When I say this, most of my friends think I just don't like Rep. Ryan, which is untrue. I really like him, actually. Indeed, while I feel like there's no one who can articulate and explicate positions on tax policy and budget policy nearly as well as Rep. Ryan can, I wonder if on a national stage he'd be able to hold his own in arguments concerning Foreign Policy and appeal to social conservatives. Yes, he is obviously very very good at what he does, but he hasn't been able to show so far (granted, he hasn't needed to) an understanding of other issues which are important to voters and to the future of this nation.

For this reason, I agree with Mr. Miller's conclusion that

For the time being, Ryan serves us better where he is at

although we have different reasons, it seems, for approaching this conclusion.

Woah. I mean this is all stuff about taxes that you know cerebrally, but it is made far more poignant with the illustration. Thanks for posting this; I'm going to be forwarding it to many, many people.

StickerShock:  Advice to young college men:  Behave like a gentleman & keep your pants zippered.  Then the argument about evidentiary standards and due process remains a theoretical one you can engage in during class, rather than a life-altering nightmare.

And don't forget to call your mother at least onece a week, shower daily, and launder your sheets. · _{Sep 9 at 10:56am}

I'd just like to add that I like this, a lot. It may be very well true that the standards for sexual assault might greatly hurt men, but ultimately, men will not get in trouble if their behavior is never questionable. In this sort of situation nobody wins, so while I sympathize with the sentiment of this post, I'd also echo StickerShock's call to prudence and gentlemanly-ness. 

Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to watch the debate, but given the clips I heard on the news, and the commentaries I've seen/read, your analysis does seem spot-on. The race seems to be evolving into a two-horse one, and of the two horses, Fmr Gov. Romney has been described as the winner of the debate last night. I'd emphasize though, that Perry as the frontrunner has a different job than Gov. Romney -- Gov. Perry simply has to preserve a lead, which I think forces him to adopt more defensive/deflective positions than Gov. Romney did. This, I think, led to the pinata statement that's being gleefully played over and over again.

I agree with you, Josh, that it's possible -- even likely -- Gov. Perry saw the error of his ways concerning liberalism, especially with regards to size of government and economic policy. But we also have to consider the sort of candidate that Al Gore was in 1988. No, he was no conservative, but he was portrayed by most as a "centrist" who "opposed federal funding for abortion. He favored a moment of silence for prayer in the schools and voted against banning the interstate sale of handguns."

Indeed, by 2000, Gore had become far more liberal, especially on "social" issues, but it is not entirely unreasonable for a pretty socially conservative Texan to support a pretty socially conservative Tennessean in a run for president. Ron Paul is being ridiculous.

Thanks, Freesmith, for pointing out some of the hypocrisies, as well, in Rep. Paul's statements.

I really do like this idea. I think the stipulation about live audiences is also a great one. I loved how Rep. Bachmann got grilled by Prof. George "Really? That's in the Constitution?" 

While ideology in and of itself is fine (I believe I said, "ideology partnered with wisdom and reasonableness"), I am wary of a blind ideology, which, as your question correctly suggests, is the sort of ideology we should deplore.

Not "giving" anything to anyone; just pointing out that many pundits have already begun crafting a new GOP field, in case the Republicans don't win in 2012.

As a Texan, I do align with the South, and so I would include Ron Paul and Rick Perry in any list of important Republican Southerners. Of course, there's Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, Gov. Haley Barbour from Mississippi, and in recent memory, George Bush (TX), Jeb Bush (FL), and Mike Huckabee (AR). Now we've also got to consider some of the "up-and-comers" like Senator Marco Rubio (FL) (some would say he's already arrived), Governor Nikki Haley (SC), and Governor Bobby Jindal (LA).

I think that this combination of older bastions who mark the end of one generation, and younger upstarts who might lead a younger one, does show that the South has had  might still have a real, tangible stake in the GOP. Remember, three of the last four of the GOP presidential nominees have been Southerners and the current GOP frontrunner is a Southerner (although that might yet change!). Indeed, if Republicans can't win this election, it is very very possible that the Republican 2016 ticket will include one or more of the"up-and-comers" that I mentioned above. The South still lives!

Oh, and Drew, I did know that PPP was a left-leaning polling group, although I wasn't aware of how much some of their past data has been skewed. That certainly puts things in perspective.

Dave, thanks so much for your kind words! Hopefully I can get a hang of this thing quickly.

I really like what you've said here:

and I think that it combines nicely with what Paul's said here:

While the GOP will have to say everything you've outlined, we also need to make sure that the president elected will do everything he says. Only then will change be real and effective.