HERE’S THE GUY DONALD TRUMP SHOULD ASK TO BE HIS RUNNING MATE…

7/11/16

Those of us who are interested in politics waste far too much energy at this time of the year speculating about the prospective presidential nominees’ vice-presidential picks.    Despite the punditry’s elevation of this decision to heights that it clearly doesn’t merit, the choice of a candidate’s running mate is relatively inconsequential because the vice-presidency is an inconsequential office.   Consider this list of post-War vice presidents:

·         Joe Biden

·         Dick Cheney

·         Al Gore

·         Dan Quayle

·         George H.W. Bush

·         Walter Mondale

·         Nelson Rockefeller

·         Jerry Ford

·         Spiro Agnew

·         Hubert Humphrey

·         Lyndon Johnson

·         Richard Nixon

·         Alben Barkley

Four of the thirteen became president, not a bad percentage.   But only two of those became president through the constitutional succession process rather than through election.   And one of those elected, Mr. Nixon, was elected president eight years after serving as vice-president.   Only one, Mr. Bush, was elected president after running as vice-president.

Few of these gentlemen had substantial impact on policy while serving as veep.   One could be led to believe that Mr. Cheney really was the president while the hapless George W. Bush nominally held the title, but to concede that would involve doing some intellectual backflips even yours truly would prefer to avoid.   Al Gore was supposedly given a big role in the Clinton White House, especially in environmental matters, but one has to think much more magnanimously of the Clintons than most of us would be willing in order to ascribe to them the willingness to delegate any genuine power to someone so far outside their very tight inner circle.  

No, mostly the vice-presidency is an empty office, not worth a “warm bucket of p----,” as one of its more colorful holders, John Nance Gardner, who, incidentally didn’t say “spit” in this instance, claimed.   It gives its holder a lot of frequent flier miles, and a leg up on the presidency, but using that leg up to one’s ultimate advantage is a dicey proposition, as the experiences of Joe Biden, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, and Hubert Humphrey would attest.   And just as an historical aside, does one think that the formidable Mr. Johnson would have remained second fiddle had President Kennedy remained alive to run for re-election in 1964?   Most reading of the fascinating Mr. Johnson indicate that he would have returned to the Senate and used his sheer force of will and personality to become Majority Leader again.   But that is another issue.

Despite the office’s inconsequential nature, the political junkies among us talk about the vice-presidency because there is little else to talk about in the realm of pure politics as the conventions draw near.    Yours truly has already opined on the Democratic selection; see 5/21/16’s HILLARY WON’T PUT BERNIE SANDERSON THE TICKET; INSTEAD, SHE’LL SELECT… and the posts to which it will refer you.    So why not join the fun and advance a suggestion for Mr. Trump and the Republicans?

Mr. Trump ought to select former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

Yes, I know Mr. Trump won’t select Governor Huckabee.   He seems to be fixated on Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, and General Michael Flynn.    All would be okay, and Messrs. Pence and Christies would be more than okay.   Mr. Pence has done a great job in Indiana, though one wishes that the Hoosier being considered was not Mr. Pence but, rather, former governor and current president of Purdue University Mitch Daniels.   Mr. Daniels, despite his being budget director in the abominable administration of George W. Bush, a position akin to being director of virtue enforcement in a house of ill repute, has done much to make Indiana a growing, vibrant, and prosperous state and to inject a measure of business sense into academia through his work at one of the world’s great universities.   

Mr. Christie has long been a favorite of yours truly; see 1/14/16’s THE STATE OF THE GOP:   MORE MUSH FROM THE WIMPS…AND LET CHRISTIE BE CHRISTIE and 1/5/16’s CHRIS CHRISTIE GETS “IT”; CAN HE GET THE NOMINATION?   He would be especially attractive if Mr. Trump wants to double down on the style that has gotten him this far; as I said in my aforementioned 1/5/16 post:

What makes Mr. Christie especially appealing to the other wing of the party is that he was Donald Trump the candidate before there was Donald Trump the candidate.   It was Mr. Christie who was considered outspoken to a fault, who rarely if ever genuflected to the gods of political correctness, who called it as he saw it even if doing so would cause the paragons of propriety in the press to castigate him as rude or (Horrors!) insensitive.    In short, Mr. Christie was the guy who was perceived to do what he thought was right and didn’t give a damn if the “better people” didn’t like it.  If Mr. Trump had never entered this contest, it would be Mr. Christie who would be taking flak for being a boor in the minds of the keepers of the flame of political correctness.   If these traits of Donald Trump appeal to people, why wouldn’t these traits, long present in Mr. Christie, appeal to them as well?   And if voters who are supporting Mr. Trump finally tire of his more malodorous qualities, wouldn’t Mr. Christie be the logical guy to whom to gravitate?   One could argue that Ted Cruz is closer to Mr. Trump in policy, but do you honestly think that people support Mr. Trump because of his policies?   What policies?

As for Messrs. Gingrich and Flynn, Mr. Gingrich is interesting and has the experience in government that most conventional thinkers say Mr. Trump needs, but we all know Mr. Gingrich has plenty of baggage.   Mr. Flynn talks tough on foreign policy, as does Mr. Trump, and might be able to translate that toughness into concrete actions.  General Flynn also has experience that Mr. Trump lacks.   But those of us who have severe misgivings about conventional Bushite GOP foreign policy would have a hard time putting what sounds like the ultra-hawkish General Flynn so close to the Oval Office.   Fortunately for Mr. Trump, should he select General Flynn, there aren’t many Republicans who share yours truly’s approach to foreign policy.

Mr. Huckabee, however, would be a better candidate than any of the aforementioned.    Mr. Huckabee would go a long way toward patching up Mr. Trump’s difficulties with the religious right.   He is an affable, articulate guy who is genuinely likeable, even by those who have nothing but disdain for his politics; he is an affable gentleman and is perceived as such by anyone who can remotely be considered as fair-minded.   The contrast to Mr. Trump in this area could not be more stark.   And Mr. Huckabee manages to remain pleasant and generally agreeable while not tossing his ideas over the side, as is the wont of most politicians.     

Furthermore, Mr. Huckabee has spent most of his political career battling the Clintons and their minions and remains alive politically; the Clintons have not broken him, which is indeed rare.   And it seems that, at least on the surface, Mr. Huckabee remains friendly, or at least on speaking terms, with the Clintons despite years of battling it out with them, testimony to the man’s good nature and sense of perspective.   At 60, Mr. Huckabee is not a young man, but he is ten years younger than Mr. Trump.  Further, as a former governor, Mr. Huckabee has governing and political experience, which, again, conventional thinkers seem to think Mr. Trump needs.

Yours truly is not predicting that Mr. Trump will choose Mr. Huckabee to join him on the GOP ticket.   Predictions are especially difficult, not only about the future, as Mark Twain once opined, but especially about this political year.   That having been written, I am fairly confident that Mr. Huckabee will not even be considered for the GOP ticket.   But he should be.