The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A race for running mates
Vetting a VP takes a full 8 weeks, says bipartisan report.
The presidential candidates in both parties are still in the throes of their nomination contests, but a new report authored by veterans of past campaigns and conventions offers a clear warning to them all: If you haven’t already done so, start your vice presidential selection process now.
Some of the campaigns have made preliminary steps, but none appears very far along.
As a result, two suggestions in the report are notable, given time pressures that could affect this year’s selections. One is to avoid any last-minute vetting of prospective candidates.
The other calls on candidates to carve out time well ahead of their decision to get to know their prospective running mates.
The report, issued under the auspices of the Bipartisan Policy Center, concludes that the process of vetting and selecting a running mate takes a full eight weeks. With the two political conventions convening in mid-tolate July, rather than at the end of August or early September as in the past two presidential elections, that suggests the candidates are already up against the clock.
The report highlights the significance of picking a running mate. As recent vice presidents have played more central roles in presidential administrations, the process of picking them has become somewhat more orderly — but not always. The process remains in the hands of individual candidates with their own idiosyncrasies and political needs.
The goal of the new report is to establish clearer standards for the process of narrowing a potentially long list of contenders to a short list of four or six finalists and eventually to a running mate.
“Selecting a vice president is one of the most important decisions a presidential candidate will make,” the authors say. “The consequences of the selection could prospectively extend beyond the campaign and have a lasting impact on the country.”
Given the unsettled state of the Republican race in particular, the panel said the process should begin even in the absence of a presumptive nominee.
“The key consideration is timing, not whether the likely presidential nominee has emerged,” the report states. “If the race is still not decided, the candidates still in contention should launch their vetting processes so that they have the eight weeks minimum for an adequate vetting.”
In 2008, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain turned late in the process to then Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin when other options fell through. As a result, the final stages of the vetting process were rushed. McCain did not meet with Palin for a serious conversation until the day before she was unveiled to the public, and she did not undergo final stages of vetting until the night before that.
On the issue of getting to know their running mates long before they make a selection, the report highlighted what 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney did. He brought potential running mates onto the campaign trail with him both to gauge their political skills and as a way to get to know them better.
His chemistry with now House Speaker Paul Ryan was instantly obvious to Romney advisers and contributed to his selection.
The report also highlights the sensitive nature of the vetting process and the risk that financial, medical or other personal information could fall into the wrong hands or be leaked to the press. The collection of personal data draws in part from a lengthy questionnaire that can run to 70 questions or more, many of them highly intrusive.
Notably, the panel urged presidential candidates to restrict access to this information to as small a number of people as possible and says all of them should be required to sign nondisclosure agreements.
More significantly, the group recommends keeping most of the campaign’s political advisers far away from the process. One reason is to avoid interference and potential conflicts of interest by strategists who have clients who are under consideration. The other concern is that potentially damaging information would be used against one of the contenders in a future campaign.
“It is in the interest of both the campaigns and political staff to place strict limits on political staff ’s access to the most sensitive, raw information obtained in the vetting process,” the authors conclude.