Nobody's wrong all the time. Well, except maybe for every current and former R presidential candidate. In my case, I correctly predicted from the very beginning (me, and billions of others) that the nominee would be Mitt. Now for the second time: his veep choice will be Marco Rubio.
Again, the signs are obvious. Rubio has gone from "no way" to "no comment." He's about to give a "major" foreign policy speech. He's shadowing Romney all over the map. He's Latino. He's from Florida. He's a teabagger favorite. He's a Mormon-Evangelical-Catholic. What's not to like?
And he's hard-line on hard-right issues: abortion, immigration, taxes. Nor is he much enamored of compromise or bipartisanship, far as I can tell. He's also good-looking, smart, and unlike Romney is charismatic and a good speaker.
I think he'd be a brilliant choice for Romney, and it'd relieve a lot of anxiety on the right. With Rubio on it, it'd be a tougher ticket to beat.
Still, it will (or ought to) come down to message, and to the very different priorities of the two main candidates. The question (to which the answer, I'm pretty sure, is "no") is whether Ds will be able to be heard over the coming blast of negative and dishonest ads ready to be financed by a handful of billionaires behind Romney; the question (to which I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes") is whether voters are okay with a small group of very rich men (the link is to an excellent, if chilling, article by Frank Rich) with a very self-centered agenda determining our next president, and having him beholden to them ever after.
