enough uncommitted and disaffected Ron Paul supporters in South Dakota, having John Thune on the losing ticket in his own state would be the coldest of dishes.

[caheidelberger]

A novel thesis, Miranda! Has a Supreme Court justice ever run for VP or Pres before? And does the judicial skill set overlap well with the executive?

I'm pretty sure Roberts doesn't win liberal voters any better than Rice does... and for the same reasons you cited against Rice. Anything liberal Roberts can do, Obama and Biden can do better. The Left's only real choice is stick with Obama, vote Green in the various states that offer that option, or stay home (or vote Libertarian?) in protest of war, torture, and Patriot Act. Romney doesn't bring the Left his way, no matter whom he nominates.

Roberts clearly excites more conservatives than Rice, but many conservative picks juice that goose much better. Putting the man who gave ObamaCare its big court victory on the ticket with the man who wrote the template for it completely eliminates Romney's ability to campaign on the single legislative issue that impassions the Tea base most (Lora Hubbel and Gordon Howie will vote Libertarian or write in Jesus rather than Romney/Roberts, guaranteed). The sensible conservatives will look at the long view and recognize Roberts is one of them... but they're already with Romney, aren't they?

How about picking Cheney? I think that loses you no conservatives... and strategically, the guy boosts the campaign, doesn't he?

[Donald Pay]

Romney is losing, so why not be bold and reach across the aisle. Ben Nelson has been a moderate Democrat with social conservative leanings.

[duggersd]

Considering the attacks on Romney and the race at this time is still essentially tied, I would not say Romney is losing. Of course, Donald, you may have looked at those same polls that showed Feingold winning in the Senate and Walker being beat up in the Governor's race. Being tied is a very good thing for Romney at this point. Historically, undecided voters go the challenger by 60% to 75%. Considering most of the polls are oversampling Democrats, I think Romney has a slight lead overall. As for choosing someone to bring in the liberals, I believe that to be a mistake. The country leans conservative by a significant margin. I believe Romney's best choice it to choose someone fairly conservative. I believe Rice would be a good choice in spite of what everyone points to in her abortion views. There are other very good choices as well.
I find this election very interesting. The sides have pretty much split up already. I would think the split would be in the high 30's to very low 40's at this time. We are seeing about 90% of the people showing a preference.

[larry kurtz]

In his usual off-in-right-field way Barnes makes a good point, come to think of it: even though he's a catholic, Pawlenty might be the only earth hater willing to stay on the USS Romney in that he has nothing to lose if he enters the race with a loser like Willard whereas John Thune would be tainted by getting in a race with an alleged felon.

[Miranda]

Thanks, everyone, for chiming in.

Stan: That's a good point. But I still don't think she'd be able to bring in enough votes. Backlash over insults alone isn't enough, else Sarah Palin would be VP now. What would you say makes Rice a great candidate?

Mr. Kurtz: Pleased to read you too. What would you say Rice could offer liberals that Obama doesn't already? Which voters would she be able to bring in that Romney couldn't secure without her?

I agree with you to some degree on Pawlenty. He would likely attract some of the mid-westerners that Romney has failed to attract, but there is reason he dropped out of the primary so early and I doubt very much that he would rally much of the left.

On Thune: He has as much experience as the sitting president had when he was first elected. Why hold vice presidential candidates to a higher standard than we hold our presidential candidates?

Thanks Cory. My suggestion that Romney ought to choose Roberts was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure whether or not a Supreme Court Justice, has ever run for the VP slot, but your question prompted me to do a bit of research and led me to the biography of Former Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes, who resigned from the Supreme Court in 1916 to run as the Republican presidential candidate. He narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson and later returned to the Supreme Court where he was made Chief Justice. I hadn't realized that Wilson had won by such a slight margin. Interesting to think of what might (or might not) have happened if Hughes had won.

I agree with your second paragraph and will not contest the idea that Obama would be able to out-liberal Roberts. In reality, I wouldn't expect Roberts to be able to attract many liberals at all.

However, I am not sure you're right about Roberts exciting more conservatives than Rice, though. While most conservatives are not excited about rice, Roberts has angered many in a way Rice never did.

I don't think Cheney would run. Bush allegedly had to twist his arm to get him to run at all and his health hasn't been the best.

Donald: A moderate Democrat might work, but probably not Nelson who won't even be seeking re-election this year. He lost a good deal of his conservative support in 2009. I think Bob Casey from Pennsylvania might be a good choice.

DuggerSD: You may very well be right. Running to the left certainly hasn't seemed to help Republicans in past elections and Sarah Palin did give McCain a temporary boost in the polls in the last election. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that Romney has enough support from conservatives to win on their votes alone. Why would you say Rice would work well?

[caheidelberger]

An interesting question, what torques off conservatives more: a Republican who says women have some rights over their bodies, or a Supreme Court Justice who affirms that we have some nominal right to health insurance?

[Miranda]

Nelson evoked anger, not simply because he voted in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but because he had billed himself as a pro-life candidate and therefore, pro-lifers felt betrayed.

Meanwhile, Roberts did not affirm that anyone had a right to health insurance. He merely ruled that the healthcare law was constitutional. Not at all the same thing.

(But for this conservative, a Republican who denies that an unborn child has the basic right to life is far more objectionable than a Supreme Court Justice who rules that a penalty is a tax.)

[duggersd]

Miranda, Rice is intelligent, articulate, been a secretary of state, not to mention other high levels of an administration. She knows Russia extremely well. Conservatives like her quite a bit. Nobody is going to make anybody happy 100%. Her views on abortion seem to be "slightly pro-choice". However, I doubt a President has much say as to what the law about abortion is going to be. Look at President Obama. He supports the killing of babies from botched abortions, yet that is not the law of the land--yet.
On the down side, Rice has said repeatedly she does not want to be Vice-President. She also has not run for elected office. But since the post was about Rice, I was only commenting on her. There are several candidates who are worthy. Rice is only one of them.

[larry kurtz]

Barnes is right, Miranda: you earth haters are screwed. Now, your party is fretting over whether Willard will even survive the convention where Jeb Bush could easily win a majority of delegates.

Willard has nothing to lose at this point; he should throw caution to the wind and bring Sarah Palin on board.

He knows he needs a stupid conservative western Protestant as a countervailing political figure to his aloof, cockered style and he needs to do it sooner rather than late or it looks like his rats are deserting the ship.

If I were John Thune, I'd run like Hell and not look back.

[Ken Blanchard]

I hearby nominate Cory's second post for the honor of Dumbest Comment not by Larry Kurtz.