Thanks for the fine analysis.

Two nits:

I disagree that Dick Cheney's selection was "bad judgment" by Pres Bush. He did no harm in either election, and he presented a serious, experienced contrast to Pres Bush.

You omit Sen Rob Portman of Ohio as a possible VP choice of Gov Romney. I think he is high on many people's lists because of his DC experience in the executive branch, the Senate and the House, as well as his popularity in a key swing state.

How about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal?

We still await TVD's analysis of Mitt Romney's positions on the budget, climate change, taxes, financial regulation, Medicare, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. and how they comport with TVD's notion that Romney is a "moderate, entirely conventional" Republican. He absolutely refuses to face how far to the right Romney and his party have moved even in the past three years. That greatly undermines TVD's credibility as an analyst. On Romney's possible VP picks, Jeb Bush will never accept the second-banana position, especially when he could easily have been the top banana on the ticket. I say that from having covered Jeb as governor for many years in Florida. Marco Rubio has weak appeal to Hispanics across the country because of his hard line against a path to legalization for immigrants (other than his own fellow Cubans). Pawlenty is a nothingburger, so maybe Romney will pick him. As to Christie, probably the same analysis as applies to Jeb. (TVD says Christie and Pawlenty are "knowledgable" but none of these guys has an iota of foreign policy experience). I hope Rommey picks Paul Ryan, because that would put front and center Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare and end the program as we know it, along with his plans to end government as we know it. Bring it on.

Does Harris Meyer have some kind of personal beef with Mr Van Dyk?

No matter what the topic, just as spring follows winter, Mr. Meyer predictably comments on Mr. Van Dyk's columns with snarky criticism. Occasionally, the criticism relates to the column written. More frequently, it is a diatribe that seems more personal, opposing the "idea" of Mr Van Dyk and questioning is credibility, than substantive.

Can't we just stipulate that Mr Meyer does not like Mr Van Dyk and spare the readers?

PJS, you seem to have skipped neatly over my subtantive comments about Romney's positions, the nature of today's Republican Party, and Bush, Rubio, Pawlenty, Christie, and Ryan.

Mr Meyer - the "occasionally" in my second paragraph referred to that.

I don't suppose you'd like to address my questions? Or perhaps just spare us readers your predictable diatribes?

Again, you haven't been reading my posts very carefully. They all deal substantively and in depth with the points the writer has raised. Go back and look.

The Vice-Presidency is a curious office indeed, and I still find the logic behind it puzzling. The first Vice President, John Adams, recognizes that he was being relegated to an insignificant office and complained about it bitter. By being obnoxious, Adams also helped set the precedent that the VP, as the Senate's presiding officer, does not speak.

As the fiascoes known as the presidencies of John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur should remind us, the VP choice matters. If the President survives the full term, it doesn't matter very much, but the probability of death in office is too great that it shouldn't be ignored, even if the president appears to be healthy. The record of the accidental presidents of the 20th century is better: Teddy Roosevelt was very popular and successful, even if he deviated from party orthodoxy, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson were all apt standard bearers for their parties, and Ford turned out to be an adequate caretaker president.

In order to avoid the problems that bedeviled the Tyler and Andrew Johnson administrations, the VP choice should be of someone whose views are well-known and acceptable to the mainstream of his or her party.

Mr Meyer - I have read several of your screeds that follow columns by Mr Van Dyk. They follow a similar, predictable pattern: insulting Mr Van Dyk, attacking his credibility and disagreeing with his conclusions. To call them substantive and in depth is a reach, unless you believe that statements like "[h]e absolutely refuses to face how far to the right Romney and his party have moved even in the past three years" constitute solid, objective analysis. Don't give yourself so much credit.

To be clear, I do not know Mr Van Dyk, and I regularly disagree with him. However, I believe he generally does a solid job of providing balanced commentary, and does not deserve the disrespect you show him.

Thanks for your comments.

--I believe Cheney did damage because his bad advice led the U.S. into
a mistaken and expensive war. He also became a polarizing figure damaging his president's capacity to govern.

---Portman and Jindal are sometimes mentioned as possible VP nominees but
I don't see either as being first-tier possibilities. What state could Jindal help carry beyond Louisiana?

---I share pepper2000's concerns about the vice presidency. Some years ago, in fact, I wrote a long Sunday essay in a national newspaper proposing that the office be eliminated. If that were the case, the Speaker of the House and Secretary of State would be chosen with greater care, since they would be next in succession to the presidency.

---

Some people just don't know the difference between condescension and wit.

PJS, perhaps you'd care to provide a link or three for those columns that Mr Meyer has "opposing the "idea" of Mr Van Dyk" I don't recall seeing this existential approach in the comments. Rather than addressing the questions he's put to Mr Van Dyk (which is an honest way of "questioning [h]is credibility"), you've attacked the questioner. As the kids say, FAIL.
Mr Harris is correct that calling Mr Romney "moderate, entirely conventional" is misleading or mistaken. The positions he's taken on the issues make his self-applied label "severely conservative" entirely correct. It doesn't matter if he's a true believer or a simple opportunist, either way moderate and conventional do not apply.
Still, the question of the VP nomination is a good one. Does he appease the very unhappy base or appeal to the mushy middle? The lesson of LBJ applies, and the calculating financial trader is unlikely to waste this spot for someone from a small or already safe state. He could pick Chaney, Republicans like the familiar and the moderates could be sold on his having an actual human heart this time around.

Ah, it's the lull between the effective end of the primary season and the convention media carnival that officially launches the national campaign, and the political junkies are desperately looking for something -- anything -- to talk about. So the serious addicts ponder the irony that in this age of financial distress neither camp has actually offered up a serious, comprehensive budget proposal. And the dabblers explore the myriad possibilities for the out-party's vice presidential nomination. Is it possible to find someone who exudes so much wonkish gravitas that he will make Mitt Romney look charismatic by comparison? (Rob Portman, Mitch Daniels) Is it time to break out of the white guy country-club mind set and embrace some exotic ethnic type to appeal beyond the GOP core? (Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Susanna Martinez). Should a Tea Party favorite be embraced? (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul)

Here's another possibility. Maybe we should take advantage of the lull and just go do something else for awhile. Give politics a rest. The weather guy says that things will start to warm up this weekend. Has everyone got their peas and carrots planted? It's time to fertilize the rhodies and azaleas. Baseball season is officially upon us; even the Mariners look almost exciting compared with an endless drizzle of political drivel.

A couple signoff comments before leaving town for a few days.

1. I sympathize greatly with woofer's observation that we should take time off from politics to plant some vegetables and get ready for another Mariners season. I am a lifelong baseball nut, by the way, and follow the Mariners avidly (just as I followed the Rainiers avidly in my childhood).
So I am as one with woofer on that one. It's a regrettable reality, however, that fewer and fewer citizens follow politics and public policy seriously, in or out of season. That is why we may be receiving "the governance we deserve."

2. PJS raises an interesting point which often is raised by people I encounter. Usually it comes in the form of a question: "Don't hostile,
insulting comments bother you?" Not greatly. I wrote a P-I editorial-page column for seven years and received comments in far greater number
than are generated here. A significant percentage of them online contained personal, ad hominem attacks and/or rants which often had little to do with the subject I wrote about. There was no comment stream, of course, in old media---only letters to the editor, of which only a handful ever got published.

I'd rather have an open, sometimes hostile comment stream than none.
There is one downside which often is raised by those commenting on the commenters. It is that they are reluctant to make their own comments
among others that may be less than thoughful. My response: Say what you want to say, irrespective of what others have said.

Some commenters are so regularly hostile or over the top that you wish
they'd get their own websites and vent there. I usually don't bother reading comments from persons in that category. But, so long as Crosscut editors do not consider their comments in bad taste or out of line, they'll remain part of the stream.

Some writers simply do not read or respond to comments. I will continue responding to those I believe to be relevant and contributing to constructive dialogue.

Regarding whether Bobby Jindal could 'carry' any state besides his home state of Louisiana--I don't think ANY Veep pick could be counted on to 'carry' any state other than the one where he or she enjoys 'favorite son (daughter)' status. The fact that Gov. Jindal comes from a southern state and is reliably 'conservative' could help shore up the GOP's southern base. That he's a governor (with a full term behind him--unlike Christie, or the last campaign's Palin, for that matter) gives the ticket more credibilty as offering 2 candidates with plenty of executive experience. Although the GOP base seems to distrust anyone tied to Washington DC, such may not be the case with independent voters; and Jindal's experience as a several term Congressman shows that he's familiar with the way DC operates. And finally, of course, his (east) Indian heritage offers another chance to break with the typical WASP template of GOP presidential tickets.

I'm not familiar with any of the people posting to this article, but I would agree that Mr. Van Dyke calling Romeny a moderate calls for some sort of additional evidence...who knows what he really believes? I'd be more confortable just calling Mr. Romney an opportunist. Nor did I see anything to back up Mr. Van Dyke's contention that the VP pick ends up making a difference most times. I'll agree that LBJ did help JFK carry Texas but how exactly did Sen. Mondale add to Jimmy Carter's electoral vote? Other than 1960, I can't see any election in the 20th century where the VP pick of either party was a determining factor in the final outcome.

Good comments Taylor. Another significant factor which seems to have been forgotten or just ignored by the press and pundits, is the horrible Citizens United case that was ruled in 2010. So it's never been in play for a Presidential campaign yet. This will be the first year.

Since the United States media, especially the TV networks, have become little more than propagators of propaganda, prepare for the most massive propaganda campaign against President Obama ever.

What compounds the problem of money in politics is that the corporate owned media completely ignores its Constitutional duty to protect us from corruption in the government since they have already profited handsomely from the billions of money generated in political advertising. So the corruption in politics and business has linked arms with the greedy motives of corporate media to make the problem worse. For instance, the corporate media seldom talks about Citizens United, much less a remedy. They also fail to point out that Mitt Romney is outspending Santorum by 7-to-1 and 10-to-1 margins just to squeak by as a winner in the primaries. Imagine what outspending President Obama by 10-to-1 is going to look like. This has never happened in the history of our country. We're in uncharted waters here moving full steam ahead and the press and pundits are behaving as if none of that makes a difference.