Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would be the first to remind you that Romney still has a way to go to clinch mathematically the GOP nomination: he needs just under 500 delegates to go. But we're finishing up the month in the Northeast, a Romney stronghold, and those primaries alone will likely get him a third of the delegates he needs. Romney continues to poll better than Santorum against Obama state-wise and nationally, and electability is a key issue for most GOP voters.
Romney is beginning to close the sale; the House leadership, with the exception of Speaker Boehner, has endorsed him. Boehner earlier vowed not to endorse a candidate. Elizabeth Hartfield has pointed out other coveted endorsements, including Indiana's retiring Governor Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, and Nancy Reagan. For some odd reason, she left out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I want to point out the obvious: Indiana and Kentucky have their primaries coming up soon, and the Romney campaign may be waiting to make any related prized endorsements at that point of time. Santorum has gained no endorsements from his former Senate colleagues and just 6 from his former House colleagues (and half of those from his home state of Pennsylvania). In contrast, Romney, who hasn't served in Congress, has 19 Senate endorsements and 74 House endorsements. In the GOP governor endorsements, Santorum, once again, has no endorsements while Romney has 13. It is unthinkable that the two Mitch's (Daniels and McConnell) would endorse Santorum over Romney. Now, of course, Santorum will try to spin this all as the "establishment Republicans" wanting to impose their choice for President. What hubris! We are simply talking about Republicans from all sections of the party--moderate, Tea Party, etc., including most of the GOP rock stars of the Obama Era: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Bob McDonnell.
Romney has a cumulative 40% of actual votes cast to date in a multiple-candidate field; it's unthinkable that a convention could deny a nomination to a candidate whom, in good faith, has gone through the process and is clearly competitive with an incumbent President in the polls.
So, assuming the inevitability of Romney's nomination, the question is: who should Romney select as VP? Drudge Report today has a section of links dedicated just to this topic. McCain suggests a rerun of Sarah Palin. (McCain is still in a state of denial about his bad decision, one of the key reasons (but not the only one) he lost the 2008 election. Not a chance: the red states would vote Romney in with a red dog as VP. Romney doesn't need someone whom not only has high unfavorable ratings since her last VP campaign but whose resignation as governor has raised serious questions.)
Marco Rubio? This is the conventional choice; he is a strong, articulate conservative with the backing of key conservatives, like Jeb Bush. My personal feeling is that Rubio, who has repeatedly denied any interest in the VP slot, is the wrong choice. I think that Rubio, a Cuban-American, could mobilize the Latino community in the way that the Bushes have; the Bush brothers both speak Spanish and often got up to 40% or more of the traditional Democratic-leaning Latino base. There is a lot to be said about the symbolism of being the first political party to nominate a Latino on a national ticket. However, having spent my high school and college years with Latinos (I had close friends and have also dated Latinas), I would caution against any stereotypical political speculation about Latinos; for example, there are some nuances between Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans; they "don't all look alike". Voters resent being taken for granted and seen as being manipulated simply by ethnic identification (or even, in the case of Barack Obama, stereotypical issues, say, immigration reform). Many Latinos are worried about small business issues, educational choice, and (as predominantly Roman Catholic) culturally conservative issues and values. I haven't spoken with my Latino friends lately, but I suspect what would go further than naming a Latino to the ticket is less red meat politics and a more respectful tone on immigration policy which reaffirms family unity and acceptance of ethnic culture and diversity. I am not embarrassed by my folks speaking French in public, and I don't have a problem with other people communicating in the free market of languages.
Tim Pawlenty, Bob McDonnell, Mitch Daniels, or Bobby Jindal? I've made it clear I'm an admirer of each of these highly competent, effective governors and wouldn't have a problem with seeing any of them on a Romney ticket.
But I'm looking at Mitt Romney and his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, and as a fellow problem solver, I'm sure that Mitt Romney is analyzing his upcoming decision the same way. And I want to raise a name that I floated as a possible McCain running mate in 2008, and I think it makes even more sense in terms of a Romney candidacy. I'm absolutely convinced that if there wasn't already a Kay Bailey Hutchison, Romney would have had to invent her.
Senator Hutchison, the senior senator from Texas, is stepping down after this fall's election; two years ago she lost her attempt to run for Texas governor as the incumbent Rick Perry staved off her candidacy (I still can't understand how a 10-year Governor can run an outsider campaign!) So she is available, and bear with me: Romney has an issue with "soccer moms"; Senator Hutchison is Senator "Soccer Mom". (She even once proposed an IRA for homemakers.) Romney wants regional balance; do I need to remind people that another former Massachusetts governor reached out to a Texas senator for his ticket? (Note to Romney: Don't get caught on film riding a tank...) Not to mention a former Massachusetts senator--whom did win the Presidency.
Senator Hutchison has been a very popular senator with solid conservative credentials (and, like all successful Texas politicians, has decent ties with the Latino community) and has demonstrated experience and expertise in military and foreign policy matters, which perfectly balances and complements Romney's unquestioned business and economic prowess.
Finally, one can think of Kay Bailey Hutchison as a self-made politician (not, say, the wife of a former President) whom served as a state treasurer before being elected to the Senate, whom is a highly competent, experienced, less polarizing, accomplished female Senator, no token nominee by any stretch of the imagination.
Plus, there's an unexpected bonus to a potential Hutchison nomination: I bet you $10,000 that Hutchison's nomination would piss off former Presidential candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry. It would be totally worth it.
