On the Edge of Prediction: How Low Will Mitt Romney Go?

I have walked the edge of prediction for about two weeks now, and I am near.  The prediction is about who Mitt Romney will nominate as his Vice President.  Could it be Marco Rubio, the Teabag favoriteChris Christie, the Round Mound of Republican?  Will Romney pull a McCain and make a disastrous choice, or will he play it safe? 

I made my prediction in 2008 in April of 2008, and was correct.  OK, I lucked into running across a fanatical proto-teabagging site that was pushing the Palin choice, and I jumped on the bandwagon.  It seemed funny to me then, that John McCain, the maverick, would choose a whackjob merely because she was a woman and an unknown populist in her state.  We all know how that worked out.  This year is Mitt Romney makes this prediction much more difficult, though I will exercize my skills at prognostication soon.  Still, I mostly expect Mitt Romney to do something sane.  I wonder, as does Johnathan Capehart in the Washington Post

But when pressed for a reason why he would associate himself with someone so openly embracing a proven lie — and a racist one, at that — Mitt Romney could only muster this inadequate response. “You know I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he told reporters on his campaign plane on yesterday. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

This explanation has the same feel as the one Romney gave last year during a debate to swat back accusations that he hired undocumented workers. “So we went to the company, and we said, ‘Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake! I can’t have illegals!’ ” The propriety of hiring illegal workers didn’t seem to bother the former governor as much as the impact of doing so would have on his political ambitions.

At what price does Romney put political ambition aside to do or say the right thing? To stand up to the absurdity in his own party? To shut down the ignorant talk of his prominent supporters? Trump is hosting a fundraiser in Las Vegas for Romney this afternoon with a goal of $2 million. So Romney’s price is well north of that, it would seem.

Mitt Romney has taken too much, and too often, to his nickname of “R Money” to make this prediction easy.  He’s shown himself to be willing to sacrifice all semblance of sanity in the quest to “win,” like some sort of Charlie Sheen politician bent on “WINNING” above any semblance of morality or truth.  We’ve all seen the distortions and lies promulgated by the Romney campaign, lies and distortions that his own Mormon religion would not normally countenance, except for the emphasis on “WINNING,” a moral compass that has become the true core value of the Republican Party.  Perhaps this is not ever so clear as in Mitt Romney’s embrace of Donald Trump and his ugly birtherism.  As asked in this MSNBC article, why would Mitt romney associate himself with Donald Trump, clowny opportunist as he is?  Why would he stain himself so?  Is this simply about money, and the chance of WINNING?  The same question is asked here on Huffington Post, and also by Old School Republican George Will

“I do not understand the cost benefit here,” Will said. “The costs are clear. The benefit — what voter is going to vote for him because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious, it seems to me. Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics.”

There’s my dilemma.  I wish to make a sound prediction about who Mitt Romney will choose as his Vice President, but R Money, the man who has no moral compass besides “WINNING” keeps getting in the way.  DAMMIT, I hate agreeing with George Will, except as it pertains to baseball and arcane usages of the English language.  But Will is right as he notes that Romney will be R Money as much as it takes to win.  So who will he choose in the R Money role? 

I’m still thinking, but I’ll get back to you in the next week or so.


Related Articles

20 thoughts on “On the Edge of Prediction: How Low Will Mitt Romney Go?

  1. Not sure what to make of the “50.1%” comment. Does he think that’s what it takes to win? Or is that what he thinks the public thinks one needs to win? Even if he doesn’t know, certainly his campaign know what it takes to win, and that’s the Electoral College. Now if he said “50.1% in each state”, then I can come away thinking that he has a clue. You know, like enjoying firing people, for instance.

    I like to think I’m paying attention, and it doesn’t take long to realize that Romney needs to select a Veep who appeals to the battleground states. So what’s going to work in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and even possibly Texas (I know, Texas, right?). I won’t say that I can even begin to answer that. After all, McCain chose Palin.

    P.S. My biggest pet peeve has been the use of fat jokes in society. It’s a form of bullying, pure and simple. I hate it when the late night comics do it, and I’m not giving any passes here. Say what you will about how distasteful Chris Christie is, I think we can all agree that we can do it without the fat jokes. Let’s try to lead by example here. Thanks.

  2. I think that, as usual, Mr. Roboto will put his finger to the wind, and cluelessly choose a running mate in much the same way as McCain did, based upon factors neither he or any other white-bread. stick-up-the-ass white male Republican could possibly understand.

    I think that the Romney/Fehrnstrom brain-trust will realize that the woman’s vote is critical, conclude that all they have to do to make up for the long-standing Republican “War On Women” is to select a female running mate, and choose Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

    Alternatively, and in order to nail down the “elusive” older white male vote, they may decide on Rob Portman who combines the physical appeal and George W. Bush-era credentials of a Mitch Daniels with the personal dynamism and charisma of a Tim Pawlenty.

    Anyway, PRESIDENT Romney?! Yikes !!! (*shuddder*)

    All I can say is, “Thank God”, that this is JUST an academic discussion, you know, just “for grins”.

    OBAMA IN 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Kelly Ayotte is high on my list, Zuma. I’m just not sure she’d take the position. Portman? Also on the list, but he is too smart to take the position.

  4. My money is on Ayotte or Bob McDonnell of VA, and leaning toward McDonnell. Virginia is a must-win battleground state that has been leaning Democratic, and would be a nice pickup for Romney. Both of them have the “right” wingnut-“pro-life” credentials.

    1. If Romney picks the governor of the “vaginal probe” state, he might as well just phone this election in.

      If he picks Ayotte, it will just seem like Palin-redux. The Republican establishment doesn’t want that, and what the Republican establishment wants. . .

      In any event, I don’t think that Portman could refuse the nod, if it came. And, won’t THAT be fun. We’ll get to re-visit “the dunce years”, that national embarrassment better known as the George W. Bush Administration, you know, the one which Republicans now twist themselves into pretzels trying to avoid mentioning.

      Yes, won’t THAT be fun.

      Yeeee-hah! OBAMA 2012!!!

    1. That’s Markos who wrote that? Hmm. I’m not so sure. Picking a very boring white guy means betting the whole wad on Romney. I’m not seeing that.

      1. In the linked diary, Kos quoted an unnamed Romney campaign official as saying there was an emerging consensus that THE guy needed to be a “boring white guy”.

        Kos then quoted Mark McKinnon as saying that he agreed with that, and, further, that his money was on Portman being the designated “boring white guy”.

  5. Well, that’s why Portman won’t be chosen, Zuma, but the list is very narrow as far as I can tell. I’m really worried whether I can make an accurate prediction at all.

    Herm Cain?

    1. Herman Cain is a non-starter. He’s an absolute laughingstock, and Mitt Romney isn’t that stupid.

      My money’s on Portman, because he’s the safe, poll-tested choice for a candidate who doesn’t make a decision without running a poll first.

        1. Thus my suggestion of Cain. If Bachman were a man she’d be in the hunt, though she’s far from boring.

          To be serious, the teabaggers are going to need some excitement, and Portman might bring it, but I’d prefer they take Paul Ryan, who has, after all, found God lately and jettisoned poor Ayn Rand in the process.

          1. Well, I suppose that there’s always “Mr. Self-Promotion”, Donald Trump. That’ll bring in the birther crowd, right? What a “bonanza” of votes that would be, huh? Until, Trump sees diminishing self-promotional returns from pushing a theory EVEN he doesn’t believe.

            Let’s hear it for the “RMoney-Trump” ticket. Has kind of a “McCain-Palin” ring to it, doesn’t it? I mean, if you’re thinking in terms of true unelectability?

            Anyway, on the subject of birtherism, there is a new research “front” opening up:


            Dana Milbank of the Washington Post took note:

            “The time has come for Mitt Romney to prove once and for all: Is he or is he not a unicorn.

            Let me stipulate that I have no proof that Romney is a unicorn, and indeed I want to believe that he is not. But I have not seen proof of this because he has not released the original copy of his long-form birth certificate.”

            What’s THAT got to do with RMoney’s search for a running mate, you ask? Well, admittedly, not a lot. But, it’s funny, right? Ultimately, I couldn’t care less. Romney’s an inveterate liar and the ultimate, sleazy, slimy, vulture capitalist turned politician. His primary campaign, his selection of a running mate, anything he has to say or has ever said. . .I truly couldn’t care less. He represents the worst of American politics, and THAT is saying a lot.

            F*ck off, RMoney. No one cares who you pick.

  6. Oh, yeah. . .I forgot something:

    OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 !!!

    But, to make sure that this comment is “relevant” in some way to Steven’s post:

    RMoney-Who Cares? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. . .

  7. @ Steven

    No disrespect intended, brother. Just having a little fun at RMoney’s expense.

    How’s Jack, by the way? I hope that you’ll keep the Blogging Blue community posted on things as he grows up.

    1. I’m taking Jack to the singalong on Friday. He’s just fine. At 3 and a half he’s so much into the “terribles” that he makes you understand why there’s no commentary at all concerning when Jesus was that age.

        1. I hope to meet you someday, Zuma. I admire your wit, as well as your grasp of the obvious (facts).

Comments are closed.