It’s all over but the shouting in the GOP race for the 2024 Presidential nomination. Ron DeSantis, dropped out yesterday, endorsing Trump, and Nikki Haley will get her metaphorical clock cleaned in the New Hampshire primary: there will be no Gene McCarthy-style upset. Now all the speculation is settling in on the question of who Trump would choose to be his running mate. He claims he’s already decided, but who knows what goes on in that dark wilderness he calls a mind? He could be trolling, he could decide on someone else. My interest lies in whether he is capable of making an ethical choice.
Keep in mind that almost all Presidential running-mates have been chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they have the qualifications, leadership ability or character to be an effective President. If they do, its a lucky accident. Even Abe Lincoln ran for his second term with a wildly unqualified VP, Andrew Johnson, as the latter quickly proved upon being elected. The objective served by the VP choice is winning the Presidency for the #1 man on the ballot. Lyndon Johnson was one of the rare VP choices who had the chops to be President, but all the Democrats and Kennedy cared about was that he was popular in Texas: nobody dreamed that he would end up in the White House thanks to Oswald’s marksmanship. More recently, all three of the women placed on the national ticket—Ferraro, Palin, and (ugh) Harris, had no business being there and wouldn’t have been, had they not had two X chromosomes. If the main qualification for Vice-President were, as it should be, the proven capability to be President of the United States, every VP nomination should be an experienced and effective executive in a challenging government job: state governor, mayor of a big city, or head of a major federal department like State, Homeland Security or Defense.
That criteria becomes especially important when, as it will be in 2024, the Presidential candidate (make that “candidates“) is too old and inherently betting against the mortality tables. Lousy President though he turned out to be when elected to the job, George H.W. Bush still was easily qualified for the VP job based on his experience. Reagan, an elderly candidate, made an ethical choice for a running mate. One of the worst and most unethical choices was FDR’s pick for second-in-command in 1944, when he knew he was probably dying. Harry Truman was an irresponsible, unethical choice (FDR had only met him once, and briefly at that, before handing him the slot); the U.S., as it so often has been, was lucky. Harry was up to the job.
I’m interested in surveying the various names being mentioned in various articles and pundit pieces a possible Trump VPs,to determine if any stand out as particularly ethical or unethical choices.
Group I: Completely Unforgivable
This group, I hope, consists of only three members: tech entrepreneur and skilled troll Vivek Ramaswamy, ex-Fox News demagogue Tucker Carlson, House firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, (R-Ga.) and, a recent suggestion, anti-vax, “lock up climate change-deniers” rogue Democrat, Robert Kennedy, Jr. None of these have any relevant experience qualifying them to be President, and would be both irresponsible choices and dangerous ones. I suppose Vivek would be the least terrible, which is the faintest of faint praise compared to the other three.
Group 2: Unqualified but expedient
These are the fairly typical VP possibilities. Their main virtue would be that they might attract fence-sitting voters from certain demographic groups or important states: Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Rep. Byron Donalds, (R-Fla), and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.
Many think Stefanik is at the top of the list, though I wonder how many women who aren’t already in Trump’s camp would find her an enhancement. She’s not from a state Trump could possibly win; she has no executive experience. She’s articulate, smart, and would be an effective speaker and “attack dog.” We have had VIPs with less to offer, which is hardly an endorsement. Vance is a male, Senate-side version of the same package, except that he may help Trump win Ohio, always a key state. Being a Senator is poor preparation for the Presidency, and Vance hasn’t even been in the Senate very long. Kari Lake is flashy, attractive, charismatic, and a Trump super-loyalist. She also has no relevant experience at all, as a former TV news anchor who lost Arizona’s gubernatorial race in 2022. In my view, she’s just short of belonging in Category I. In addition to having little to offer but a pretty face and a sharp tongue, she, like Trump, claims that she was robbed in her election loss, which might be considered a plus in Trump’s jaundiced eye but not many other places.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is at least a governor, but again, not for very long. She was elected primarily on the basis of her father’s popularity in Arkansas, and that’s a state Trump shouldn’t need help to win. She’s a woman: that’s something, I guess. Senator Tim Scott, a black conservative, would be another cynical but relatively conventional choice. He has no executive experience at all, but he’s black, and since Trump has been tarred as a racist (without justification) for decades, he would make some sense in the second slot on the ticket. Scott is unmarried, and that’s a problem for conservatives and Republicans, but he just got engaged in his fifties, either because he finally found true love, or because advisor told him it was essential if he wanted to be the Veep. Also on the black-list is Dr. Ben Carson, who proved to all that he was a political lightweight when he ran for President in 2015, and would be a perfect example of a DEI hire if he were a Democrat.
Group Three: Qualified.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem is in this group hovering between it and Group 2. She has been a governor for enough years to qualify as having significant executive experience; she distinguished herself during the pandemic by fighting to limit restriction on personal liberties, and of course, she female. But she has been embroiled in a couple of ethics scandals. She intervened in her daughter’s application for a real estate appraiser license, resulting in critical comments from the state ethics panel, and Noem has reportedly been carrying on a doubly-adulterous affair with longtime Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski for years, prompting her husband to move out of the Governor’s mansion. She has also denied it, meaning that the alleged affair is a potentially ticking ethics bomb.
That leaves us with two fully qualified VP options: Doug Burgum, the two-term North Dakota governor, and Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has the best qualification of anyone on the list.
I think there is very little chance that Trump will choose either of them.
Group Four: “Fuggedaboudit!”
Once upon a time in a galaxy not that far away, the conventional wisdom was that Florida governor Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley would be the natural choices to be on Trump’s VP dance card. But DeSantis, despite his ultimate endorsement of Trump, was such a flop in his campaign for the #1 slot that it is an open question what he would bring to the ticket now. Moreover, DeSantis was savaged by Trump to such an extent that Trump choosing him would appear hypocritical, and DeSantis accepting the invitation would be an exercise in public weenism. Haley would have been an ideal VP choice—an experienced female politician of color— had she not intermittently slammed Trump as too old and an insurrectionist while proving to anyone paying attention that she possessed highly flexible principles paired with political instincts that many conservatives (and ethicists) find troubling.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack: Keep in mind that almost all Presidential running-mates have been chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they have the qualifications, leadership ability or character to be an effective President.
Hmmm…
Jack Kemp?
Al Gore? (Maybe not)
Joe Lieberman? (same)
John Edwards? (To be fair, his implosion mostly followed his run in 2004)
Okay, you may be on to something.
Biden? He certainly had ample political (if not executive) experience (more than his running mate).
-Jut
Those all fall into the Senator category, and the Senate is really no training for the Presidency at all, unless one is at least a seasoned legislative wheeler-dealer, like LBJ. Some people are naturally gifted leaders (like Lincoln and Truman), but we never knew that until they ended up in the White House. Only three—Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama—went directly from the Senate into the White House. None make my list as even baseline competent Presidents.
Mike Pence?
Never. Not after Trump called him a traitor, not after Mike foiled the crazy theory that the VP could block the election certification. Even if Trump could forgive and Pence had no shame, he doesn’t bring much to the table now, and is anathema to LGTBQ voters and feminists.
Jack,
Unless I’ve misread the Constitution, DeSantis is out for no other reason than he comes from the same State as DJT. Last time I thought to check, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are required to come from different States.
Apologies if I’m wrong!
MB
Article II states: “The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.” That means a ticket can have two people from, say, Florida, but it would mean that in a close election, Florida’s electors wouldn’t be able to vote for a Trump-DeSantis ticket, even if it won the state. Most of the time, in most election, it wouldn’t make any difference, but it’s still a potential disincentive. This is why Dick Cheney moved his official resident to Wyoming before the 2000 election, or Texas couldn’t have given that ticket its electoral votes.
The 12th Amendment, adopted in 1804 after the absurd crisis caused because the electors votes for VP and President weren’t distinguished and caused Jefferson and his VP, Burr, to be deadlocked, mandated that electors cast separate ballots for president and vice president. However, the rule preventing an elector from voting for two people from his home state remained in effect—-stupidly, but still, there it is.
Thanks, Jack. It’s says like this I wish I’d gone to law school after retiring from the USAF in 1993.
Thanks, Jack.
It’s days like this that makes me wish I’d gone to law school after retiring from the USAF in ’93.
MB
It’s not too late!
I might throw our governor’s name – Iowa’s Kim Reynolds – out there. She has done an admirable job with the state and gave what I thought was an outstanding response to President Biden’s SOTU address two years ago. But she drew President Trump’s ire by delaying her endorsement of a candidate earlier this year and then ultimately backing Ron DeSantis. Still, he could do far worse. Having said that, I would much rather have her in our statehouse than in the White House, so I’m against that option.
What about Governor Youngkin?
I have often wondered if he might consider more “independent” voices. I’m thinking of
non-Republicans that have been relatively conservative in their behavior. It would not shock me at all to see him pick someone outside the party. Joe Manchin comes to mind, though age plays against him given President Trump’s age. Tulsi Gabbard has youth, looks, speaks pretty well, and is another one that has sounded far more conservative of late. Furthermore, quite a few Democrats are still angry about how she was treated in the last campaign. Those two are probably several deviations from the mean, but some food for thought.
So…is President Trump capable of making an ethical choice? Yes. Will he make an ethical choice? Maybe, but it will only happen should his most politically helpful and most expedient choice actually turn out to be ethical.
I like the idea of Youngkin. Two things come to mind with him. He definitely appealed to some of the voters Trump will likely need — if there is any chance Trump could carry Virginia, that’d be worth pursuing. Second, he can’t run for re-election in 2025, so he is going to need a job. Why not VP? People have already talked about him in connection with the Presidency, this would obviously be a good stepping stone.
I would have said Noem, but if she has those kinds of problems it’s probably not what is needed. To be sure, the media is going to pounce on any conceivable problem no matter who the nominee is, but why furnish ready-made ammo?
Speaking of media bias, here’s an interesting question. If Trump were running as a Democrat, how many of the mainstream media and pundits would support him? My bet is — a lot. They salivate over the “D” next to the name more than anything else.
Yeah, Youngkin’s situation is ideal, he’s in his mid-50s, and his selection doesn’t filch a Republican from either the House or Senate. He’s pretty well spoken and he seems to be effective in a state that caucuses against his party affiliation. And if there was a chance to pick off VA for the GOP, that would be fantastic result for sure.
Given how his stroke seems to have red-pilled him, Fetterman might make a good choice as VP. And that might win Trump Pennsylvania no matter how the liberals cheat.
Intriguing, and definitely thinking outside the box.
It’s kind of amusing to see some folks reverse their opinion of Fetterman the past few months since he’s been bucking some of the pet Democratic positions. On the other hand, I suspect he is like Manchin — strongly Democratic but only drinks some of the kool-aid.
But like Youngkin and Virginia, the prize is pretty tantalizing.
Youngkin was elected in purple VA because he managed to attract conservative voters while not explicitly embracing Trump. There is speculation that he has his eye on the Senate. I don’t think Trump wants him, and I think he wants to steer clear of Trump.
Well, now you’re getting more into who Trump actually would pick versus what might be an ethical pick. I do think either of those governors would be good picks (that is, Reynolds and Youngkin).
And we are going to know very shortly (It’s Tuesday evening) whether the GOP race is over for sure or not).
Remember the previous post: suggested solutions and policies that are impossible aren’t ethical—they just muddy the waters. Since he won’t pick Pence or Youngkin, neither of whom would bite anyway, they’re not worth discussing.
So I don’t think Manchin would really be an option for Trump, but I think I could see him choosing Gabbard. The question there would be, would she even consider it? Don’t know but my suspicion would be against.
One of the questions for Trump, though, is that he is likely not to want someone who could have an independent streak — like Pence and Barr had. That’s actually unfortunate, because someone like that would be much better for Trump. But I suspect he’s not looking at it that way.
Yesterday, someone mentioned the name “Tucker Carlson” as a VP selection to my wife.
Please.
God.
No.
He was on my list! And I wouldn’t put it past Trump. I assume Carlson is too smart to be led down the path, but who knows.
“He was on my list!”
Yeah, I know…I read it here first. But now I’ve heard it from someone else as well, and the Daily Caller mentioned the possibility this morning in a story about Carlson speaking in Alberta.