Talk:2012 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Let's TALK and Discuss . . .

Surprised am I to be the first to comment in TALK Discussion, starting the TALK page with this new section. Here is a reference that lists seven possible VP picks which Romney could make. Of course, this means it is probably none of these (except maybe Congressman Paul Ryan due to $16TRILLION.) The reference, [1] lists Kelly Ayotte; Susana Martinez; Bob McDonnell; Chris Christie; Marco Rubio; Paul Ryan; and Rob Portman. These seven are already listed (with photo-pictures) in the Article, which looks very good. My opinion is that Mitt Romney will want to choose someone who can help solve the Economy, rather than someone who will help him win a demographic section or a battleground state. It will be his personal choice. As we get closer to convention and the VP announcement, expect the list to narrow (or will it expand?) . . . Yes I know we report what is reported, so I listed a reference for these seven, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The characteristics and character of Mitt Romney will be what will make a popular VP also: namely, first and foremost, not Obama/Obamacare/Liberal-Marxist/Democrat-spender; traditional conservative religious family values; a person representing how America was created and became great, i.e., the American Dream for all who want to seize opportunity. Etc. Who is this ideal VP? We will see. Time will tell. Watch for us to wait until Mitt Romney picks the ideal moment (which I personally think will be at convention August 28 Tampa FL). "CONSERVATISM WINS EVERY TIME IT IS TRIED!" What do you think will improve the article? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a new section: ==See also== * Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. They link over to here with "See also" and so, for my own convenience (and for reader information), the pathway now goes both ways. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush missing is a glaring mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Already in the article is this ref: *Jeb Bush - former Governor of Florida — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to see his photo-picture in the 'Gallery' but I don't think he will be picked. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My early opinion was wrong (about Romney waiting to be nominated at a convention). It makes sense for Romney to select in July as he is now expected to do, maybe after Olympics: (1) it keeps interest with Republicans, and off Obama/Democrats, to some extent; (2) currently giving Condi Rice some visibility; (3) for fundraising considerations; (4) At Convention, two will be nominated at the same time, (potential president and potential vice president); Other [your idea here]. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Important Omissions (to consider adding)

For Your Information, from the pages of Townhall.com the following are noted as possible VP picks, for Romney: Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Allen West, Governor Haley Barbour, Governor Scott Walker, Governor Rich Perry, Former Governor Sarah Palin, Former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and Former Amb. John Bolton. [2] — Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Didn't he once say he would accept a position in the Romney administration if asked? I'm pretty sure he's said the same thing about a VP spot. Mr. Anon515 05:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit dubious. A reliable source would be needed to verify. --JayJasper (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

MrAnon may have heard that Rand Paul would consider being VP. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Announcement could come mid-July

Former CEO Jack Welch and his wife Suzie mention five front-runners for the Romney running-mate VP candidate: Rubio, Portman, Ryan, McDonnell, and Christie. They give Marco Rubio the best marks to help draw critical constituency. They give Portman best marks for being able to immediately perform top job. In third, they give Paul Ryan good marks across the board. See their table at [3] where they give odds as Rubio(3:1), Portman(3:1), Ryan(4:1), McDonnell(6:1), and Christie(10:1). — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ann Romney says a female VP could happen and Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of California is in current news. She says 'Not me' but when the call comes, people reconsider the urgent need to serve America. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I like [4] the Jack and Suzie Welch analysis a lot, using six criteria:
Can immediately perform top job
First, a VP must be able to be president, not eventually, but from Day One.
Can bring complementary skills to the table
Second, a VP can’t be a clone of the president.
Can deliver blunt messages upward
[Tell the president what no one else will.]
Can exude gravitas but not overshadow
Fourth, a VP has to project gravitas and be a significant presence
Can serve as true partner
Fifth, the VP has to be a real partner to the president – keeping confidences
and blocking any attempts from below to divide and conquer.
Can help draw critical constituency
Finally, a VP should ideally help bring a critical constituency into the fold.
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ann Romney was right about considerations: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-condoleezza-rice-near-the-top-of-romneys-vp-short-list/ Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

C.E.Cupp called Ann Romney a liar, but proved herself to be the liar. She is not as close to Mitt as Ann. [(In regards to no female hopeful being vetted; maybe Condi Rice didn't need 'vetting'.)] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So how is this article anything

but a pile of poo and imaginary information? This article simply seems like promotional fluff for this list of people more than anything else. It really ought to simply be called Media Speculation about Who Could Be A Vice-President. Is there any actual rationale for these people to be called "vice presidential candidates"? I await some sort of justification for how this article is worthwhile in its present form. I mean some of these people wouldn't be Vice-president unless the cast of Jersey Shore was the only other option, and even then, they might get picked first. -- Avanu (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting now, but can be merged elsewhere sometime in the fall, after the Republican National Convention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Democrat candidate is decided; the Republican candidate is decided; VP picks are currently interesting (for a month). Continuing through the ages, the 2012 VP race/pick could be of interest to historians and readers. It is the only uncertainty in 2012. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nearly the entirety of the article is sourced by speculation alone. So the idea that this truly represents the facts about the choice for Vice President is laughable. If the article were titled "Contemporary media speculation on who the Republican Party Vice President choice would be", you might have an article here. But as it stands, it is PR fluff and media baloney. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BALL anyone?

This article is nothing but speculation. WP is not a crystal ball. I know this was nominated for deletion a few months back. Any objections to me nominating again? Or should this just be merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012?--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just re-read WP:BALL. It specifically forbids original research of speculation. So that may not be enough to delete, given the extensive amount of reliable and verifiable sources. There are still some fundamentally wrong things, most especially that this is an article about speculation, so the article should be either:

• Moved to something along the lines of "Speculation regarding possible Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate, 2012" (note only one candidate, as there will never be more than one vice presidential candidate), or
• Significantly reduced and merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012.

I support a merge. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• This article has been completely worthless since the day it was started. Even the title is wrong – with rare historical exceptions, people don't run as "candidates" to become the vice presidential nominee. Mainstream news reports indicate Portman and Pawlenty are the shortlist favorites, with a couple of others also in the running. But this article doesn't even report that. Instead it includes people who are laughably wrong and have a less-than-zero chance of getting picked, like Bachmann and Gingrich and West and Trump. There's nothing here worth merging. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article should be kept, not merged, its already been discussed. The consensus in the campaign article was to have a separate article for Vice Presidential picks. Its also part of a series of articles just like this one from prior election campaigns so the title is consistent with the Wikipedia series. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The only thing currently interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort of sad when a sideshow is the thing people declare worthy of interest. Certainly there are *real* issues that political junkies could follow, but filling time by focusing on the 'stepping stone to oblivion'. -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OTHER (famous people)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/make-my-day-clint-eastwood-endorses-romney/ (shows picture w/rifle, "Make my day!") Culture is bigger than Politics, and Clinton Eastwood's endorsement of Mitt Romney for president is a larger endorsement than some of the nationally-unknown legislator/politicians listed herein. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has just set a new low by suggesting that Lech Walesa could be picked for vice president. Talk about birther problems!? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So Sorry! . . . It was a 'blunder-mistake' — being up to early and rushing off too soon. Driving away, I realized I put it in the wrong article, too late. Sorry again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — PS: So Dirty Harry would be OK?

Like there were different candidates leading at different times in Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 from start to 'presumptive nominee', there have been different leaders in what people suggested. Most lately, president Obama jumps on the bandwagon suggesting General David Petraeus would be great—kind of like the popular Dwight_D._Eisenhower. The question for this Article is: 'To wait, or speculate?' Since the Democrat[ic] candidates for president and VP are decided and the Republican candidate for president is also, interest focus on this. Plan Z [zero] is just wait and see before writing more. Plan A [add] is to document lead-up activity. I prefer to wait a day or two. Bill Kristol suggests that between two Romney campaign bus tours this week would be a great time to announce. That would be Thursday, August 9, 2012. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol suggest [5] to Mitt Romney that he 'Go For The Gold' and select either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. I agree, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Better threshold for inclusion?

If would be nice if this list could separate the A-listers from the B-listers. For example, the reference for Allen West is a link to Sarah Palin saying that he she would like for him to be picked - nobody anywhere is actually claiming that Allen West is under consideration. Similarly, the Bachmann link is just someone asking her the question and she says it's not her decision. Nobody in the media is, from the references given, speculating that either of them might be the pick. For that matter, no rational person thinks that Donald Trump is getting anywhere near the VP spot. It would be nice if there were some criteria for inclusion on the "A list", like being mentioned in multiple major outlets as a possibility. --B (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential running-mate

The article here looks great, with the picture of Paul Ryan in the lede. The sentence is also good and was added immediately at announcement time. I had written: In front of the battleship USS Wisconsin in Virginia, Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell introduced Romney to make his announcement. Mitt Romney picked Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his VP running-mate. It is two weeks before the Republican National Convention and leads immediately into a bus tour to battleground states. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)