Romney goes for Ryan

[Ardbeg... innit]

The internet is abuzz with reports that Romney will select Paul Ryan for his Veep.

Cant argue that the guy is qualified and a HUGELY better selection than Palin was.

Whether he will bring the moderates in the swing states over remains to be seen, it will also be interesting to see if Ryan overshadows Romney throughout the campaign.

One thing is for certain. if Romney loses, Ryan WILL be the heir apparent for '16 and a very strong one too.

[Chicago Jake]

I doubt he'll bring in the moderates, but he'll certainly bring in the Tea Party. And possibly Wisconsin.

[Tex]

IMHO, the biggest problem facing the US is ruinous structural deficits. Inflation adjusted national debt growing faster than the economy is the way to the poorhouse. Ryan has the framework of a plan to solve the problem rather than just postpone bankruptcy.

[Ardbeg... innit]

OK you guys. This choice and Romney's reaction have me totally confused.

He brings in Ryan, and everyones reaction is Ryan=adoption of Ryan's budget plan... makes sense. Jake, as you already pointed out, Ryan wont be bringing in moderates, this selection simply reinforces the far right, who Romney already had, if not enthusiastically.

THEN, Romney goes and puts distance between himself and the Ryan Budget, especially on Social Security and Medicare, seemingly negating any real positive the candidate brings and flip flopping on his earlier record of praise for the Ryan budget and saying he would enact it. (Jake, I doubt Ryan will bring Wisconsin over, Obama has a lead there outside the margin of polling error and is considered safe for Obama)

Romney NEEDS to run the swing states that are right now leaning toward Obama to get the electoral votes needed to win. Romney NEEDS the Clinton Democrats to pull that off. I dont see how Ryan or his budget plan (let alone Romney being for the budget plan before he was against it and AFTER he picks Ryan to run with him) favors this scenario.

[Tex]

Any kind of major entitlement reform will be major legislation and have hundreds of ch-ch-changes before it is enacted. To not do it is to be bankrupt in 10 years.

[♥ COVID-19♥]

Aug 12, 2012 7:06:29 GMT -6 Tex said:

Any kind of major entitlement reform will be major legislation and have hundreds of ch-ch-changes before it is enacted.

So, in other words, you have no confidence that "The Path To Prosperity" would wind up intact in a Romney administration even with its author as VP?

[Tex]

Aug 12, 2012 21:45:15 GMT -6 ♥ COVID-19♥ said:

Aug 12, 2012 7:06:29 GMT -6 Tex said:

Any kind of major entitlement reform will be major legislation and have hundreds of ch-ch-changes before it is enacted.

So, in other words, you have no confidence that "The Path To Prosperity" would wind up intact in a Romney administration even with its author as VP?

If this is a yes or no question, exactly. His framework might very well survive and be enacted, but there would be plenty of fine print in any bill of that magnitude. I would hope that the details could be debated with more transparency that the health care bill.

[Ardbeg... innit]

This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts. - David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan

[Tex]

David Stockman and Art Laffer were on opposite sides of the supply side argument. Laffer won out and federal revenues increased 53% under Reagan. Stockman would be a bigger person if he could bring himself to admit he was wrong.

[Chicago Jake]

Aug 12, 2012 6:22:39 GMT -6 Ardbeg... innit said:

.....He brings in Ryan, and everyones reaction is Ryan=adoption of Ryan's budget plan... makes sense. Jake, as you already pointed out, Ryan wont be bringing in moderates, this selection simply reinforces the far right, who Romney already had, if not enthusiastically......

The "not enthusiastically" is a big issue. It's one thing to pick a VP candidate more to the center, to try to broaden your appeal. But it's another thing to try to energize your base, to ensure that a greater percentage of them are excited enough to get out and vote. Like all things in politics (and life), it is a trade-off. Apparently the party sachems decided that energizing their base was a better bet than trying to broaden the appeal or picking someone from a battleground state.

I think the message from the RNC to the voters is clear: if you are serious about avoiding the kind of calamities happening now in Europe, we are offering the only medicine, albeit bitter medicine. Will voters go for it? Who knows. If they don't, we're all fucked.

[Robin Hood]

My first reaction to Ryan selection for VP was that his medicine is too harsh for the typically-clueless undecided voter and that it was vulnerable to Obama's demagoguery; but then I thought, if not now, when?

Let's put Ryan's arguments up to the American people, and if they can't handle the truth then we're doomed anyway. Let's push all our chips into the center of the table and if we fail, we can go down knowing we presented our best alternative to the bleak future that awaits us otherwise.

If we have to candy coat our message to win, the victory may not be worth having.

Oh...and one more thing... just think of how utterly stupid Mr. Ryan will make Biden look during a VP debate... I am salivating at the thought! ;D ;D ;D

[New Mama]

Didn't think Romney had the balls to pick Ryan. This will be most interesting.

Ryan has beat all the odds. He has been elected in a lefty town and has appealed to the center. It's one thing to do this in Janesville WI, can't wait to see how he preforms on the national stage. I like him and what he has done for Wisconsin.