She's so fricken' weak!

And she's pro-choice, and we've all seen her on the Sunday talk shows where some Democrat hands her head to her.

Oh God she's a disaster. All you need to know about her is found in a review of her behavior pending the vote on the proposed immigration "reform" bill.

She is a pro choice moderate. She voted to ban partial birth abortion so its not like she is an abortion radical like Obama. In that sense she is better than Lieberman. Pro lifers and social conservatives will get heartburn if she is McCain's pick and she does not do a full abortion conversion and/or have one heck of a great patter against judicial activism. I have always thought of her as a weak speaker. I don't think she has any executive experience. Maybe McCain thinks there are alot of disaffected female Clinton voters who, having failed to make history with the first female President, will vote to secure the first female Vice President and that this will make up for any loss of enthusiasm among social conservatives. Maybe, but I have a bad gut feeling about Hutchison.

But on the other hand, the McCain campaign has been pretty shameless about planting VP rumours in order to get a little attention. Maybe its just that.

Now we're hearing SAM BROWNBACK.

I know for a fact that Brownback was a KEY Senator who worked behind the scenes to thoroughly sabotage and ultimately detonate the nomination of Harriet Meirs.

For which the whole nation, and the entirety of the Anglo-American Bar can say: "WELL DONE!"

I'd be willing to see Giuliani on the ticket, and he's pro-choice, so it's not the abortion issue that is definitive for me.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson's Sunday morning appearances resemble those of that perennial Sunday morning weakling, Dick Lugar.

She's not remotely tough enough for the campaign, let alone the rigors of high office, especially if ultimate responsibility should unfortunately devolve upon her.

She comprehensively fails THE test for the VP selection, id est, "can the person PERFORM the job."

Hutchison would be a disaster, for the reasons cited. There is a good post at NRO (contributed by a reader, I believe) that comes close to convincing me that Romney is wrong as well. Kasich would be good. Ridge might be OK if he weren't pro-choice. Pawlenty is a big gamble. Lieberman would be a political disaster. Brownback? Biden would eat his lunch.
Few good choices out there for McCain.
He has good thing going now, but I'm fearful things will turn sour for the GOP in the next 36 hours.

You know who's looking better to me as a result? My first instinct, weeks ago: Huckabee.

I wouldn't mind Giuliani at this point.

I too saw the 10 point list agaist Romney over at NR, it's on Frum's blog. KLO responded to it in something of a snit, but she didn't really respond to the substance of the list of particulars in that indictment against Romney.

Brownback is Catholic, but he didn't do well in the debates. Who can forget him repeating the title of Tom Friedman's book: "The world is flat, the world is flat...." I just shook my head then. I'm still my shaking my head now.

I wish I knew more about Palin from Alaska. I do know Ridge however, and I know him to be a stiff's stiff.

What about Frank Keating?

What about former Governor Bill Owens of Colorado, a state that could be ground zero for this whole campaign.

WHY does McCain have to choose the VP? LET THE CONVENTION CHOOSE THE VP!

Simply have McCain toss 5 names to the delegates, and allow them to choose the running mate. It would provide high drama, the media would absolutely love it, it would garner ratings, and it would be unconventional, yet traditional. It used to be the way tickets were chosen.

Then if a pro-choicer were chosen, at least Conservatives wouldn't finger McCain as the culprit, it would be the party delegates who made the call. Such an outcome would serve to dampen down anger against McCain, which is still somewhat simmering, albeit under the radar screens.

LET THE DELEGATES CHOOSE AT THE CONVENTION.

Well, I've posted quite a bit on this already, so I'll try not to repeat myself (too much). I'm starting to think that HUCKABEE would be a good choice. I can't stand the guy, but he would neutralize Biden - which I think at this moment is the key. Biden is taking the focus off of Obama. The GOP needs someone to take Biden on. Huck's a good campaigner, social conservatives like him, and he would even be attractive to SOME liberals. He has negatives too, of course - but they all do.

McCain will not pick Romney. I'm convinced of that.

There is zero chance of it being Palin.

KBH? Wouldn't be bad. Safe? Probably. Would many vote for or against McCain because of KBH? Not likely.

Knowing McCain, he'll pick Liberman despite everyone on the right telling him not to. As much as conservatives would be angry, who knows, it might actually be a smart political move.

Regardless of who the pick is, I think it's time McCain ran ads talking about what HE is about - rather than just relentlessly hitting Obama. Voters want to know what you are FOR - not just what you are against.

And if the delegates were to choose, we might get a Eric Cantor, a Santorum, we might even get a Gingrich! Now that would be something!

That would be high drama, democracy in action and something we haven't seen.

It would be PERFECT for locking the media on the convention.

I have always wondered how anyone who is pro-choice could be considered moderate (remember, abortion is the taking of a human life).