So Real Clear Politics says that Romney’s short list for Vice President is down to Paul Ryan, Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal. I’ll focus on Pawlenty and Jindal fora moment.
First, let’s remember that Romney’s real running mate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the economy turns bad enough, fast enough, it hardly matters who Romney selects. The same is true if the next four jobs reports show job growth of over 200,000 per month. In a lot of ways, the things that happen can overwhelm anything the Obama and Romney campaigns choose to do. But today’s jobs report indicates a deeply ambiguous situation. I heard Larry Sabato on FOX News explaining that the polarization of the electorate and kind of economic news we have been getting in the last few months has created a situation in which we are headed for a very close election in which the quality of the campaigns and the candidates are likely to be decisive if current trends persist (which they may not – Europe’s banking system could explode on Monday or in 2014.)
Given current trends, Obama’s best chance is paint Romney as an out-of-touch greedhead who will outsource your job, take away your health insurance, and convert your momma’s Medicare into coupons so that he can give his rich friends huge tax cuts. Given that Romney has come out for premium support Medicare and Romney is just not that good at talking about right-leaning health care policy, these attacks could gain some traction. I don’t think that there is much consolation to be had from pointing out that it is tough to paint a moderate former Massachusetts governor like Romney as an ideological extremist. He doesn’t have to be painted as an ideologue exactly. It is enough to convince a crucial fraction of the public that Romney is a guy who doesn’t care about them and has some really bad ideas. So with this in mind, is Pawlenty or Jindal the better choice for Romney?
As a matter of style and first impressions, I’d say it was Pawlenty. Pawlenty was a moderately conservative governor of a Midwestern state. He cut public spending and maintained public services. He has already run for President once, so the press corp has a certain familiarity with him. He seems mentally stable, has executive experience, stays on the Romney campaign’s script, and seemingly has no skeletons in his closet. He has a history of winning over the working-class white swing-voters that Romney needs, and Pawlenty’s working-class roots won’t hurt either. It seems like it would be tough for the Obama campaign to paint a Romney-Pawlenty ticket as a couple of extremists.
That’s the positive on Pawlenty. I’m going to start with the negative on Jindal. Remember the explosion of loathing that greeted Palin? It’s what is going to happen if any non-white male is put on the Republican ticket. There will be a quick movement to turn that non-white male into the Other. Imagine if your introduction to Obama had been something along the lines of “a confessed college cocaine user, who is an ex-employees of an anti-American terrorist, who bought his house with timely help from a criminal influence peddler and who got the title of his second book from his racist and paranoid preacher.” That will be the initial reaction from the left-of-center media to a Jindal nomination. If Jindal gets picked, his college “exorcism” will, overnight, become the most famous supernatural event of the last 1950 years. You won’t have to watch the news to know all about it.
But I still think that Romney should, given a constrained choice, pick Jindal over Pawlenty. If Jindal, and the Romney campaign handle it right, the likely hysterical response to Jindal will work in the Romney campaign’s favor. When Jindal comes across as a reasonable, well informed, and competent guy, the extra attention will make Jindal more likeable and more people will listen harder to what Jindal has to say. Remember that Palin’s popularity went up after her convention speech. It was only the combination of the financial crisis, the McCain campaign’s ineptitude, several Palin interview stumbles, and (never forget) the McCain campaign’s ineptitude that made the Palin nomination problematic (and not the biggest or the second biggest of the McCain campaign’s problems.)
At the end of the day, the best way for Romney to defuse charges of extremism is to win the argument on those charges. Moving to premium support Medicare will sound scary. It will sound scary even if the Republican ticket is that “hey, didn’t he used to be a moderate” guy from Massachusetts and the nice guy from Minnesota. Most people don’t care how nice you seem if they think you are going to take away their health insurance and deny their parents health care. Pawlenty will dutifully repeat whatever semi-responsive talking points the Romney campaign dreams up to counter Obama’s forthcoming Mediscare campaign, but, from what I’ve seen, Jindal is just a lot better.
There would be other potential advantages to a Jindal pick. Jindal would probably do more to fire up Republican voters. Pawlenty is conservative, but Jindal is “a conservative.” Nobody has ever called Pawlenty the next Reagan. Now I don’t think that waiting and hoping for another Reagan is healthy, but the Reagan-Jindal comparisons give some idea of the enthusiasm with which conservatives would greet a Jindal nomination. Jindal’s record as governor of cutting spending, cutting taxes, encouraging energy exploration, maintaining public services, and having below-the-national-average unemployment serves as a good comparison with the record of the Obama administration.
July 6th, 2012 | 11:00 pm
[...] Off on June Jobs ReportABC News (blog)Jobs Report And Politics: The Monthly Spin CycleNPR (blog)First Things (blog)all 3,597 news [...]
July 6th, 2012 | 11:06 pm
I share your appreciation of the qualities Jindal could bring as Veep to the Romney campaign. But his recent appearance on Meet the Press (last weekend) with Howard Dean leads me to think he lacks an ability for strong defense when it comes to face to face verbal fighting.
Dean may be a bully, regardless Jindal didn’t come across very well. Dean made Jindal look flustered. I suspect that Biden–while not as manically adamant as Dean–would still be able to bully Jindal.
Pawlenty, of course, lacks the guard dog growl too.
Insofar as Obama is attempting to frame the election in terms of a choice and not a referendum, and given Romney’s general campaign style emphasizing competence over inspiration, then it seems some sort of guard doggishness would be helpful. Nonetheless, Romney needs to keep up an attack on Obama in terms of his record as President.
July 7th, 2012 | 12:46 am
I thought this exchange with Gov. Christie was unfortunate but interesting, and it is ultimately defensible. Still, this kind of guard doggishness could quickly become clownish. So for Veep it’s a fine line between Jindal’s sincerity and intelligence and Christie’s feistiness. Is that Paul Ryan?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/america-ready-jersey-shore-vice-president-201245709.html
July 7th, 2012 | 7:53 am
[...] Off on June Jobs ReportABC News (blog)Jobs Report And Politics: The Monthly Spin CycleNPR (blog)The Veepstakes: Pawlenty, Jindal, And The Politics Of ExtremismFirst Things [...]
July 7th, 2012 | 7:59 am
I am almost wondering if Rob Portman isn’t the smartest of those 4. I am not saying Rob Portman is a guard dog, but he isn’t clownish either (ever). It is a sort of testament to the importance of Ohio, in a close electoral match up that might put Rob Portman on the map. His old Cincinnati district leans republican, but he always picked up more than 70% of the vote… (this is marginally more impressive than it looks, new 2nd district is demographically even more republican, 64.7% McCain… so that is a rather weak 7-13% outperform, but keep in mind 2010 redistricting. In the district(post-2010) in which Rob Portman routinely scooped over 70% (72-77%) of the vote… that old 2nd district was only 59% McCain. So that is looking like an 13-18% premium. Portman is unlikely in my opinion to deliver that sort of an outperform, VP’s may not matter. Still if he could bring just 6.5% of that in the second, and something like a 3% boost statewide in Ohio, it could be enough to win Ohio. For the Senate he outspent Fisher considerably, and benefited from the 2010 momentum peak, still 18.5% above the democrat state wide… Technically Romney might be happy with 1% above the democrat statewide in Ohio, and Portman might make something like this more likely. Except for maybe a few farmers who felt shorted by the moves he made to reduce agricultural subsidies, everyone sort of likes Portman in Ohio,(if they have heard of him).
It is a sort of solid choice, that folks in Ohio won’t take as blantantly misrepresenting/offsetting Mitt Romney. Portman is sort of under the radar, because he doesn’t really bother to use the press for leverage in negotiations, so he isn’t really a personality. He certainly isn’t national in the way a Pawlenty, Ryan, Christie or Jindal are. So he hasn’t really said anything to make much of a memorable splash. My guess is he has the lowest unfavorables…and he isn’t charismatic as a personality, so he doesn’t spark contrast with the top of the ticket.
Portman would of course be the politics of less extremism…
July 7th, 2012 | 8:20 am
John, I didn’t see Jindal and Dean but I trust your judgement on his performance. Every time I’ve seen Jindal discuss economic or (more specifically) health care policy, he creates the impression that a) he knows what he is talking about and and b) his ideas are common sense rahter than liberal or conservative and c) it will be all right. Not a lot of Republican speakers are able to create that impression.
I’ve seen Pawlenty talk for Romney a few times. Pawlenty’s fidelity to the Romney script is impressive (to the extent such a thing can be called impressive.) I just don’t think that sticking to the Romney script, in itself, is optimal. That doesn’t mean going OFF SCRIPT, but being able to give a more in-depth explanation of say premium support Medicare or why IPAB is a worse idea than premium support would be helpful for when the discussion pushes beyond the scripted talking points.
I like Ryan a lot. Probably more than Jindal or Pawlenty, buy I don’t think he would be a good choice for VEEP. His Ryan Roadmap combined a middle-class tax increase with sharp cuts to high earners and would likely have unwound employer-provided health insurance very quickly. http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2010/08/suppporting-the-ryan-roadmap-takes-courage.php
The first version of his Path to Prosperity included larger Medicare cuts than his revised version and his second version includes (especially in the out years) immense cuts to discretionary domestic spending.
Ryan is better at talking about economic policy than any other Republican that I’ve see, but that is a lot to talk your way out of. Ryan has also never had an executive position. Pawlenty and Jindal can point to their records of fiscal consolidation and say “we cut spending and things turned out okay.” Ryan can’t say that. He just has to explain some really radical-sounding proposals.
July 7th, 2012 | 8:23 am
John Lewis, I’ve seen Portman a couple of times, have read some articles on him, and I have no read on him at all one way or another.
July 7th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
Pete, thanks. I like Jindal, but some will note the particular brand of Jindal’s Catholicism. The New Oxford Review, where he has published, is a home to some pretty harsh rhetoric. I am often in agreement with them, but the tone is irksome.
July 7th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
I’ve heard Portman speak publicly and he’s stiff, not very animated, even when speaking about things he might be interested in. Might? You can’t tell, except that he gestures a touch more forcibly and raises the volume of his monotone. It’s a problem, I think. Whoever gave Romney enthusiasm-expression lessons might be able to help Portman, but in their matching WASP-ness, they might be too much of a WASPy muchness, leaving Portman merely a pale echo. Or maybe that’s what we want? At least Pawlenty knows how to express emotion, even when that seems a little practiced or rehearsed. I’ve heard him, too.
Palin’s problems were not just personal. I don’t think Jindal can be painted as unintelligent or unaccomplished by anyone. And a Mormon/Catholic ticket — what could be more American while still being the conservative version of a diversity ticket?
July 7th, 2012 | 6:10 pm
Ken, I’d be more worried about Jindal (both as a matter of electoral politics and judgement) if he had been publishing stuff like that after he had finished up college in his mid-20s.
Kate, thanks for your take on Portman since I can’t get any kind of handle on the guy. Maybe his George W. Bush ties hurt him. But on the other hand he did really good in his 2010 Senate campaign so somebody likes what he is saying when they hear him speak. He did a lot better than Kasich in the same year and even though Kasich was running against an incumbent, some of the difference in the electoral performances of Kasich and Portman probably has to do with candidate quality. I dunno.
I don’t think that the Palin play will work on Jindal IN THE SAME WAY – and for lots of reasons. Palin was partly victimized by McCain’s chaotic, and back stab-happy staff. That presumably won’t be a problem with Romney. Palin also had less familiarity with national issues than Jindal who is a former House of Reps member and a D.C. staffer. But there was also an attempt to paint Palin as a rural, religious, hick, freak. The attempt to Otherise Jindal as a weird, Southern, semi-foreign religious fanatic will be at least as hysterical. All the journalistic instincts that were protective of Obama among liberal-but-not-explicitly-liberal journalistic institutions (NBC rather than MSNBC) will be turned off in the case of Jindal. That’s how they deal with “the conservative version of diversity.” And I don’t think Romney should let that scare him off. The unfairness of the attacks and the double standards can be made to work for a competent, prepared campaign that actually has something to say and Jindal comes across like an even tempered guy who wants to pragmatically solve everyday problems in public policy. Palin was actually doing pretty well by the time she gave her convention speech.
July 7th, 2012 | 6:59 pm
Portman’s opponent in the 2010 Senate race was Lee Fisher, who was closely tied to the Strickland administration and had alienated a lot of people across the state. He’s a little arrogant and has run for just about everything in his political lifetime. Portan is a good guy, but all he really had to do in that race was be a nice guy and let the other guy’s negative aspects take him down. Ohio was ready for Republicans again. Portman is a good senator and if he keeps up the good work he could be our senator for a long time.
I think it is harder to stigmatize a Catholic as religious fanatic in America, especially in the Democratic Party, than it is/was to go after an Evangelical Christian. And how does the party of diversity go after Jindal’s racial/ethnic background? They might be all bollixed up if going after Jindal in those ways.
July 7th, 2012 | 7:54 pm
[...] the right direction' or 'a …Washington PostNPR (blog) -Boston.com (blog) -First Things (blog)all 4,089 news [...]
July 7th, 2012 | 9:09 pm
“I think it is harder to stigmatize a Catholic as religious fanatic in America” If the candidate is decent I think it is pretty hard to stigmatize a candidate as a religious fanatic to that fraction of the population that is open to persuasion. I don’t think that the (early) attempts to paint Palin as some religious weirdo hurt her. There will be some of that no matter who Romney picks. FWIW I think that Jindal’s Catholicism would be bigger deal than Pawlenty’s Evangelical Christianity.
“And how does the party of diversity go after Jindal’s racial/ethnic background” Well, the party as a whole doesn’t. There might be some House members and former office holders who make cracks about Jindal’s ethnic background, understanding of America, etc. Most of the work would be done by friendly media figures like journalists, celebrities, comics. I imagine there would be a narrative not only of foreignness, but also of a hysterical, self-serving, and creepy assimilation that combined fanatical professed religion with extremist social darwinist politics (consistency had no place in these kinds of indictments.) The media would then turn report it as an “issue” the Romney campaign has to deal with rather than turn it into a demand that Obama repudiate his despicable allies.
I can’t stress enough that I don’t think these kinds of attacks would meaningfully hurt Jindal and would more likely end up helping him from the obvious unfairness of the attacks. It is just something to be ready for in case of a Jindal VP pick (and the hysteria likely to come in some form if any non-white male who gets picked for the Republican VP slot.)
July 8th, 2012 | 8:03 am
[...] The Monthly Spin CycleNPR (blog)In new ad, Obama challenges Romney on China tradeThe Seattle TimesFirst Things (blog) -Wall Street Journal (blog)all 8,524 news [...]
July 8th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
The Romney campaign could use some pizzazz that would draw the large segment of voters who are not politically engaged. But it needs to be pizzazz that has substance beneath it. Jindal could do that, because he will clearly not be a Romney clone. He can come across as a credible voice on both health care and immigration, two of the major campaign issues. And he has experience speaking to a large black constituency in his state.
Jindal on the ticket would break down the public image Obama is putting forward, as the black sheriff in Mel Brook’s Blazing Saddles, with his trusty doofus white deputy, against the cluelessly evil Harvey Corman rich villain.
July 18th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
[...] basically agree with Ponnuru, but I’d just want to add several things. There are lots of left-of-center [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact