Analysis: McDonnell Not Likely to Be VP Pick
By Ken Falkenstein | Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 | PoliticsOK, before I explain this apostasy, let me start by saying that I’ve known Bob McDonnell personally for over 20 years, and I believe he is one of the most impressive public officials I have ever seen. No one can hold a candle to his legislative accomplishments in the House of Delegates, and he has shown uncommon vision, leadership, and integrity as Attorney General and Governor. In fact, he has all of the qualities that we look for in an ideal candidate for President.
But he’s not running for President, and unfortunately, for all of the buzz about McDonnell being on the short list of possible VP picks, he does not have the one specific quality that our 2012 GOP presidential nominee will require – a strong background and expertise in foreign policy and national defense.
At a time in which our country is fighting three wars, China is is slapping us around economically and owns trillions of dollars of our debt, the Arab world is in turmoil, and Europe is in political and economic decay, any major party presidential ticket is going to have to include an expert on foreign policy and national defense. None of the most viable candidates for the GOP nomination have that experience or expertise.
The current field of candidates and possible candidates for the GOP nomination appears to consists of (in alphabetical order) Michelle Bachmann, John Bolton, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, John Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump.
In my view, only four of those candidates have any realistic chance of winning the nomination: Daniels, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and Romney – and the one thing that all of them have in common is that they are all current or former governors with no real foreign policy or national defense experience or credentials. In fact, Daniels (whom I will almost definitely support if he runs) recently said with his characteristic candor that he was not currently prepared to debate Barack Obama on foreign policy.
Bob McDonnell, despite his stellar record of accomplishments, does not have the requisite expertise on foreign policy and national defense that our nominee will need in a running mate. Yes, McDonnell served admirably for over 20 years in the U.S. Army reserves, retiring in 1997 as a Lieutenant Colonel, but that honorable service does not rise to the level of experience and expertise that will be needed to fill the deficit of our most viable presidential candidates on foreign policy and national defense credentials.
So, who will be the VP pick? Obviously it is way too early to know, but a couple of names that cross my mind as possibilities include General David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently a civil litigation attorney with Poole Mahoney, P.C. in Virginia Beach. But his concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
21 Responses to "Analysis: McDonnell Not Likely to Be VP Pick"
Governors make good presidents; Senators make good vice-presidents. So history tells us…
KF “Daniels (whom I will almost definitely support if he runs) recently said with his characteristic candor that he was not currently prepared to debate Barack Obama on foreign policy.”
The one such accomplishment of Obama was based almost entirely on the intelligence processes/info and military resources generated by GW Bush. Everything else is either a mess or no great shakes. Bur Daniels is (candidly) in awe. If it wasn’t for a tin ear Daniels couldn’t hear at all. While I respect Daniels as governor, he has a timid aura about him and a gift for the off putting statement.
As for VP while I agree with your reasoning it’s hard to see how the nominee would pick someone else than Sen Rubio.
Spot on article Ken.. interesting that I have a Petraeus for president decal on my car and I have echoed that a Petraeus Rice ticket would be one combination that many dems would find irresistable and would support as a protest.. buyers remorse is growing among their ranks.
What makes McD a compelling case is his proven degree of good judgement and capacity to surround himself with highly qualified people. I want foreign policy experience and although you have a personal friendship with the guv, say he lacks natl defense creds and know him well, I don’t see that as a disqualifier.. sorry Ken.
We do not have a viable hat in the ring and by that I mean that there are currently no “Presidential” candidates mentioned so far. Appearances mean everything to most voters and I would wager a bet, yeah with real $$, that McDonnell would be quite appealing to a younger generation of conservatives and indys who are licking their wounds from the 08 election. Some of them have a real hangover from the hope & change koolaid and are not going back for more unless they have a character they can believe in.. We simply do not have a gop contender yet that the indys can believe in and that is McD’s strength..
Just a hunch but I could be wrong.
Full disclosure, I sold over a thousand Petraeus for President stickers on Cafepress over the past 3 years.
There is a Draft Bob McDonnell for President page on FB https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Draft-Bob-McDonnell-for-President-in-2012/182559595128064
Ken, do you think Gov. McDonnell’s trade mission to Asia might also be an attempt to burnish his foreign policy credentials in advance of 2012?
VP Picks are often completely unpredictable (see Dick Cheney in 2000, Dan Quayle in 1988). Al Gore was known for a log of things, but having “foreign policy credentials” was not one of them when he was picked by Bill Clinton.
Rather, Clinton realized in 1992 that the election would be focused on economic issues, and he picked what was then perceived as a moderate Southern Senator to burnish his own credentials.
Given that, let’s look at why McDonnell would be on anyone’s short list for VP
* Military veteran (United States Army, retired Lt. Col)
* Catholic
* Governor with a 64% approval rating in a suddenly swing state
* Governor of a “Southern” state (i.e., if Romney or Pawlenty are the nominees and want to balance the ticket)
* State has an unemployment rate lower than the national average and economic growth higher than the national average
* As Governor balanced the budget without raising taxes
He will be at least on a short list. His lack of foreign policy credentials are a concerned, but those are tempered somewhat by the fact that he is a veteran.
Why McD isn’t a VP candidate: Civil War disaster, Debt, lack of accomplishments while Virginia’s Gov… Form your own list as there are many negatives.
Sorry but even his balanced budget success was a simple slight of hand shorting VRS accounts by 640 million+/-…
Those things will not play well in the rest of America. JMO
If McDonnell can win the Virginia Senate this year, his desirability quotient may improve significantly without foreign policy experience. The election is going to be about voters pocket books including gas prices, jobs, interest rates and price inflation of everything we need or want. Foreign policy will be a trickle down from those core issues.
“lack of accomplishments”
Like that kept Barack Obama, a one term Senator, from being elected PRESIDENT?
Delegate McDonnell had more experience with national security when he took office than Senator Obama had when he left office..
That’s all you got? You guys make me laugh. It is talking with third graders…
McD would be a fool to run as the VP in the 2012 election but it would be fun to watch as “Virginia” politics surface on a national stage. LOL BTW: Good ole’boys don’t play well on the national stage… Send the AG and it would be like bringing the Ringling Brothers coming to town!
William, McD aint exactly one of The good ole boys.. got him confused with Allen Macacaberg?
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) was the last elected General the American people voted into office. Richard Nixon, his VP was a Lt. Commander in WWII but was by no means an expert on foreign affairs until much later in his political career. While General David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sound like an excellent choice given the state of the world right now, the voters have voted for the feel good, yes we can, slogans more than the cerebral choices.
As far as McDonnell, he has more experience than Obama ever did before he took his oath of office. Obama’s main experience was running for office, which he did rather well. I’d vote for McDonnell in a heartbeat.
Many of you are comparing apples and oranges. As I wrote in my post, McDonnell is not running for president. He is believed to be a viable candidate for Vice President. It is true that Obama lacked any foreign policy or national defense credentials (or any real qualifications for the presidency, for that matter), but he compensated for that deficiency by picking the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Joe Biden) as his running mate. Likewise, George W. Bush had a similar deficiency in 2000, and he picked a former Secretary of Defense (Dick Cheney) as his running mate.
It is true that Bill Clinton lacked foreign policy/national defense credentials and chose a running mate who also was not known as an expert on those issues (Al Gore). However, 1992 was a very different time and political climate than today. The Cold War was over, and Islamist aggression was not yet on the national radar screen. The world economy was sluggish but not in crisis, and our nation was not trillions of dollars in debt to hostile countries. So, Clinton had the luxury of knowing that foreign policy and national defense were not going to be forefront issues in 1992.
The world has changed in the past 20 years. We are embroiled in three wars, Islamists terrorism is rampant, the Arab world is in revolution, China owns over $1 trillion of our debt and is in better economic shape than we are, our traditional European allies are in decay, and illegal immigrants are pouring across our border from Mexico and other Central American countries that are themselves verging on civil wars over drugs and poverty. Foreign policy and national defense are going to be important issues in 2012, and none of our viable candidates have strong resumes on these subjects. Whichever of these candidates becomes our nominee is going to need a running mate who does have experience and expertise on these subjects in order to be competitive.
I wish McDonnell were running for President and picked an expert for VP on Foreign Affairs and National Security. We would win the election because McDonnell has the charisma and experience as a 20 year political servant and now Governor of Virginia. That experience and charisma can win elections now. Ken, you are a political junkie like the rest on BD. Think about the average voter. They are the ones who vote people into office, not us. Obama had more charisma than Bush. No experience, lot’s of charisma. Think about it.
If the Republicans can put Sarah Palin “I can see Russia from my house” up for VP. Foreign policy is not the issue to select a VP nominee.
I’m with Louis on this one… LOL
@Kathy- I agree with you that personal charisma often determines presidential elections. In Obama’s case, the voters were already looking to punish George W. Bush and his party, and the fact that Obama presented a young, fresh, charismatic, inspirational face fit well with what the voters wanted. The fact that he also presented an opportunity to make history and rectify our past racial sins was also a big factor. And the fact that the Republicans let him run virtually unopposed by nominating an absolutely pathetic excuse for a candidate who could barely articulate a complete sentence and who did not reflect the values and philosophy of his party also helped Obama. Given these advantages, the only real surprise was that Obama only garnered 53% of the vote.
In 2012, the voters will have recognized that what Obama meant by “hope and change” was a statist agenda that is the antithesis of core American values of liberty and personal responsibility. And they will have recognized that competence and qualifications do matter. If the Republicans nominate a good qualified candidate who can effectively articulate core American values, we should be able to win. But we also have to prove that we are competent to lead, both in domestic and foreign affairs. And that’s why we will need a balanced ticket.
Another take on why McDonnell won’t be the VP candidate. The major reason to take him would be that you don’t think you can win Virginia without him. If the GOP candidate gets to that point, he’s in a world of hurt elsewhere in the country. I’m not sure there’s a road to the White House for Republicans that doesn’t include retaking Virginia. But if Virginia is in doubt, the GOP probably has problems all over, as they did in 2008.
Steve, Virginia is and always will be a crucial State when it comes to Independents to swing to whoever has the strongest ticket in the current struggles of the time.
@Ken. While you make logical sense on what America needs, and in essence I agree that we need another General and the talents of Rice in our war against Terrorism, Americans right now are worried about jobs, the economy, gas prices, their future and their children’s future. 9-11 and Osama are in the past now in the American mind. Think about the average American and what they need and have proven they vote for. Voters vote according to THEIR needs, not some ideal. Obama provided a “promised” “change they could believe in” because the economy had already turned and they were feeling the pinch. They were losing their homes but it started with Clinton. The average voter doesn’t know about this and only wants to hear what meets their needs now.
http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html
I had saved many other and better websites than this one but my computer crashed and I lost everything.
Kathy: Virginia has been, for the last 50 years, until 2008, fairly unimportant in presidential election. The Republicans could count on carrying it. If that’s no longer true, and it appears from polling that that may be the case, the Republicans ability to win the White House, which has been dependent on a “solid south” for 30 years, is in doubt.
Leave your response