ConfirmThem

Quin, I'm sure you have sources who are close to the McCain campaign. What do they have to say about Chris Cox? Does he have a realistic shot at the the vice presidency? Erick at Redstate said A LOT of people, his words, are pushing for Chris Cox. I think he would be an excellent pick, but I think Crist will be the man.

My sources with McCain need to be redeveloped. They aren't fond of me right now because I was so critical of the senator. But I do know that Cox's name is getting more and more mention, almost universally favorable. And I know that McCain has said publicly on several occasions that he REALLY wants to fight for California.
Quin Hillyer

Bush lost in 2000 and 2004 by around 1.25M-1.3M votes each time. Maybe McCain can make it a little closer, but how could he possibly win there?

Thought of winning California is a perilous pipedream. Remember how Bush and Rove nearly lost the 2000 election by wasting valuable days vainly campaigning in California during the last critical week?

If McCain and his advisors truly believe they have a ghost of a chance to win California in 2008, they are frighteningly delusional. And so is anyone else who believes such a ridiculous fantasy.

Looking at a matchup with the 2 dems, against Obama he focuses on Ohio, and against Hillary he focuses on Pennsylvania.

How many other states can possibly switch? Minnesota and Michigan?

I don't support Cox simply because he may help win California. One thing I am not is delusional. Still, it wouldn't hurt to at least make some attempt to make inroads in the state. Regardless, I think Cox is the perfect conservative and a very believable leader of the party in 2012.

It all depends on the Dems nominee. If it's Obama (which is likely), McCain should shoot for a moderate nominee or someone who will swing a necessary state (i.e. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida (though I don't think McCain would lose Florida to Obama)). A politically savy (though dangerous) move would be Michael Bloomberg. McCain has admitted he knows little about the economy, and Bloomberg does. Moreover, Bloomberg would bring a billion dollar war chest to the race, which McCain desperately needs. I know it would irritate the base, but lets be honest the base will vote because McCain is better than the alternative. And if they don't, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Crist doesn't add anything. McCain wins Flordia easy against Obama. Just a thought....one reviled by many here I suspect.

for veep. And Bloomberg's no moderate--he's a liberal. I'd far prefer Lieberman over Bloomberg. But I don't want Lieberman either. McCAin MUST choose a three legged stool conservative--social, economic, foreign policy (plus judges, etc.). While my preference is Romney, I'm not picky as long as he or she is truly a solid conservaitve. I would like it to be someone from outside the beltway with executive experience, but that's about it.

Romney is a non-starter. It remains an uphill climb for the GOP to keep the whitehouse regardless of who McCain chooses. The base simply is not going to win this election for him. Granted, their failure to turnout could lose it for him, but even with their votes he has a difficult road ahead. While many here respect and admire Bush, this is far from a national consensus. McCain needs two things going forward: (1) to attract moderate voters, and (2) money. Bloomberg would help with both. We have to remember that a large portion of the country desires change, and at least a perceived a break from the type of governance displayed by the current administration. Whether the criticisms of this administration are right or not is of no consequence. We are where we are. And to my mind, the base will come out and vote against whomever the Democrats nominate. The goal has to be national security oriented independents and moderates concerned with the economy. I fail to see how a hard-line conservative VP would do this. Certainly Huckabee is out (or at least should be). Bloomberg would cement McCain as seaking change (real or perceived). Lieberman wouldn't be a bad option either, though I don't know how much he would bring to the ticket when compared to Bloomberg. Other options would be moderate GOP governors or former from key states. The key is winning the election, and I worry that McCain won't do that if he chooses a VP who is overly conservative.

Think about it this way, if McCain wins we'll likely get at least 1 SCOTUS pick, likely for Stevens, Ginsburg, or Souter. In any McCain presidency (regardless of VP) I suspect the nominee to be a moderate or more pragmatic conservative. Maureen Mahoney is an obvious thought. And while we might all prefer Paul Clement, Mike McConnell, or Jeff Sutton, I assume we would all likewiise prefer Mahoney to Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Deval Patrick or Cass Sustein.

If you think the Republican Party would stand for Bloomberg, you are sorely mistaken. He's a registered Independent who has liberal tendancies. If McCain were stupid enough to pick Bloomberg, the Republican convention would become a bloodbath. In fact, McCain could lose the nomination through a floor fight. Republicans, uneasy about McCain, would throw in the towel and never vote for him. McCain might win Independents, but he would lose the entire base. Money is not everything.

Put Bloomberg on the ticket and the conservative base would either stay home, or vote third party. There's no way real conservatives would ever support a McCain (very liberal on a fair number of issues, in spite of what he claims) and Bloomberg (gives new meaning to the term RINO) pairing. Jnb2014, you are right that Bloomberg brings in lots of money. That's his only plus, though. He won't sway any moderates, because they know how liberal he really is, and we would have a landslide Democrat victory. Also don't forget how that would influence the House and Senate elections - both would turn overwhelmingly blue. You can also forget about any kind of reasonable judiciary, too, since SCOTUS will have two or three new faces, all of whom will be RBG clones.

I rather doubt Chris Cox will be the nominee, though he'd be oustanding. His name recognition to the general public is far too low.

As for ANY Republican ticket taking California, regardless of who either Pres or VP was, there's no way that can happen. A BEST case scenario is to lose 45-55%. You have no idea how so many out here have swallowed the Kool-Aid, whether it has to do with supposedly man-caused global warming, to immigration reform (or the lack thereof), to liberal social engineering. It's truly sad. Yes, there are pockets of conservative areas, but even some of them aren't really committed conservative. But the areas that are liberal (all of the large population centers, and they carry HUGE numbers of voters, assuming they show up), are really dark blue. The committed conservative areas tend to be around 60-40 conservative, while the committed liberal areas tend to be 70-30 liberal, or worse.

As far as Chris Cox goes, I don't think name recognition is that big of a deal. First, most people don't vote on the vice president (Quayle/Benson). Second, in the age of the internet, it's not that hard to get the word out on someone. If he were to be nominated, they could immediately send him out for speeches and outreach to the conservative community. He can work on the base while McCain courts the moderate voters.

Lack of name recognition probably won't hurt a candidate, but high (and positive) name recognition can help. That's the only point I was making on that subject.

a moderate Republican who brought about a win in a presidential election race?

is Clinton steal the Dem. nomination, with Obama running with Bloomberg as veep on an independent ticket!

Bush lost Iowa by a few thousand in 00, probably because of some Evangelicals (and a few Catholics?) staying home because of the previous Thur. DUI report. In 04, he won by 11k, with Huckabee to be Evangelicals turning out strongly and the GOP winning the Catholic Mississippi valley vote.

Well, I think Huckabee would be a terrible choice. He brings name recognition, but is it the kind of recognition McCain wants? The media will portray it, correctly I believe, as a big sloppy kiss to the evangelical voters. I don't want to have to deal with that news story. Besides, other than abortion, Huckabee is liberal. Let's not go down that road.

I think Chris Cox works on many levels. Ultimately, I believe Barak will win the nomination. As the exit polls have shown, he has a Catholic problem. Whoever has won the Catholic vote has generally won the presidency. Cox, while not at the top of the ticket, might help the more liberal leaning Catholics vote for McCain. Don't forget, hispanics don't seem inclined to vote for Obama either. Most hispanics are Catholic as well. They already like McCain too.

Huckabee blew his chance at being the VP nominee by staying in the campaign so long. Once it became mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, he should have bowed out. Instead, he stayed in and forced McCain to expend resources on Texas and Ohio. I doubt the McCain campaign will forget this. By staying in too long, Huckabee lost any goodwill he generated by triangulating against Romney and peeling away religious conservatives to prevent Romney from winning primaries.

Besides, he's a liberal on economic and education issues. He would alienate other parts of the base. He should not be the VP nominee.

was suggesting Huckaby for veep. Perish the thought. Read the quotation--"Huckabee to be Evangelicals." NOT Huckabee himself.

I'm an Evangelical who is a Romney supporter. Without going into details, the Romney campaign (with ultimate responsibility held by Romney himself) left its Evangelical flank alone for the four months leading up to the caucuses--leaving it wide open for Huckabee to move in, inspire, and scoop up the voters.

in NO way.

Huck's a liberal on crime, too. I actually think he's a great guy personally, and his overall record in AR is pretty good. Remember, Governors have to work in the real world, not the fantasyland in which the media (inc. Rush & Annie), the WH & Congress (esp. the Senate) allegedly "work".

But I don't want him within 100 miles of the Oval Office.

As for Mitt, there'll be forests felled rehashing his disastrous campaign. He should've strolled to the nomination and been no worse than 50-50 against Obama. Real tragedy is that of all who ran he would be by far the best POTUS, in a vacuum anyway.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.