A Provocative Addition
Late last week, The Weekly Standard ran an editorial advising Mitt Romney to "go bold" with his choice of running mate, with special emphasis placed on the attractiveness of Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio as potential number twos. Now comes this interesting addition:
As of Friday, when we wrote the editorial, we’d been led to believe [Chris] Christie wasn't in serious consideration. We now have reason to think he may be. So to be clear: We'd certainly include him with Ryan and Rubio as potential gold medal finalists. As to choosing among the three of them? A photo finish. But choosing a VP candidate who will help Romney run a big, forward looking campaign—that is not a close call.
OK, Ricochetti: as the beating heart of the conservative moment, it only seems right that you be the tie-breakers. If your choices for the final three are Christie, Ryan, and Rubio, who would you prefer?
- Comment (91)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
Paul Ryan!
- seasoned Washington veteran
- very smart
- non-scary conservative
- young and Catholic
- Swing state, baby!
Edited on August 8, 2012 at 8:26amMay '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
I think Ryan and Rubio have important work to do in the House and Senate, respectively, and would hate to lose them to a job not worth a bucket of warm spit.
That leaves Chris Christie by default. Sure, New Jersey still needs him, but I don't care what New Jersey needs.
Dec '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
I have problems with all three:
Mitt will want to govern as managerial progressive and Christie will do little to push back. Plus, evidently, Christie has an "Islam problem". Here's Daniel Pipes: "Time and again he has sided with Islamist forces against those who worry about safeguarding American security and civilization."
I'm happy to have Christie as an attack dog but he's the wrong guy for VP.
I think we need Ryan's in the house because his expertise makes him the best available leader for upcoming the budget battles.
Regarding Rubio: I prefer to see experienced leaders in the Executive. This is my only objection to Palin. (Not that I wouldn't gleefully vote for a ticket with either of them in the VP slot.) And I fully agree with Lucy's point about needing Rubio in the Senate.
But the way the question was asked I was given an alternative between three choices; not asked who else I might prefer. I would have to go with Ryan. Between Mitt and Ryan we would have the most top-heavy Executive, in terms of financial/budgetary subject matter expertize, in history. We're going to need it.
Nov '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
1. Rubio
2. Christie
3. Ryan
Rubio is more conservative than Christie and Hispanic. Christie is a no-holds-barred tough guy, more of a brawler than Rubio, but Rubio is as good a speaker as they come. Rubio is less of a wild card, Christie has been known to step in it a time or two.
And Christie believes in global warming. Big minus.
Ryan just doesn't impress me as the VP type. Every time I hear him speak I think, "he's a smart guy with good ideas." But at his heart and soul he is a legislator, not an executive type. Clearly, Christie is way above Ryan in executive skills, and Rubio too, though the hat tip goes to Christie as being the most executive. Still, I like Rubio best overall.
Nov '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
If you're going to dream, Lucy, dream big: Aslan!
Nov '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
It's a fringe issue left over from the birther days. The President must be a natural born citizen, which oddly enough does not mean that one must be born in the US, or even that one's parents were citizens at the time of one's birth. It merely means that your parents owed allegiance to the US at the time of your birth if you were born outside of the US.
Jul '11
Re: A Provocative Addition
Ryan. Stop. He's only a first name away from the coolest fictitious president ever.
-E
Dec '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
Ryan. I wanted him for the top spot. I'll settle for Veep.
May '12
Re: A Provocative Addition
Rubio my first choice, for what he can bring to the ticket, although he will be smeared over past financial dealings.
I love Ryan the best, but believe he serves best where he is until 2015 or 2019, when he should be the top of the ticket.
Christie would work well too, and would be a great orator for the ticket, mopping up with Biden and shining the floor with Obama.
Nov '10
Re: A Provocative Addition
To keep to the premise of the question: Ryan, Rubio, Christie (who wants to take my sidearms).
But, if the field were open, I'd make it Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Paul Ryan, in that order.
Jun '12
Re: A Provocative Addition
I don't like wasting potentially great leaders on the VP office. My theory about the VP is that if the president is a Conservative, like Reagan, then the VP benefits when he makes his bid for president. If the president is less Conservative, like Romney, then I think his vice president won't benefit much from serving with Romney. I think Americans tend to prefer a presidential candidate who is either firmly Conservative or firmly Liberal, not the in-between candidate. Romney seems too in-between to me and the Conservative voters I talk with. Therefore, I don't think association with Romney will help further the career of anyone who wants to continue in American politics after his service as vice president.
I like the 'idea' of Ryan being Romney's running mate, because I like the notion that Ryan would push Romney to the right. However, I don't actually think the vice president has that much power.
Let Rubio work in the Senate.
Christie is not a Conservative. He has said some true things about unions in a fun way, but his overall suitability as a national candidate is non-existent.