So there are lots of cool responses about a fairly silly post about Olympic gymnastics and none at all about how ticked off we should be that McCain should even consider Ridge?

In this interview McCain is making a calculation that issues of foreign policy and national security, and the requisite leadership such issues make clear will trump so-called social issues like abortion and and same sex marriage.

To me this seems a mistake. I think McCain is correct to emphasize the seriousness of recent events like the Russian invasion of Georgia as well as the recent successes of surge in Iraq (no doubt, how long they last depends in part on the presidential election). However, given his own statements regarding Roe V. Wade--a desire to nominate judges who will return to a pre-Roe position--as well as his strong pro-life voting history (even if he was not a firebrand on the issue), make a choice for Ridge a bad choice. Ridge may be smart, he may have a good record as governor and Sec'y of Homeland Security, and he is certainly "likeable." He may even make Pennsylvania red in November (I doubt that that alone will make it red, as Sen. Casey is pro-life).

Nominating Ridge will make an issue of abortion in a way that McCain seems to want to avoid in favor of the pre-eminence of foreign affairs.

As for Bloomberg, there is no evidence that he is even interested in the job.

To me Romney seems a decent choice. To use a ridiculous oxymoron, he brings an economic gravitas that McCain lacks. Even if the record of Romney's health care in Massachusetts is now under attack, he looks like he knows economic issues. Even if he also looks like the guy who just laid you off as Huckabee had it.

In the end, I prefer the idea mentioned a couple of weeks ago former Rep. John (whose name incredibly escapes me at this point in my early alzheimers!--He is from Ohio, he is pro-life, he even held hearings on "corporate welfare" in the House, he had a show on Fox News).

Maybe my memory lapse makes him a bad idea after all.

I don't know much of Pawlenty or Cantor. Bobby Jindal would be excellent politically, but he lacks experience. I too like Jindal

See John Podhoretz on Joe Lieberman as the right choice at commentarymagazine.com. Lieberman for McCain's Veep is as wise a choice as Chuck Hagel is for Obama.

It's not gonna happen, but it definitely shows a preference to make issues other than "it's the culture stupid" paramount.

After reading both of my posts, I realized I misunderstood Mr. Lawler's question.

Of course McCain should pick a strong pro-life anti-Roe running mate. I would endorse that.

I was too caught up in the talk of what is palatable to a winnable electorate. Winnableness still rules out Ridge and Lieberman--as I already said. It will defelect an emphasis on national security toward a division on abortion. Let alone Bloomberg's corporate libertariansism.

McCain must pick someone who is at least as pro-life as he is. It's a no brainer--but my brain is atrophied since I could not remember Kasich (sp?)--a person whose name I kept confusing with Kucinich of all people.

My objection, of course, is tht Mac keeps sending out the vibe that the people who think it's the culture, stupid (like even me) are stupid. The election is not going to turn on foreign policy. Stability in Iraq means that people don't care, while still being mad at Bush for bogging us down and abusing our miltary. And that people don't care about Georgia (even the people in my Georgia), goes without saying. I don't think the convention would accept Lieberman and I'm almost sure he won't be picked, but he should have been taken out a long time ago as a possibility. It's possible (and I hope) that even Ridge would trigger a convention rebellion.