Hey, that's the ticket. Not:
on Tim Pawlenty's feebleness in criticizing Mitt Romney's version of ObamaCare prompted several readers to write with the suggestion that Pawlenty is pursuing the vice presidential nomination. We doubt it. We've met with Pawlenty twice in recent months, and he has a well-considered (if, thus far, not so well-implemented) plan to win the presidential nomination. Further, if he was sucking up to the former Massachusetts governor Monday night with a Romney-Pawlenty ticket in mind, that would represent a one-day change in strategy, since it was only Sunday morning when Pawlenty referred to "ObamneyCare."
[. . .]
But if we assume Romney is to be the nominee--a big "if," let us emphasize--then another candidate's performance Monday amounted to a very effective audition for the vice presidency: Michele Bachmann.
Whereas the argument for Pawlenty is that he is most things to all people--that few voters have any reason to be against him--Bachmann stirs genuine enthusiasm among two of the Republican factions most wary of Romney: the Tea Party and the religious right. A Romney-Bachmann ticket would be balanced in terms of ideology (he's moderate, she's conservative), governing style (he's technocratic, she's idealistic), religion (he's Mormon, she's evangelical) and, of course, sex.
What a brilliant strategy, sure to guarantee a GOP win in 2012! Take a moderate Republican whose turn it is and make him more palatable to the base by pairing him with a feisty conservative woman. Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?
Comments
Taranto also errs in describing a moderate-conservative pairing as balanced. You get balance by pairing left and right, not center and right. Balance is overrated, in any case. People vote against candidates, not for them, and if you have a mixed pair, you're giving them two reasons to vote against you.
Independents determine presidential elections, since neither party has a majority. Consequently, a strong centrist is likely going to win, rather than a liberal or conservative.
That's not always the case. In 1980, a conservative beat a centrist, but it was an extremely appealing conservative and a really lackluster centrist.
It could happen again, but it's not likely. Until the GOP can overcome their intolerance to centrists, they're going to have a hard time winning the White House. As Damon Runyan wrote, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet \."
I would go one step further: In most elections, no one pays any attention to the veep candidate (Sarah Palin being the obvious exception).