When George H.W. Bush was running for president in 1988, the nation saw him as Ronald Reagan’s less conservative little brother.
So Bush picked a young, obscure (but conservative) senator from Indiana to be his running mate. Suddenly, with Dan Quayle at his side, George the elder appeared more presidential and even sounded more presidential.
When Bush the younger ran for president in 2000, he had executive experience as Texas governor but no foreign policy background or Washington experience. He chose Dick Cheney, not to capture Wyoming’s tiny slice of the electoral pie, but because he was a Beltway vet who served as secretary of Defense for the elder Bush.
Just this past week, John McCain acknowledged he has a list of about 20 folks he’s eyeing as his running mate. (The speculation is part of what prompted our online parlor game, featured on the cover of today’s Perspective.)
Choosing a VP is important, obviously, because he or she could be the next president, but it’s also a chance for a candidate to shore up his shortcomings. For the 71-year- old McCain, perhaps that means a younger running mate.
He also could choose someone more conservative than him, to rally the GOP base. Or he could tap someone from a key state that he needs to win, such as Florida or Ohio. Or all of the above.
That’s the conventional wisdom, anyway. But why should a “maverick” follow conventional wisdom? He should resurrect Bill Clinton’s 1992 “It’s the economy, stupid” campaign theme and find an “economy” running mate — regardless of his age or color.
This election will be about two things: Iraq/national security and the economy. And since a majority of Americans oppose McCain’s stance on the war, he should run on the economy. The three remaining candidates for president are senators, none possessing the executive acumen that comes with being a governor or business leader. So he’ll need some help.
He has two obvious choices. Mitt Romney earned high marks as a skilled and successful businessman before his turn as Massachusetts governor. And Rob Portman, a former congressman from Ohio, who was one of Bush’s top budget directors, is also a rumored candidate. He’s young, he’s conservative and he’s from Ohio, a key battleground state.
Then there’s David Walker, the best choice no one is talking about. Walker is a political independent, but he’s also the only person in Washington who’s telling the truth about the budget. In fact, he quit his job last month as the nation’s comptroller, essentially our top bean counter, so he could continue telling the truth, unfettered.
The country can’t afford the Medicare and Social Security benefits it has promised, and has saddled today’s kids with debt they may never be able to repay. Unless Congress acts, Walker says, taxpayers are on the hook for $50.5 trillion in obligations over the next 75 years. That’s about $170,000 per person.
He repeatedly criticized the president, Congress, and both parties for burying their heads in the sand during his cross-country “Fiscal Wake-up Tour.”
He would need to be drafted onto the ticket, but he has a message that needs to be heard. As veep, he would have a platform, and if McCain could stomach the bitter pills Walker dishes out, he could honestly reach out to young voters by offering them a future.
Wouldn’t that be a change?
Unfortunately, that’s not how politics works. No one wants to talk about cutting programs or slashing benefits when they’re trying to get elected.
And, frankly, no one wants to hear it.
Turn up the happy talk and hold on to your wallet.
Dan Haley can be reached at dhaley@denverpost.com.
