E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLeaks are springing. Trial balloons are floating. Egos are being stroked. Wannabes are auditioning. And, chances are, lies are being told.
Somewhere, amid all of the shenanigans, Republican Mitt Romney is considering his choices for a running mate, one of the most significant decisions of his presidential campaign.
The secrecy that shrouds the selection of a modern presidential running mate has given rise to political sideshows that play out in public while the more serious search operation takes place at a largely subterranean level.
Names of new Romney short-listers emerge; others fall by the wayside.
Any kind of proximity to Romney — or his opponent — generates questions about GOP veep ambitions.
Why did Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire walk in a July Fourth parade with Romney? Why did Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota turn up in Ohio and Pennsylvania during President Barack Obama's Midwest bus trip? Why did Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio write a Cleveland newspaper column criticizing the president's policies just as Obama headed for the state?
Comments by Romney and his team are parsed for deeper meaning.
What to make of Ann Romney's remark this past week that women are under consideration? What about Romney's earlier comment that outspoken New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie "really is something"? Why did Romney pull back the veil last month to announce that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was being "thoroughly vetted" for vice president after reports to the contrary emerged?
Consultant Bob Shrum, who's worked on numerous Democratic presidential campaigns, says a closely held search operation is a good thing because it protects the people who open up their lives to the campaign to be thoroughly checked out as potential running mates.
But the lack of public information creates an opening for all sorts of political gamesmanship, including self-promotion by short-listers who aren't on the short list at all and denials by actual short-listers who feign nonchalance.
That makes it hard for voters to know what's real and what's simply for show. Which is just fine with Romney.
Take all the recent attention on Portman, busy raising his own profile. He invited reporters to an off-the-record dinner during the primaries, chatted them up on the press bus during a Romney tour of Ohio, and held a round-table with national media Saturday in New Hampshire, where he headlined a fundraiser for the state GOP. He said he was in the state "mostly on a college tour" with his daughter, but also expected to speak at some events in Boston on Monday to benefit Romney's campaign.
Who's really floating his name as a veep contender?
"Is that a Romney float or is that a Portman float or is that a friends-of-Portman float?" asks Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University. "You just don't know."
There's an easy remedy available to wanna-be contenders who've been left off the short list, says Light. All it takes is a well-placed whisper from a friend of a friend to land on the veep list.
"Instead of saying, 'I could've been a contender,' you can say, 'I am a contender' even if you're not," says Shrum.
No one's owning up, but Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., managed to get mentioned as a veep contender in 2008 although the notion that he was under consideration was laughable to GOP nominee John McCain's campaign.
Shrum, who worked on Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's 2004 campaign, when John Edwards was the running mate, says then-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson "very much wanted to be seen as being vetted in 2004, until he pulled his own name out of contention." Shrum's theory is that Richardson never wanted to be chosen, but wanted to make a name for himself in preparation for his own 2008 run for president.
Joel Goldstein, an expert on the vice presidency at Saint Louis University School of Law, said presidential candidates may try to flatter a politician or appease a voting bloc by letting it be known that a certain person is under consideration when that person doesn't have a chance. Some call that an "ego vet."
What really matters, says Goldstein, is who's been asked by the campaign to submit documents and answer questionnaires as part of a thorough vetting process.
Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist to McCain's 2008 presidential run, said campaigns are "very careful to have a very inclusive list of people" as potential running mates to avoid giving offense.
Last month, when word surfaced that Rubio wasn't being vetted, it could have created considerable grief for Romney in Florida and with Hispanics. Romney quickly came out and said that Rubio was being "thoroughly vetted."
More often, though, Romney clams up when asked about his search efforts.
That's a far cry from the vice presidential selection process of earlier decades, when candidates were paraded before cameras and, ultimately, very publicly ruled out, causing considerable embarrassment. Walter Mondale, the Democratic nominee in 1984, would fly potential running mates to Minnesota for interviews and hold joint news conferences.
More recently, candidates have gone to great lengths to keep their deliberations secret until they're ready to announce a choice.
When George W. Bush settled on Dick Cheney in 2000 more than a week before his running mate was to be announced, aides worried the secret might not hold. Campaign architect Karl Rove's solution: lie.
Rove told a campaign aide who was known to leak information to reporters, "Don't tell anybody — but it's going to be Danforth."
That evening, three networks reported that former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri had emerged as a top candidate for the GOP ticket.
"We'd gotten what we needed: a little breathing room for Cheney's announcement," Rove wrote in his memoir.
Too much secrecy, though, can prove problematic, particularly when a vice presidential choice is not well known.
George H.W. Bush's surprise announcement at the GOP convention in 1988 that he had selected Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana quickly overshadowed Bush himself when questions surfaced about Quayle's service in the National Guard during Vietnam.
"Within hours, it was attracting all the ink and TV time we had counted on for George's official rollout as nominee," James Baker, Bush's campaign chairman, wrote in his memoir.
Light said leaking names of serious contenders gives campaigns an opportunity to see what unsavory issues might be dredged up by interest groups and the press, and to find out whether the questions will peter out or mushroom. He likens it to entering a horse in lower-profile races before the Kentucky Derby.
"You want to see how your horse does under real conditions against strong competitors," Light said.
Romney promises to reveal his decision on a running mate before the GOP convention in late August but won't share much more.
When his wife was asked by CBS last week if she had a favorite candidate, she said, "I like to think that I have a few that I really like a lot."
Romney himself would add just three words: "What she said."
Leave a Comment:
The leaks are coming from the back of mitts pants. The lies from his mouth. The auditions are coming from the people who stand behind him. Just watch out for the leaks.
Smitty-4183671
it's all the same. You can flip-flop those two, and the result is the same.
smitty when has obama told the truth? NEVER just because people like you think your getting stuff for free your not.grow up then post again
When has any republican told the truth? I'm still waiting for that whopper bush told us about wmd's in iraq to pan out...back to faux news for idiots with you now
There is only one thing that keeps this little fake drama interesting - Willard has to pick someone less qualified and more boring than himself.
If he can do that, maybe that alone should get him some votes from the people that don't have two clues to rub together.
bones I'm self-employed. So tell me what am I getting for free. Stop talking out your a$$ by making assumptions. When you quit making assumptions about people post again.
People never lie so much as before an election....during a war and after a hunt.
...and politicians are professional liars.
Rick-546746
Bush will never say anything about the wars but the Senate Intelligence Committee did:
(...)To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa'ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses(...)
To read more:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
Starderup
Is that even possible?
It doesn't matter who he picks because anyone will be better than Joe Biden. It is amazing to me that President Obama and Vice-President Biden have been such failures and yet the left continues to think they're great. Maybe it's just the feeling of "it's better than Carter/Mondale".
This is all so transparent. Romney lacks the leadership skills he claims to have to make the decision himself. So, he's setting off all these trial balloons and will pick the one that the conservatives and polling results agree on.
That is what makes the thought of Romney as President very scary. We already had this type of "leadership" with G.W. Bush taking most of his advice from Cheney and the neo-cons and relying on bad intelligence, and he'll surely be going down in history as one of the worst U.S. Presidents.
JH as proven by FDR, all you have to do is make people feel like you actually care. The economy he had was worse. He tried everything and nothing worked.
oh its so much funny to poke fun at romney, but truth is who ever gets elected has to face a crisis, we are owned by china now, they buy our debt, we are spending trillions we do not have, any one who wants to be the president now has to be viewed as insane, that means obama too guys.its like fighting over who's the capitian of the titanic when its at the bottom.both paries have destroyed this country ,thanks guys
Pick Sarah Palin! that will seal Romney's fate real quick...
Sarah is so yesterday. He should pick Michelle Bachmann!
Oh, please, please pick Bobby Jindal, Saturday Night Live would get free material for 6 months. It is amazing Bobby the dufass is even allowed to speak publically but it is hysterical to watch.......
That probably is the only thing going through Romneycare's pointy little head: " Don't screw up like McCain. Don't screw up like McCain."
No matter who he picks, he is still going to be Romney - the Wall Street biatch.
@Max^108 ---“Pick Sarah Palin! that will seal Romney's fate real quick...” Such a choice would not surprise me in the least. I have read a few rumors here and there that she is being vetted. I am no devoted fan of Romney, but if I harbored any thoughts about voting for him, choosing Palin as his running mate would change my mind instantly.
falin palin is a great pic for mittens....
I know its just a trial balloon and mischief on someones part, but drafting Condi Rice would be one of the smarter things Romney could do. He's already surrounded himself with the old "W" staff so why not the Bush Secretary of State. Even this Commie Pinko Liberal respected her back then. But then she's somebody who can think for herself and that would never do for the GOP, plus she'd outshine Mitt plus d the right-to-life crowd would shun her. Come to think of it, it has always struck me as odd that she hangs around with Republicans. They should consider themselves as blessed.
Pick the little kid from Florida Willard, the entertainment won't be as good as Palin, but it will be fun.
I'd say that there is zero chance that he'll pick Rubio. Rubio is charismatic and thought provoking, but he lacks actual experience and would get hammered on that issue. The other problem is that Rubio is charismatic and thought provoking, which Romney is not. The last thing Romney needs is a running mate who sucks all of the air out of the room.
Romney only floats the idea that Rubio is in consideration so that he doesn't turn off the few Latino's who are still actually considering voting for him. He can't afford to lose Florida.
Does anyone really care about the VP? Both BO and MR are relatively young and healthy.
Two factors that have very little to do with whether someone decides to take a shot at them from some book repository.
Both are pretty much hated by the opposing side. Almost psychoticaly so.
But accidents happen, and there are plenty of nuts out there with guns.
Hey, Rummey the Dummy should pick that guy from Florida! That way he would ensure himself of at least one latino vote. I pitty the fool that he picks. Whoever it is, will see their political life go down the toilet. I can see the headlines now, "Rummey picks Estupido from Florida"! Poor bastard!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 MOVING AMERICA FOREWARD!!!
foreward to what? like his hope and cahnge? where has it gotten us? ill tell ya in debt!
Obama has increased the debt at the lowest rate of any President going back to before Reagan. I wish you teabaggers would keep your stupidity to yourselves.
U.S. Total National Debt to GDP ratio:
1992 – 60% (Bush Sr. last year in office)
2000 – 60% (Clinton last year in office)
2006 – 63% (Last year of Republican Congress)
2008 – 70% (Bush Jr. last year in office)
2009 – 85% (Obama 1st year in office)
2010 – 93% (Obama 2nd year in office)
2011 – 102% (Obama 3rd year in office)
2012 – 105% (estimated to exceed)
Starderup, you care to share any backup to your claim? Or is it part of your politically correct outcome based math education? No matter what one thinks of Obama, the fact is, he has increased the National Debt more than any other President, Dem or Rep. In fact, he has increased the National Debt more than the first 41st Presidents combined and more within two years than the entire 8 years of George W Bush.
@Peter17
Those are very misleading and deceptive numbers, Peter. Should I explain them or are you honest enough to interpret them? Did you really misunderstand the thrust of Starderup's statement? Is Engilsh your first language? His point seemed quite clear. So you think that since bushco buried Obama with a mountain of debt, that should count against his (Obama's) debt management? That's a really lame post,Peter. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous quote:"There are 3 kinds of lies:Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Are you a liar,Peter?
Romney a dummy? Ever tried to get an MBA from Harvard? We've got a bunch of people with GED's on here calling people dummies. LOL
What's a veepstake?
As bad as exlax ETCH-A-SKETCH is losing the Latinos (His OWN PEOPLE), ALL of the MIDDLECLASS and ALL the WOMEN, he'll have to try something to steal some votes from our illustrious President Obama! My guess is he'll pick a WOMAN for a running mate! He needs all the help he can get to keep from looking TOTALLY EMBARRASSED on election day! He already knows he lost even with ALL that SUPER POOP MONEY spent on him by the corrupt Republican corporate MONARCHY! We are no longer going to be their SLAVES!
99% American People, vote 100% STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC and let's rid our selves of their corruption! The lives you save WILL be YOURS & your CHILDREN! BELIEVE IT!!!
A female running mate might not be a bad choice for him. The Republican War on Women has hurt them pretty bad with this voting block, especially with younger woman who don't like to be called whores for using contraceptives.
Speaking of the "War on Women", just look at who in Congress voted against the Ban of Gender Selection in Abortions. We all know the vast majority who "Chooses" to abort their own child (no choose for the child), for gender selection aborts the girl to try again for a boy. A Congress legalizing the killing of children for gender selection knowing fully that it is because they would rather to try for a boy later on is a "War on (future) Women" indeed
I hope you're right,TR Rose, but I think you're wrong. "There's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip." This isn't a done deal. I suspect that unless the country gets much more motivated against Romney, this will be disturbingly close. I'm not sure that Obama's supporters are as fervent this time. I know I'm not. And I know that Romney's "supporters" tolerate him at best. Who can get out the voters? Can the repugnicans succeed at voter fraud and suppression again?
It SHOULD be a rout, but probably won't. This is an electorate that elected Raygun even after he declared war on unions. An electorate that twice allowed the vote to be close enough for bush to steal it. An electorate that elected Nixon AFTER we knew about Watergate. No thinking, objective American who is impartial about color and informed on issues could pick Romney. But that's not most Americans, is it? Barring a catastrophic screw up by one or the other, it will be close. Let's hope he picks Bachmann.
Who's Highpitch?
If he picks Christie they'll have to change it from Running mate to Waddling mate.
Christie would be awesome. Imagine the first time he looks at Romneycare and asks, "What are you, stupid?"
LOL
I like Christie. I don't agree with his positions on some issues, but I like his style and can respect him.
The problem is that after he made such a big deal about not running for president during the primary, when everyone was looking for alternative to Romney, I would find it hypocritical of him to run for VP.
Maybe if Christie decides to run in 2016 I'll give him some serious consideration, but if he jumps into 2012 as a VP ticket I'll lose all respect for him.
The other problem is that people like Christie a lot more than they like Romney. See my earlier post about Rubio sucking all of the air out of the room if Romney were to choose him.
Christie is a rude person and wouldn't make a good VP. I'm not interested in having a chasmatic or singing president. All I'm concerned about is Romney's political platform and how he intends to get this country moving again and get people back to work. Which I believe he can do. As far as the VP, anybody but Biden will do for me.
deleted
Will the VP Candidate, whoever it is, have to release their college transcripts? Afterall, Obama does not. Who would want to release college transcripts showing one got a Foreign Student Scholarship at Occidental and only attending one of two years despite claming to attend Columbia University for two years? It is ok, Obama, we are only interested in the truth.
kurt's comments When has college transcripts become something one has to release to become President. PLEASE tell us what other Presidents have released their college transcripts. Were all waiting!
The transcripts are not the issue. It is the possibility that there is a pattern of incorrect statements on documents, in order to advance through a system (paid by others)
Smitty, The Media Elite have stated the grades in college of BOTH Rep Bush and Dem Kerry due to their release of College Transcripts. Of course, Obama, will not release his as it is more than just grades that he has to worry about during his "college years". Did Obama actually go to Columbia in 1981 or was it to Pakistan in 1981 or is Columbia University in Pakistan in 1981? Professors & other students only recall him there during the fall 1982 to 1983 school year but Obama claims to have attended there starting in the Fall of 1981. Also, virtually everyone would be proud to state the type of scholarship they received to attend college, why would Obama keep so secret the type of scholarship he received to attend Occidental?
The Birther issue became moot so they needed something else to jump on.
Enjoy your conspiracy theories. I'll just be standing over here with a straight jacket and tranq gun.
Yes, Iowa - Guy, in your mind, requesting the truth is a "Conspiracy Theory". Was asking for Bush's or Kerry's college transcripts a "Conspiracy Theory"? Of course not, same for Obama. Just because you want to keep certain information hidden from the public does not make those seeking the truth of that hidden information as a "Conspiracy Theory". Instead of calling others as "Conspiracy Thories", just defend why or why not Obama should release his college transcripts as has done all the other recent Convention endorsed Presidential Candidates on the Democratic and Republican tickets.
I wonder if you're as worked up about Romney's tax records and offshore banking records as you are about Obama's college transcripts. I think financial records mean a bit more.
As a young man, Obama travelled to Madrasah's in Karachi Pakistan, Hyderabad in India, the most muslim city in India established in 1591 by the mulsim Mohgal leader Sultan Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah, as well as the muslim country on the planet Idonesia.
Where did he get the cash for that?? And what passport did he use?
Thomas Blue, Romney released his tax records which showed he was almost as wealthy as Democratic Candidate Kerry, mute point. So what is your problem with Obama's College Transcripts being released? He should be proud of his Scholarship that he received to attend Occidental, why is he so embarrased about it? His own "Autobiography" claims to be at Columbia from 1981 to 1983, why not back it up with College Transcripts? Heck, in that case, I will claim I attended to Columiba University for two years without any backup and Professors/Students only claiming knowing of me being there for one of the years.
VOX66 - the whole point is that whatever your waiters earn in tips does not come out of your pocket as a business owner, DOES IT???
Why is leaks, lies, etc any news?? Just American politicans working the system...
Every 4 years, we see how messed up the election system, but the politicians love it... The people's interest....down the tube, again...
Bayille - it appears you are another far left liberal nutcake who wants more hope and change! Good luck if you find it from your liar-in-chief. The transparency-in-chief, and the idiot-in-chief. You losers are the prime reason this country is in such a mess because your brains are warped.l
Couldn't we eliminate this kind of nonsense and just have a simple, respectful honest discussion about issues? This post is supposed to be about Romney's choice (or choosing) for vice president.
Gratuitous insults add nothing. And lord knows most of the country has more than enough hot air this summer already!
ADDED U.S. Deficit Under GW Bush:
Afghanistan and Iraq wars: $1.969 TRILLION (all UNFUNDED and still continuing)
Bush Tax Cuts to Rich: $1,812 TRILLION (all UNFUNDED and continuing)
Non-Defense: $606 BILLION
TARP and BAILOUTS: $224 BILLION
Medicare drug benefits: $180 BILLION
2008 Stimulus, etc: $773 BILLION
Added Deficit Under Obama:
Stimulus: $711 BILLION
Non-defense: $278 BILLION
Tax Cuts: $425 BILLION
Health Care Reform: $52 BILLION
Total BUSH: $5.507 TRILLION NEW DEBT.
Total Obama: $1.44 TRILLION NEW DEBT
Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2011 (Right Wing Rupert Murdoch newspaper)
Is that the new liberal math? Here is some help with your numbers:
2001: +1.3% (9/11) (Deficit as % GDP)
2002: -1.5% (invasion of Afghanistan)
2003: -3.5% (invasion of Iraq)
2004: -3.6% (Bush tax cuts)
2005: -2.6% DEFICIT REDUCTION (Hurricane Katrina)
2006: -1.9% DEFICIT REDUCTION (Democrats win elections)
2007: -1.2% DEFICIT REDUCTION (democrats assume power/write budget)
2008: -3.2% deficit triples
2009: -9.9% deficit triples again (worst deficit in 65 years)
2010: - 9.5% (second worst deficit in 65 years)
*Note - Federal income also increased in EVERY year between the tax cuts and the first Pelosi budget.
SOURCE : US Government statistical Abstract (Table 469)
Oh yes, the magic Pelosi conspiracy theory.
The magical Nancy Pelosi, after taking control of the House in Jan. of 2007 managed to pass unnamed, unknown legislation in 2007 that was so secret and magical, that President Bush signed it into law without even knowing what it was. In just a few months this unknown, unnamed secret legislation single handedly created the great recession, blowing away all of the jobs that President Bush worked so hard to create with the two unfunded wars, the unfunded Medicare benefit and the tax cuts. The damage done by the magical Pelosi was so severe that tax cuts no longer work as job creators.
The facts are there. Kinda hard to blame Bush for all that spending when he was not even in office.
Spending decreased after Bush left. That is a fact. Look it up.
Take a trip down memory lane anyone?
When Jimmy Carter left office in January 1981, America's GDP had grown to $2.7689 Trillion. This reflects a full 30% GDP growth in just 48 months under Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter's National Debt increase $275 billion
When Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, the GDP was $2.7689 trillion.
When Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989, the GDP was $5.0619 trillion.
The GDP basically doubled during 8 years of Ronald Reagan.
George H.W. Bush GDP growth after 4 years was $1.2 trillion.
Bill Clinton GDP growth after 8 years was $3.7 trillion, a balanced budget, and budget surpluses.
When we look at George W. Bush's 8 years as president, we must consider the following:
1.2000 dangling chad fiasco in Florida
2. The Dot Com bust
3. The Tech bubble and the NASDAQ collapse slide from 6000 points to 1200
4. $6 trillion lost from the 401Ks of Americans
5. The new millennium computer scare and fiasco
6. 911 and airline bankruptcies
7. The Afghanistan war and the Iraq war
8. The housing bubble and bust.
9. The stock market bust
10. The aging "Baby Boomer"
Under absurd economic conditions, the GDP under the George W. Bush administration grew by an insane $5.3 trillion.
Now let's look at Barack Obama!
Barack Obama has been in office for 39 months. During this time period, U.S. GDP growth has basically come to a standstill. The GDP was approximately $14.29 trillion when President Barack Obama took office. Currently the GDP is approximately $ 14.7 trillion.
The national debt, in this same time period has grown to over $14.7 trillion. The GDP may grow to $15 trillion for 2012. The national debt will increase to $16.7 trillion in early to mid-2013.
The economy will grow by approximately $700 billion over a full 4 year period; the national debt, on the other hand, will have grown by $6.4 trillion. This is an average of $1.6 trillion a year in deficit spending. Just Obama's deficits alone would have funded almost "5" full Bill Clinton budget years.
Jimmy Carter is an economic genius compared to Barack Obama! History will not be kind to Barack Obama and his inept handling of our economy and Federal deficits. It is going to be brutal.
Peter17 will soon inform you that the Bush administration ended in 2006 and that the Clinton years were all budget tricks.
Really. But compare 1932 with 1929 and Obama will look like a genious. He had to follow the policies of George Bush who gave the money back to the people remember and he is still doing it. You can't look at the results always. You have to look at the reasons. 2 unending wars, uncontrolled immigration, looking the other way for the financial and housing crisis, billions if not trillions in tax cuts. If you just compare beginning an end you have a picture but the cover of a book is not important as the insides of the book. And if you look at the country when Bush took control and when he left using what is on the inside it is disastrous. Some even forget during the last Bush year we had the highest gas prices ever. Of course people like Gingrich want to manipulate facts and say it aint so. But it is/was. Bush made the messes Obama has had to clean them up and he is doing a great job. I just don't see why people don't realize that. Is it because they are looking at the cover of the book instead of what is inside the book. We could be like they were in 1932. Is that what the republicans are whining about. They wanted Obama to fail so they could continue their reign? Didn't work did it. All the rhetoric in the world won't change anything. Look at the details right down to Bin Laden who you won't give credit for that either. That was like saying Clinton was responsible for getting Saddam Hussein. It is what is inside the book and administration that counts. I supported Bush when he was president but now realize he was an utter failure. And I think he personally knows that too. In everyone way possible for this country.
GDP was MINUS 6-5% when Bush finally got his dead ass out of the Whitehouse.
If there was any chance of me voting for Romney, the selection of Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana as his VP mate, would drop the chance to absolute zero. Having Bobby Jindal just a heart beat away from the presidency is something I don’t even want to imagine.
Billy, Jindal kinda reminds you of Palin, doesn't it? By the way, where is that horse face?
Governor Jindal is an intellectual, extremely bright and innovative.
He has been a great success as Governor, and has shown great leadership on education reform especially.
After the corrupt incompetent Democrats who preceded him in Louisiana, Jindal has been a breath of fresh air.
He would make a great VP!
Face it Republicans, you're stuck with the runt of the litter, MitWit Romney. In the primary Cain, the 999 man was going strong and, he even had Elizabeth Hasseldorks support for a while. Then came the serial adulterer Gingrich and after that the religious nut Santorum had his day in the sun. Romney never once got above 30% support amongst Republicans and never will. So stick your plastic bumbling flip flopping fool in front of the American people and be embarrassed come November. Obama/Biden 2012
Any of the names mentioned would be better than Joe Biden. The guy plagerized, he's not good on the spot, and he has a history of lying. He has embarassed Obama on many occasions.
Biden has turned out better than expected I think. At first it was oh my but he has settled in okay. YOu can look at it this way. At least he hasn't shot anyone yet.
Mittens needs somebody to energize his base- He should consider a woman either Palin, Bachmann or even Sharon Angle from Utah
LMAOATWh
I am not sure who would be worse. Probably Bachmann because she has a louder mouth. And she goes on and on and on and sometimes it seems like she knows what she is talking about. She doesn't but it seems that way for a while.
Wow exciting isn't it? What happens when their trial balloons go pfffft? There seems to be about as much excitement as a flat tire or worn out shoe or something. What is wrong with saying here is the long or short list and interviewing people? And making a decision? That persons career is probably going the tubes anyway except maybe they could get a job on Fox News next year. They could get rich that way.