Veepstakes ad nauseum


Daniel Larison counters Christie boosterism:

Christie might initially generate enthusiasm and give Romney a brief boost, but he would become an electoral liability before the end. This is also the same man who repeatedly said that he wasn’t ready to be President as recently as last year. A year later, he’s suddenly well-prepared and ready to take over in an emergency because he had a few photo-ops in Israel?

Christie has absolutely no foreign policy experience, which compounds one of Romney’s main weaknesses. The attack ads practically write themselves. Choosing Christie would be akin to attaching a time bomb to the Romney campaign.

Alex Massie tires of the veepstakes:

[T]his is a Washington parlour game that, though traditional and much-enjoyed, is generally less important than the acres of newsprint devoted to it would have you believe. It is most unlikely to determine the result of the election, no matter how much anyone triies to persuade you otherwise.