The Romney File

[joepistole]

Ryan's budget would have no effect on grandma, unless she's under 55.

Well that is the claim anyway. How long do you think it will be before conflict arises between those who have fully funded Medicare and those who do not? Cost shifting is not the answer to Americans healthcare cost problems. We have been doing that for decades. And now healthcare has become too expensive even for government. And we have many healthcare models adopted by other countries that have been proven to be more efficient and deliver higher quality of healthcare to boot. Obamacare is an adaptation of one of those models. We need to fix the healthcare system. Ryan’s budget takes a pass on that issue. And in fact he is on record along with all of the other Republicans to repeal the one piece of legislation that has been estimated to reduce the nation’s healthcare bills (i.e. Obamacare).

And what there are no grandmas under 55 years old?

 

[Tiassa]

Jelly and Ego Defense

If so, it's a bold choice as Romney would essentially be officially signing on to Ryan's budget plan which the Democrates would, no doubt, love to demagogue with more ads about throwing grandma off a cliff.

It would be interesting to see how that works out; when a pro-Obama super-PAC put together a focus group to figure out how to go after Romney, they were surprised to find that the people simply did not believe their depiction; that is, "when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed 'ending Medicare as we know it' — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing." (Draper)

It's a strange situation from the Democratic side of the aisle. To the one, yes, ending Medicare as we know it while cutting taxes for the wealthy. To the other, will voters say, "Nah, they're just fucking with us"?

2012 could possibly be the strangest presidential election we've ever seen. Well, at least until 2016. One wonders how the pendulum swings; not the left-right pendulum, but sane-insane.

Romney seems to be testing the boundaries. His bald-faced lies set a new standard for American politics; his platform strikes voters as unbelievable.

Rep. Ryan would, from a Democratic perspective, be a great choice. This election is already crazy enough. The great risk of a Romney/Ryan ticket, for Democrats, is that voters simply won't believe that the GOP's presidential platform could possibly be what Republicans themselves say it is.

It's almost as if Romney is trying to win by reducing the electorate to a neurotic jelly.
____________________

Notes:

Draper, Robert. "Can the Democrats Catch Up in the Super-PAC Game?". The New York Times. July 5, 2012. NYTimes.com. August 11, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/magazine/can-the-democrats-catch-up-in-the-super-pac-game.html

 

[joepistole]

It's almost as if Romney is trying to win by reducing the electorate to a neurotic jelly.

I guess that explains why Republicans across the land have been busy with their voter suppression efforts. They only want the neurotic jelly voters to vote.

Romney’s choice of Ryan would appear to be his version of the Hail Mary pass. Ryan appeals to the base of his party just like Palin did in 2008.

 

[Tiassa]

Hitch Your Wagon and Go Back?

Romney's choice of Ryan would appear to be his version of the Hail Mary pass. Ryan appeals to the base of his party just like Palin did in 2008.

Mostly I'm waiting for the inevitable mockery to end. That is to say—

Speaking as a national candidate for the first time, Paul Ryan, reading from his teleprompter, told supporters he's "thrilled to be a part of America's comeback team." It was right around that time the Obama campaign unveiled its own new name for the Republican ticket: "The Go Back Team."

(Benen)​

—after all the usual strutting and chest-puffing is done, sober analysis will start to emerge, and we will be better able to discern just how the sides and factions are going to respond to the addition of Rep. Ryan.

And, yes, they went there. The Go Back Team.

Really.

And, staying with Benen:

For months, Mitt Romney repeated a common complaint about President Obama's professional background: he's spent his life in the political world, not the real world. While Romney's a businessman (notwithstanding 18 years seeking public offices), Obama's never run a business and never run a state. It makes Obama, the argument goes, a poor choice for national office.

Oddly enough, Romney hasn't repeated that line of criticism in a while. I guess we know why.

[Paul Ryan] worked in politics his entire life, beginning as an aide to Sen. Bob Kasten, then working for Sen. Sam Brownback and as a speechwriter to Rep. Jack Kemp. He's known as a relatively ideological politician who has put forward a detailed policy plan to remake the federal government. It's a rather different message about what's important. And how does Romney say the problem with Barack Obama is that he's "never spent a day in the private sector" and then put Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency?​

Indeed, in May, Romney went so far as to say working in the private sector for "at least three years" should be a prerequisite to national office. Now, Romney wants to put Ryan one heartbeat from the presidency, despite the fact that Ryan's adult life bears all of the characteristics of a background Romney disdains.

I don't intend this as a "gotcha" moment, exactly, but rather, my larger point is I'm not exactly sure why Romney thinks Ryan should be the vice president, or would even be good at the job.​

The problem with waiting out the mere superficialities is that there are plenty, such as things are. Suddenly the unbelievable description of the presidential ticket is something voters cannot simply disbelieve. Which, of course, is why Republicans are trying to reposition the ticket slightly:

... it's worth keeping in mind that a GOP strategist told NBC News this morning that Romney's agenda is "not an embrace, line by line, of the Ryan plan." CNN reported something similar, noting Romney talking points saying the campaign has not embraced the Ryan agenda as its own.

It's way too late to play little shell games like these. Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan several times, and this morning, literally made Ryan his running mate.

If Team Romney wanted to put some distance between themselves and Ryan's radical congressional budget plan, they should have thought about that before this morning.​

So hang on to your disbelief, I guess. We'll see where they are going with this.

I expect the news cycle will roll through superficialities until the convention. Perhaps the only potentially enlightening aspect will be watching how the campaigns handle them.

Like, "The Go Back Team". That's so facile you'd think .... Well, yeah. We're still in the bluster stage.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "'The Go Back Team'". The Maddow Blog. August 11, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/11/13233794-the-go-back-team

—————. "Romney's kind of guy?" The Maddow Blog. August 11, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/11/13233570-romneys-kind-of-guy

See Also:

Obama for America. "The Go Back Team". August 11, 2012. BarackObama.com. August 12, 2012. http://www.barackobama.com/romney/ryan/

 

[Aqueous Id]

joepistole/tiassa

I like what you both are saying here.

Why Ryan, indeed. Name recognition? Republican voters seem to me to barely have their finger on the pulse of current affairs, but no doubt they have some vague recollection of this guy Ryan . . . plus it's only 2 syllables, starts with R as in Republican, so there's the mnemonic memory device advantage (I'm trying to think as a Romney strategist here) . . . so here's this guy Ryan, and when the Teamsters all sit down for Cokes in the breakroom (forgetting who advocated for unions, labor laws, OSHA etc.) and there's maybe 10 or so of them, odds are, when someone says "what's this Ryan feller fur, an' wutsee again'?", odds are that one of them, that 10% who never miss an episode of Rush Limbaugh, will be able to inform the rest "Oh him. Yeah, he's the feller what's gonna fix this budjit mess once an fer awl, by gittin the (low voice: colored folks) offa welfare and gittin the govamint offa our backs." And the rest will all do the Boss Hogg equivalent of fist bumps (spittin' chew in their Coke cans) with a resolute "an' we kin finely call it thuh WHITE House again!!" /snicker /chortle /grunt /spit

"if I kin jess ruhmimbuh howta run theyem new fangle votin' musheens" they probably wonder unanimously, upon returning to the loading docks.

Meanwhile, the Democrats keep appealing to reason, as if neural jelly isn't all that pervasive. Kind of a losing strategy, but what's a guy with a think tank full of PhDs supposed to do?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Why Ryan, indeed. Name recognition?

Here's a nice article on the subject:

In choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has opted to go for broke, and he has indicated that he is a serious man -- less concerned with becoming President of the United States than with saving the country from the disaster in store for it if we not radically reverse course, willing to risk a loss for the sake of being able to win a mandate for reform.

..by making this choice, Mitt Romney is declaring war. There will be no evasion, no triangulation, no attempt to mask what is at stake in this election. Instead, Romney and Ryan will directly confront Barack Obama and call him to account for putting us on a ruinous course.

This will alter radically the dynamics of the race. The money spent by Obama trying to demonize Governor Romney will prove to be money entirely wasted. The election is not going to be about Mitt Romney. It is not going to be about the sexual revolution. It is not going to be about Bain Capital. It is going to be about the failed policies of Barack Obama, about their dangerous character, and about the sober, sound alternative the Republicans represent.

This will help the Republicans in Senate and House races immeasurably, for it will give Romney and Ryan coattails -- now, without a doubt, the candidates in these other races have something concrete on which to run: repeal Obamacare, pare back the entitlements state, reform our system of taxation, and put our fiscal house in order. No one will doubt the capacity of the Republicans to rule.

http://www.ricochet.com/main-feed/Romney-s-Declaration-of-War​

Whether this pick will help or hurt the campaign remains to be seen. However, the central point, that Mitt Romney has decided to make this election about substantive issues rather than simply a referendum on Obama is correct. If Romney/Ryan win in November, they will do so with a mandate for change. A mandate to end our fling with statism and Keynesian economics. To quote a previous Republican president, a mandate for a return to normalcy.

There is much to like about Mr. Ryan. Here's a quote from his speech yesterday:

“But America is more than just a place…it’s an idea. It’s the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. This idea is founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the governed. This idea is under assault.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/te...s-vp-candidate-2012-08-11?link=MW_latest_news​

He sounds like he's quoting me.

 

[Aqueous Id]

madanthony,

I have yet to see Republicans address issues. So far we have almost entirely fabricated issues by them. And I see no failed policies by the Obama administration, other than whatever his opponents could thwart. There were some claims about failure that opponents fabricated there, too, but the Republican voters tend to forget what their party has been lying about.

The call for budget whacking in a recession is plumb stupid. This is the era of economic recovery, when all sides have to listen to the experts. They are not politicians. They are economists. So far I have only seen the idea of leaving economics in the hands of economists as an idea supported by Democrats. Paul Ryan is a speechwriter, not an economist. How and why he declares himself an expert in economics is to me a simple question of honesty.

Considering that voters are all old enough to work, that they typically see sizable deductions going towards social security and medicare, it seems highly implausible to me that someone with no relevant experience ought to be able to convince them that his planned disruption of the system will do any good.

I think Romney has taken a big chance.

By the way, our rights as Americans come neither from nature or God. He's citing the Declaration of Independence. It was superseded by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1877, and the statutes under Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson are our primary source of rights. Another substantial chunk are key Supreme Court decisions upholding those laws.

I wonder how Ryan would do on a quiz if confronted by this question. I'm already remembering Sarah Palin trying to understand what the role of President of Senate involved (concerning launching a repeal of Roe v Wade) and what "the Bush Doctrine" might refer to.

 

[madanthonywayne]

madanthony,

... I see no failed policies by the Obama administration, other than whatever his opponents could thwart.

Since we're discussing Mr. Ryan, it seems appropriate to quote him:

No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn’t make things better.

In fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.

This is the worst economic recovery in 70 years. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for more than three years, the longest run since the Great Depression. Families are hurting.

We have the largest deficits and the biggest federal government since WWII.

Nearly 1 out of 6 Americans are in poverty--the worst rate in a generation. Moms and dads are struggling to make ends meet.

Household incomes have dropped by more than $4,000 over the past four years.

Whatever the explanations, whatever the excuses, this is a record of failure.

The call for budget whacking in a recession is plumb stupid. This is the era of economic recovery, when all sides have to listen to the experts. They are not politicians. They are economists. So far I have only seen the idea of leaving economics in the hands of economists as an idea supported by Democrats. Paul Ryan is a speechwriter, not an economist. How and why he declares himself an expert in economics is to me a simple question of honesty.

Perhaps you might consider doing some research on Mr. Ryan before accusing him of dishonesty. He actually does have a degree in economics. Furthermore, your implication that all economists support increased government spending is laughable. I doubt all economists agree on anything. Also, the evidence in support of Keynesian economics is not as strong as you seem to think it is:

consider the “stimulus” schemes of Bush–Obama (2008-2012), when U.S. federal spending increased by “only” 25%. In a prior column I explained why these failed miserably and precluded a robust recovery. Krugman complains that the 25% rise was too modest; he wanted a much bigger increase, perhaps double (+50%), or even +100% (the magnitude that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression). Next consider the vast reduction in U.S. federal spending that occurred amid the de-mobilization after World War I; federal spending was slashed 84% from 1919 to 1924, and during that time GDP increased 19%. After World War II spending was cut by 67% in just three years,(from 1945 to 1948, and Keynesians at the time were convinced, based on their bogus magic multiplier, that the private sector economy would unavoidably suffer from such a huge cutback; instead, real GDP grew by 13% in three years (1947-1950), and then accelerated, rising by 22% between 1949 and 1952. Going even further back, after the Civil War, U.S. federal spending was reduced by 79% between 1865 and 1872, and yet real GDP grew by 21% in that time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...t-iii-why-government-spending-retards-growth/​

By the way, our rights as Americans come neither from nature or God. He's citing the Declaration of Independence. It was superseded by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1877, and the statutes under Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson are our primary source of rights. Another substantial chunk are key Supreme Court decisions upholding those laws.

You have it exactly backwards. The entire concept under which our government was created was that it was the duty of government to secure the pre-existing rights of the people. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against even having a bill of rights was that people might erroneously come to believe, as you do, that we retain only those rights delineated in the bill of rights. To quote James Madison:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-quotes-6.html#ixzz23NmAdniv​

I wonder how Ryan would do on a quiz if confronted by this question.

Better than you, I trust.

 

[joepistole]

Since we're discussing Mr. Ryan, it seems appropriate to quote him:
Originally Posted by Paul Ryan
“No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn’t make things better.

In fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.

Do we or is this the made up bull shit you, Limbaugh, Fox News and others of your ilk have been trying to sell over the course of the last 3 years? Just what is it that you and your fellow Republicans have done to improve things here in the states? Republicans and your leaders made a very deliberate decision to oppose whatever Democrats and President Obama tried to do no matter the cost to the country (e.g. debt ceiling).

This is the worst economic recovery in 70 years. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for more than three years, the longest run since the Great Depression. Families are hurting.

President Obama also inherited the worst economy since The Great Depression, the worst economy in 80 years. He also inherited a Republican congress unwilling to do anything to help the economy and the American people – that is unprecedented.

We have the largest deficits and the biggest federal government since WWII.

 
And just where did those deficits and spending come from? Ironically, they originated with Ryan and his fellow Republicans. Ryan’s finger pointing here is like blaming the fireman for the fire.

Nearly 1 out of 6 Americans are in poverty--the worst rate in a generation. Moms and dads are struggling to make ends meet.

Household incomes have dropped by more than $4,000 over the past four years.

Whatever the explanations, whatever the excuses, this is a record of failure”

That was the record of the previous Republican President and Republican congress. That is what happens when you run the economy into the ground as the previous Republican congress and president did. When President Obama assumed office, we were losing almost a million jobs a month and the economy was shrinking at an annualized rate of 9 percent and growing. And we had already lost over a 4 million jobs in the months preceding President Obama’s inauguration.

Since President Obama’s inauguration and the passage of his economic packages, we have seen the economy stop shrinking and begin to grow, growing rather consistently at a 2 – 3 percent annual rate. That is an 11 -12 percent increase in economic growth under President Obama. So while Republicans want to call that bad news, I call that good news. It is certainly better than anything we have seen under a Republican Congress and/or president.

Additionally, on the jobs front, the nation went from losing nearly a million jobs a month to growing jobs consistently at a rate of between 100k and 200k month after month. That is an improvement of more than a million jobs a month. I call that a success. But you and your fellow Republicans want to call that a failure. Here is the funny thing, Romney is promising that if he is elected he will only deliver the current jobs trend, if you take him for his word. So Romney is promising to do no better on the jobs front than Obama. So does that mean Romney is promising failure if he cannot beat President Obama's jobs numbers?

By the way, paychecks have been growing under President Obama’s tenure. They are growing at the fastest pace in more than 5 years. Maybe you and Ryan should get your numbers straight. But then you would have to be honest and it would not portray the picture you need voters to believe.
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...boost-americans-purchasing-power-economy.html

Perhaps you might consider doing some research on Mr. Ryan before accusing him of dishonesty. He actually does have a degree in economics. Furthermore, your implication that all economists support increased government spending is laughable. I doubt all economists agree on anything. Also, the evidence in support of Keynesian economics is not as strong as you seem to think it is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...t-iii-why-government-spending-retards-growth/​

You have it exactly backwards. The entire concept under which our government was created was that it was the duty of government to secure the pre-existing rights of the people. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against even having a bill of rights was that people might erroneously come to believe, as you do, that we retain only those rights delineated in the bill of rights. To quote James Madison:

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-quotes-6.html#ixzz23NmAdniv​

Better than you, I trust.

How about if we are honest? Ryan has a BA degree from Miami University in Ohio. The dual major was in economics and political science. That's basically economics light; he has never worked as a professional economist. He has always been first and foremost a Republican politician even in college, pushing the party line first last and always. He has not been a professional independent economist, nor does he possess the academic or professional credentials to do so.

Two a partisan BS piece attempting to discredit Keynesian economics in a partisan journal is hardly scholarly or even rational. If you want proof of austerity in action during an economic crisis, look at Europe and ask them how well it has worked for them. You think 8 percent unemployment is burdensome, why don’t you ask the Spaniards how they like 25 percent unemployment?

The time for austerity was back when Ryan and his fellow Republican cohorts were doubling the national debt and turning a huge budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. The time for austerity is not in the middle of the greatest economic crisis in nearly a century. And you don’t have to be a genius to figure that one out, you don’t create jobs by not spending money as you and your fellow Republicans are advocating. You only have jobs when someone is spending money for products and services that require the expenditure of labor.

 

[Tiassa]

GOP's Psychotic Win-Win Gamble

President Obama also inherited the worst economy since The Great Depression, the worst economy in 80 years. He also inherited a Republican congress unwilling to do anything to help the economy and the American people – that is unprecedented.

In this case, we have to remember that despite what Obama has inherited, he has not led us out of this mess. Of course, if we say that, we must also ask what would constitute leadership?

Do everything the Republicans tell him to? Would that be leadership?

For Republicans, this is to a degree win-win. Remember, they're the ones that say government doesn't work. And yes, they're trying to prove it.

Even in losing a second term to Obama, they win: As long as they can continue to sabotage the government, they can continue to make the point that government doesn't work.

I mean, how many times can you point to congressional Republicans, and the next day here comes the talking points that ignore the fact of naked obstructionism. Their complaint essentially comes down to, "It's Obama's fault we aren't letting him do anything, even the stuff we would ordinarily like to do ourselves."

One way or another, conservatives are trying to destroy the American society in order to reshape it in the Image of Their Lord Ayn Rand. Unfortunately for them, it's a futile gesture. Unfortunately for everyone else, they don't care about futility. They just want to hurt people.

It comes down to this. The cycle of boom and bust in our economy has come down to conservatives saying, The wealthy are so important that they not only ought to wreck everything, but everyone else is supposed to clean up their mess.

If they win the White House, Romney's after Obamacare and Ryan's after Medicare. The Romney budget will increase the deficit, increase taxes on the middle class, and if he gets his way, he will pay for it by destroying Medicare, even though that won't be enough, all so the wealthy can get a tax cut.

If Obama wins, they just keep running Congress into the dirt.

Either way, everything gets broken, and government is to blame.

 

[Repo Man]

MadAnthony, quoting a goddamned objectivist does nothing to strengthen your argument. They are as deluded as the communists that they diametrically oppose.

 

[spidergoat]

Since we're discussing Mr. Ryan, it seems appropriate to quote him:...

Right, give Obama half a term with friends like Lieberman to fix 8 or more years of Republican regressivism?

Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people...​

 

[Tiassa]

A More Reasonable Ouch

A More Reasonable Ouch

From the world of things more useful than comparing Republicans to the apocalypse comes the eminent Nate Silver:

Why am I concluding that Mr. Romney would have chosen Mr. Ryan only if he felt he was losing? Because from a Politics 101 point of view, this isn’t the most natural choice ....

.... frequently been violated when it comes to vice-presidential picks, there is evidence that presidential candidates who have more “extreme” ideologies (closer to the left wing or the right wing than the electoral center) underperform relative to the economic fundamentals.

Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

By this measure, in fact, which rates members of the House and Senate throughout different time periods on a common ideology scale, Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center. (The statistic does not provide scores for governors and other vice-presidential nominees who never served in Congress.)​

It is an interesting analysis. Silver's statistical models suggest Ryan's impact on the electoral outcome would be small at best. The whole thing has a bit of ouch to it.
____________________

Notes:

Silver, Nate. "A Risky Rationale Behind Romney’s Choice of Ryan". Five Thirty Eight. August 11, 2012 FiveThirtyEight.Blogs.NYTimes.com. August 13, 2012. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/

 

[joepistole]

I have to agree, the selection of Ryan for the VP nomination is not a natural choice for Romney and it does reflect desperation, the same kind of desperation we saw in McCain when he chose Palin in 2008. Granted Ryan is not as whacky as Palin, at least not yet, but it appears that the motivations in selecting him were the same.

And it would appear that the Ryan nomination is already blowing up in Romney’s face. Since his nomination, the national discussion and attention has been and will remain focused on Ryan’s controversial positions and history.

 

[Balerion]

I don't understand this opinion that Ryan is a desperation pick. If picking an arch-conservative running mate was sure to blow up in his face, what could he have hoped to gain? What would be the point if there is so "obviously" no benefit to picking one? I think the people characterizing the pick as such are being short-sighted.

Clearly, Romney picked Ryan for balance. Mitt is not widely considered a true Conservative, and picking a running mate who can credibly stump all of the Conservative talking points is a smart move. The choice of Ryan--who is about as right-leaning as a candidate can get--makes sense when juxtaposed against the party's perception of Romney as something of an impostor; he's more appealing to the base on the issues than Romney while being off-center enough that he won't be the guy everyone wishes was running for president instead. In that sense, he is like Palin. The difference being that Sarah Palin was a gigantic moron, as well as belonging to a fringe religious sect.

And don't discount the popularity contest aspect of the election process. Ryan is telegenic, young, and able to speak in complete sentences (Given our recent history with Bush Jr. and Palin, that's a plus). Again, contrast that with the robotic Romneytron 5000, and it's easy to understand why he made the choice he made.

I don't think it'll work, but I understand it. I mean, presidential candidates don't really choose running mates based on their philosophies, they pick them for what they mean to the ticket. Consider Obama's choice of Biden. Many in the base wanted (or at least speculated that it would be) Hillary, but the knock against Obama in 08 was his relative inexperience. Biden, meanwhile, was the establishment, a steadying presence standing behind a young newcomer full of ideas. It wasn't about what Biden wanted to do with the country, but how his presence legitimized Obama's by addressing his main weakness. Ryan does the same thing, I think.

 

[quadraphonics]

Mitt is not widely considered a true Conservative, and picking a running mate who can credibly stump all of the Conservative talking points is a smart move. The choice of Ryan--who is about as right-leaning as a candidate can get--makes sense when juxtaposed against the party's perception of Romney as something of an impostor; he's more appealing to the base on the issues than Romney while being off-center enough that he won't be the guy everyone wishes was running for president instead.

Sounds to me like you understand the "desperation" perspective just fine, there. The way that a successful presidential run is supposed to work is that you spend the primaries firing up your base, and then tack towards the center to pick up independents and moderates. Romney couldn't do that because he never had the support from the base, so he had to pick an arch-conservative ideologue to shore up that end. But, again, he was supposed to nail down the base months ago, in the primaries, so he could spend the months before the election polishing an image with broader national appeal. Instead we get this spectacle of him chasing the far right while simultaneously trying to differentiate himself from Ryan.

Also, Romney is going to get absolutely creamed in the debates. The guy has the public speaking persona of a fencepost, except with a less authentic laugh, and Obama is a powerhouse in that department.

 

[superstring01]

Also, Romney is going to get absolutely creamed in the debates. The guy has the public speaking persona of a fencepost, except with a less authentic laugh, and Obama is a powerhouse in that department.

Disclaimer: I'm already voting for Obama. I went from being a solid moderate-Republican to begrudgingly falling into bed with the Democrats. I'm not saying that religious hijacking of the GOP hasn't been a fact for 22 years, but with the advent of people like Palin, Anal-Excrement, Bachmann and Perry, I can stomach being associated with the GOP about as much as a Jew could enjoy the benefits and privileges of NAZI membership.

Anyhoo, I really don't like Romney but not really for his conservatism. I have to be honest and say, as Republicans go, whatever flexible cartilaginous-substitute-for-bones he has as a spine really is prolly pretty okay with gays and abortion and all that. He's just had to bill himself as a conservative to get nominated. But, I don't think he's completely stupid and I'm confident he'll hold his own on the debates. He has the charisma of Ben Stein, but his actual recall and ability to regurgitate meaningful information will be adequate to the task.

But if we're talking panache and delivery, yeah, Obama all the way.

~String

 

[superstring01]

Also, Romney is going to get absolutely creamed in the debates. The guy has the public speaking persona of a fencepost, except with a less authentic laugh, and Obama is a powerhouse in that department.

Disclaimer: I'm already voting for Obama. I went from being a solid moderate-Republican to begrudgingly falling into bed with the Democrats. I'm not saying that religious hijacking of the GOP hasn't been a fact for 22 years, but with the advent of people like Palin, Anal-Excrement, Bachmann and Perry, I can stomach being associated with the GOP about as much as a Jew could enjoy the benefits and privileges of NAZI membership.

Anyhoo, I really don't like Romney but not really for his conservatism. I have to be honest and say, as Republicans go, whatever flexible cartilaginous-substitute-for-bones he has as a spine really is prolly pretty okay with gays and abortion and all that. He's just had to bill himself as a conservative to get nominated. But, I don't think he's completely stupid and I'm confident he'll hold his own on the debates. He has the charisma of Ben Stein, but his actual recall and ability to regurgitate meaningful information will be adequate to the task.

But if we're talking panache and delivery, yeah, Obama all the way.

~String

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

I don't understand this opinion that Ryan is a desperation pick. If picking an arch-conservative running mate was sure to blow up in his face, what could he have hoped to gain? What would be the point if there is so "obviously" no benefit to picking one? I think the people characterizing the pick as such are being short-sighted.

To the one, as I noted earlier, we're likely in a period of superficial critique. Still, though, reading the omens—such as they are—at this point does offer us glimpses inside the campaigns.

From the Democratic leaning side of the aisle comes Steve Benen, who asserts that Rep. Ryan's selection is an "August" pick.

Back in March, Benen outlined the perspective:

If a nominee picks an August, he or she is trying to bring a fractured party together at his or her national convention, reaching out to a rival or someone from a competing intra-party constituency. George H.W. Bush, for example, was an August pick for Reagan in 1980.

If a nominee picks a November, he or she is picking a running mate intended to help win the general election.

And if a nominee picks a January, he or she is looking for someone who can help govern once inaugurated. Dick Cheney was arguably the perfect January.​

In this sense, Benen asserted over the weekend that, "Paul Ryan is an August", and went on to explain:

Romney, who never quite made the transition from the primaries to the general election, has been subjected to heavy pressure from conservatives to choose the right-wing House member, and it appears the lobbying campaign was successful. The Republican nominee still feels the need to satisfy the demands of his base, and Romney isn't in a strong enough position to disappoint them.

As a result, both the left and right have the Republican running mate they hoped for—Romney has picked the architect of a radical, Medicare-crushing budget plan, debated by the least popular Congress since the dawn of modern polling. Indeed, it's fair to say the radical Ryan budget helped make this Congress so widely disliked, which makes his VP nomination that much more remarkable.

For months, Democrats have been trying to inject the "Romney-Ryan plan" into the political bloodstream, and now, the Republicans' presidential candidate has made Dems' job easier. The Obama campaign hoped to make Ryan Romney's effective running mate, never expecting the GOP candidate to make this literal.

The result is a dynamic that was hard to predict. Romney isn't even trying to reach out to moderate voters; he's taking the most far-right candidacy in modern American history and turning it to 11.​

It's easy enough to read through Benen's logic and nod, but the perspective seems invested more in a Democratic-sympathizing worldview; whether the presuppositions prove true over the long run is certainly an open question.

But at the heart of it we see why Ryan is considered a desperation pick. It is not so much "balance"—the policy potential for this ticket treads quite literally in the realm of the unbelievable—but in order to shore up conservative support and rekindle conservative enthusiasm; as I asserted last month, right-wing voter enthusiasm can be a tenuous proposition. Putting Ryan on the ticket clearly plays to those voters. Whether the Ryan candidacy continues to stoke that enthusiasm remains to be seen.

Of course, it's early; there is nothing I'm saying that is impervious to argument. But this is the early perspective, and at the heart of why people are suggesting a sense of desperation or late summer about the pick. What Ryan's November value is remains to be seen, though Silver suggested it will be minimal at best. And January? Well, by Mitt Romney's own unusual standard, Paul Ryan is not qualified to be president. It's an interesting situation. Ryan as the vice presidential nominee is a toss-up for me. To the one, it makes a certain amount of sense when GOP superstars are either staying out or getting thrown out. But it's also one of the picks Democrats wanted; the referendum is off, and it's now a real policy election. That's a fight Democrats really think they can win. And why not? The unbelievable is now the GOP ticket.

Very, very interesting.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "August vs. November vs. January". The Maddow Blog. March 2, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 14, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561663-august-vs-november-vs-january

—————. "Romney-Ryan 2012". The Maddow Blog. August 11, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 14, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/11/13231472-romney-ryan-2012

 

[Balerion]

To the one, as I noted earlier, we're likely in a period of superficial critique. Still, though, reading the omens—such as they are—at this point does offer us glimpses inside the campaigns.

From the Democratic leaning side of the aisle comes Steve Benen, who asserts that Rep. Ryan's selection is an "August" pick.

Back in March, Benen outlined the perspective:

If a nominee picks an August, he or she is trying to bring a fractured party together at his or her national convention, reaching out to a rival or someone from a competing intra-party constituency. George H.W. Bush, for example, was an August pick for Reagan in 1980.

If a nominee picks a November, he or she is picking a running mate intended to help win the general election.

And if a nominee picks a January, he or she is looking for someone who can help govern once inaugurated. Dick Cheney was arguably the perfect January.​

In this sense, Benen asserted over the weekend that, "Paul Ryan is an August", and went on to explain:

Romney, who never quite made the transition from the primaries to the general election, has been subjected to heavy pressure from conservatives to choose the right-wing House member, and it appears the lobbying campaign was successful. The Republican nominee still feels the need to satisfy the demands of his base, and Romney isn't in a strong enough position to disappoint them.

As a result, both the left and right have the Republican running mate they hoped for—Romney has picked the architect of a radical, Medicare-crushing budget plan, debated by the least popular Congress since the dawn of modern polling. Indeed, it's fair to say the radical Ryan budget helped make this Congress so widely disliked, which makes his VP nomination that much more remarkable.

For months, Democrats have been trying to inject the "Romney-Ryan plan" into the political bloodstream, and now, the Republicans' presidential candidate has made Dems' job easier. The Obama campaign hoped to make Ryan Romney's effective running mate, never expecting the GOP candidate to make this literal.

The result is a dynamic that was hard to predict. Romney isn't even trying to reach out to moderate voters; he's taking the most far-right candidacy in modern American history and turning it to 11.​

It's easy enough to read through Benen's logic and nod, but the perspective seems invested more in a Democratic-sympathizing worldview; whether the presuppositions prove true over the long run is certainly an open question.

That's all fair, but the problem with criticizing the Ryan pick is that Romney couldn't have made a different one. At least not in terms of policy. The Palin pick was ludicrous as a concept because McCain was strong enough in the base already, and should have focused on swing and moderate voters. Romney doesn't have that luxury. He must win over his base, and hope that the down economy is enough to convince swing voters that anything is better than Obama.

But at the heart of it we see why Ryan is considered a desperation pick. It is not so much "balance"—the policy potential for this ticket treads quite literally in the realm of the unbelievable—but in order to shore up conservative support and rekindle conservative enthusiasm; as I asserted last month, right-wing voter enthusiasm can be a tenuous proposition. Putting Ryan on the ticket clearly plays to those voters. Whether the Ryan candidacy continues to stoke that enthusiasm remains to be seen.

Of course, it's early; there is nothing I'm saying that is impervious to argument. But this is the early perspective, and at the heart of why people are suggesting a sense of desperation or late summer about the pick. What Ryan's November value is remains to be seen, though Silver suggested it will be minimal at best. And January? Well, by Mitt Romney's own unusual standard, Paul Ryan is not qualified to be president. It's an interesting situation. Ryan as the vice presidential nominee is a toss-up for me. To the one, it makes a certain amount of sense when GOP superstars are either staying out or getting thrown out. But it's also one of the picks Democrats wanted; the referendum is off, and it's now a real policy election. That's a fight Democrats really think they can win. And why not? The unbelievable is now the GOP ticket.

Very, very interesting.

I just mean "balance" in the sense of their history. Romney is, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, an architect of Obamacare, and Ryan is the architect of its proposed destruction. And while Mitt can remain elusive on the issue of immigration, people are free to suppose that he agrees with Ryan's position. (Whatever that happens to be; I don't actually know where he stands...though I could probably guess) Ryan provides the (zany) filling for the gaps in Mitt's policy.

I would also argue that making this a policy election is what Mitt Romney wanted, too. As a kind of Obama-lite, Romney gets crushed in the election. As a bland avatar of the GOP, with some Ryan flavoring, he probably stands a much better chance. But I don't have the information or resources that Silver does, so maybe I'm wrong. It just seems right to me that he's better off for this pick, even if it does give the Dems something new to play with. Certainly that's better than them being able to say "Well, you agreed with me ten years ago!"