This email makes a good case that they don't ...
Just so you know, I wrote part of this when you posted the stuff about Huckabee in the VP slot, which is why so much of this focuses on Huckabee. The same can be applied to Romney supporters, though. Your Romney for Veep post just sparked the thoughts again...
I find the obsession with getting your guy as the Vice Presidential running mate comical, but also sadly misdirected. All of these conservatives who didn't get what they wanted in the nominee...and with McCain it seems that everybody lost...would be far more likely to get results if their guy WASN'T in the Vice Presidential slot.The idea that Huckabee in the veep slot would make McCain more palatable or improve the chances of social conservatives making progress on their issues requires more faith than these folks have to give! If anything, it would set social conservatives up for more disappointment. It would be easy for McCain to say, "Well, I put Huckabee in there...that'll satisfy 'em" and do absolutely nothing on the agenda.Same for the Romney crew (although he at least offers a record of competence in business and the executive branch of state government that should be somewhat appealing on all levels)Tell me, did moderate conservatives benefit in any way from Reagan's selection of George H W Bush in 1980? The selection may have appeased and accomodated them, but they didn't derive any great benefit from it, did they? We never said, "Reagan believed X, but Bush convinced him to do Y," did we? If I had more time, I could go through a little more history here, I suppose. Did environmentalists benefit from Clinton's selection of Al Gore? We don't consider Clinton the environmental president, do we?