For John McCain, the conventional wisdom is that he needs a running mate with most of the following attributes: a conservative record; youth and vigor; sufficient experience to take over; economic expertise; solid domestic-policy experience; and some ineffable quality that will add “sizzle” to such a known quantity. That’s on top of general political talent, and maybe a swing state to bring over. The thing to avoid most assiduously is a ticket that looks like the too-familiar, traditional White Male Wasp pairing, that will look old and tired next to the exciting color and newness of Barack Obama’s ticket.
In reality, of course, the unfortunate fact about a vice-presidential pick is that a bad one can hurt you, and a good — even great — one won’t help much. Looking at the more frequently mentioned politicians that John McCain is said to be considering, it is clear that there is no really dazzling choice. The danger he faces is failing to discern which otherwise neutral qualities would be deal breakers this year. The wrong flaws could detract measurably from the ticket.
Mitt Romney, the object of this week’s buzz, looks great on paper (and in person). He is well versed in economics and business, which is McCain’s most serious lack. Romney is youngish, vigorous, and articulate. He is smart and an accomplished technocrat. He was a governor. He has been vetted by the national media in his own campaign, and he doesn’t need lengthy introductions. Should be open and shut. But Romney is a disaster waiting to happen.
Consider that it wasn’t only the media that vetted Romney during his interminable primary campaign. GOP voters took a good look and said no thanks, despite the record amounts of his own money that Romney spent, per vote. Mitt was still on the shelf when he hit his “sell by” date.
That wasn’t because he is a Mormon. It’s because he comes from and visibly embodies a patrician background. He is a bit prissy in debates, with top notes of arrogance. His manner is a little cold and distant, and he lacks the instinct for connecting with real people. He radiates a kind of elitism that repels, rather than attracts, the “Sam’s Club” Republicans (analogous to the blue-collar Democrats) who are this year’s prized swing voters. His picture-perfect family, with the handsome sons and blonde daughters-in-law, should be a draw. I’ll wager that the very same perfection irritated many Americans whose families don’t hang together so neatly — myself included. At the end of the day, his technocratic, problem-solving bent, an asset in a bureaucrat, undermines the most important quality of a president: a good gut. If the phone rings at 3 A.M. you can’t call the best minds at MIT. You need your own solid core of principles.
Tom Ridge, former governor of Pennsylvania and secretary of homeland security, also getting current attention, is also a terrible pick. Ridge might have blue-collar appeal, and might be helpful in Pennsylvania — which is a key state. But he is so boring and clunky that he will never be a useful surrogate. I defy anyone who has ever heard him speak to recall anything other than the drone. He is the anti-charisma candidate, in a campaign that needs a new point of interest. His pro-choice views will be a great asset with moderate voters and a great defect with social conservatives. If he were otherwise fabulous it might be worth risking. But he is a plodder. More important is that he didn’t do a good job at Homeland Security, setting up or running the organization. Bottom line: too unsexy.
