Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Diane Ellis ·
June 23, 2012 at 12:20am
This via Robert Costa at The Corner:
I’m reliably informed that Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman, has submitted paperwork to the Romney campaign. Sources confirm that he is being vetted for the vice-presidential nomination.
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Just responding to your points.....
Fred Cole: I have a few comments:
1. wmartin is spot on. The Ryan budget is toxic electorally.
2. Romney ain't that dumb. He's playing to win, so he'll pick someone who will make a big splash, get lots of attention and maybe win him votes.
3. For those of you who think Paul Ryan as VP would be agood idea. How! Why!?
1. It's time for conservatives to make the case for fiscal conservatism. If we aren't brave enough to do that now when the economy is tanking, when do we do that? To solve our fiscal issues we need to go big or go home. Remember Walker won in Wisconsin. There's a taste in moderate America of strong fiscal conservatism. Romney will need a mandate. Now is the moment.
2. After the Palin fiasco, Romney won't pick a VP based on racial and gender politics. It looks obvious and desperate.
3. Since Cheney the roll of the VP has been evolving. Ryan would be wonderful as the agressive spokesman for fiscal conservatism allow Romney some room at the top to stand back and look presidential.
Jun '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Scaring the elderly is already part of the Democratic playbook. It's all part of class warfare. It's precisely this type of tactic that Romney needs to address head on. As far as the Democratic base is concerned, they're becoming more dispirited everyday. Obama has had a bad six weeks with more bad news ahead. On Monday the Supreme Court will deliver its decision on Obamacare. Once again we'll the class warfare card: five, old, un-elected white guys just took away your healthcare. Except that Americans are opposed to Obamacare by a ratio of better than three to two. There's a very real chance that Romney could reach an inflection point well before the conventions. The left put all their chips on the table when Obama was elected. I say it's our turn to do the same. We have a republic to save.
Edited on June 23, 2012 at 3:14pmOct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Lady Bertrum:
1. It's time for conservatives to make the case for fiscal conservatism.
2. After the Palin fiasco, Romney won't pick a VP based on racial and gender politics. It looks obvious and desperate.
3. Ryan would be wonderful as the aggressive spokesman for fiscal conservatism allow Romney some room at the top to stand back and look presidential.
Lady B - I think I share your political desires, just not your analysis.
1. Yes, but only if that case comes convincingly from the Presidential nominee will it matter to anyone who cares about it. What the VP stands for will not fool anyone as a reliable indicator of Romney's commitments unless we already know Romney's commitments!
2. (a) The Left won't be able to Palinize the Republicans twice. (b) Ryan also looks like an "obvious and desperate" courting of fiscal conservatives.
3. It doesn't work that way. The VP isn't an independent source of policy prescriptions. If P and VP are out of synch they look pathetic, not statesman-like.
Most important, forget what the VP means to a Romney Administration! This about having a Romney Administration. Nothing else matters ... to Romney.
Nov '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Unlike many of you who have an intimate look into the Romney campaign, as well as the future, I am merely surmising here. But I surmise that should Ryan become the next Vice-President of the United States, he will not be content to be a Biden or a Cheney. I believe he would transform the role of the Vice President into something more like Picard's "number one". I say this based upon Ryan's willingness to take on President Obama over fiscal matters when the rest of the House leadership seems unwilling. Ryan has an actual mission he's trying to accomplish, and he won't become Romney's running mate if doing so won't further his mission. And I think Romney knows that. It is entirely possible that a transformed VP role under a Romney Administration suits Ryan and his goals, if Romney lets it happen and signs up for it. It's just possible that Romney will sign up for it. But again, I am not intimate with the campaign, so my analysis is most likely flawed.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
~Paules
The left put all their chips on the table when Obama was elected. I say it's our turn to do the same. We have a republic to save.
The election is not National. It's 50 state elections. We save the Republic by winning Florida and New Jersey, among other swing states. We don't need to place all our chips on the table the way I think you are implying. The Dems are stuck with a pathetic, Carteresque candidate, which gives the Republicans some latitude. Let's hope they are savvy enough to take advantage of it and don't take unnecessary gambles along the way. Our side doesn't need a Hail Mary pass (yet); there's does.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Ken Owsley:
But I surmise that should Ryan become the next Vice-President of the United States, he will not be content to be a Biden or a Cheney. I believe he would transform the role of the Vice President into something more like Picard's "number one".
I'm becoming a broken record, but how Romney's VP conducts himself/herself in the future isn't worth a bucket of steaming horse excrement right now. I pray that the only thing Romney and his VP selection team are thinking about is who can bring the ticket lots of votes in key battleground states. That's not easy to discern. In the end, voters select a President; the VP is along for the ride. Media/pundit speculation about VP candidates reflects the fact the 24-hour news cycle needs something (anything!) with which to fill the time. That shouldn't distract political civilians from what matters: who can help the Presidential nominee the most with the Electoral College.
Nov '11
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
HVTs
Most important, forget what the VP means to a Romney Administration! This about having a Romney Administration. Nothing else matters ... to Romney. · 17 minutes ago
I'm not sure this is completely true -- even if one looks at it from an entirely cynical perspective. I think he's serious about Medicare.
Sure, Romney wants to be elected. But he also doesn't want to be Herbert Hoover. He knows he has to do something about the debt. And you can't do anything about the debt without touching Medicare. Hence the alliance with Ryan.
Inevitably, the Democrats are going to go full Mediscare sooner or later regardless of who the VP is. If, as I believe, Romney realizes he needs to win, not run away from, that debate, it makes sense politically to consider putting Ryan on the ticket.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Leigh
Sure, Romney wants to be elected. But he also doesn't want to be Herbert Hoover.
If, as I believe, Romney realizes he needs to win, not run away from, (the Medicare) debate, it makes sense politically to consider putting Ryan on the ticket.
Leigh, there's zero chance of becoming a second President Hoover if you don't first become a President. I'm without fear of contradiction on this point. [:-)
This is about votes, not debates. To the extent debates on that one topic are the deciding factor in who wins critical States in the Electoral College, then we are in perfect agreement.
Nov '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
HVT, you do sound like a broken record, and it's of some kind of music that I don't like. The contention is that Ryan as Romney's running mate makes it less likely that Romney get's elected. I disagree. The only people who don't like Ryan are the people who aren't going to vote for Romney anyway...
Nov '11
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
~Paules
Scaring the elderly is already part of the Democratic playbook. It's all part of class warfare. It's precisely this type of tactic that Romney needs to address head on.
Yes, but not right now. As wmartin pointed out, there isn't time. And I agree. There just isn't. Class warfare is so useful and despicable a tactic precisely because it's so easy. It requires no thought, it has no depth, it appeals to base caveman instincts. There simply isn't enough time to combat that before the election. If Ryan gets picked then the issues will be the Ryan Plan, and not the actual Ryan Plan, but the catfood one.
~Paules
The left put all their chips on the table when Obama was elected. I say it's our turn to do the same. We have a republic to save.
Then Romney was the wrong guy for the Republicans to nominate.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
That's not my contention. My contention is that other VP candidates make it more likely Romney will get elected. This thread is about Romney's principal selection criterion, not the precise algorithm that yields the name of the running mate. But, yes, others will help Romney get elected far more than Ryan will, in my opinion.
Nov '11
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
HVTs
Leigh, there's zero chance of becoming a second President Hoover if you don't first become a President. I'm without fear of contradiction on this point. [:-)
This is about votes, not debates. To the extent debates on that one topic are the deciding factor in who wins critical States in the Electoral College, then we are in perfect agreement. · 8 minutes ago
This is true. But it's about calculating risks.
If taking a particular political position means you increase your chances of losing by about 75%, most politicians will run away. Whereas if that position makes it about 2% more likely that you lose, but about 90% more likely that you can be successful in office, that's worth the risk.
I don't know exactly where Medicare is on that scale. Romney, it seems, may be trying to figure that out.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
HVTs
That's not my contention. My contention is that other VP candidates make it more likely Romney willget elected. This thread is about Romney's principal selection criterion, not the precise algorithm that yields the name of the running mate. But, yes, others will help Romney get elected far more than Ryan will, in my opinion.
BTW and for what it's worth, I LOVE PAUL RYAN! He's the only politician that actually warms the cockles of my fiscally conservative heart! I'd make him President tomorrow if I could. I just don't think he's the most likely to bring desperately needed votes to Romney in key States. And that, in the end, is all that matters come November.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Leigh
If taking a particular political position means you increase your chances of losing by about 75%, most politicians will run away. Whereas if that position makes it about 2% more likely that you lose, but about 90% more likely that you can be successful in office, that's worth the risk.
Your probability of success is zero if you don't first win office. No amount of probabilistic speculation will change this fact.
So, I don't see how anything that makes you more likely to lose is mitigated by any standard of success which assumes you have won office in the first place.
Jun '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
HVTs
~Paules
The left put all their chips on the table when Obama was elected. I say it's our turn to do the same. We have a republic to save.
The election is not National. It's 50 state elections. We save the Republic by winning Florida and New Jersey, among other swing states. We don't need to place all our chips on the table the way I think you are implying.
It's not enough to win the election. We need to rollback the power of the entitlement/administrative state. A dependent populace eventually becomes an enslaved people. Liberty itself is at stake. What follows, as we see in Europe, is a citizenry that will vote for whomever promises the most goodies, until the system becomes unsustainable and collapses. If that's not reason enough to put all the chips on the table, I don't know what is. Those who claim Romney isn't the man for the job might be right. In which case the end of the republic draws nigh.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
~Paules
It's not enough to win the election.
It may not be enough, but it is a prerequisite. Without an election victory for Romney, your apocalyptic vision is 100% more likely than it is with that election victory.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
If I can summarize (and then I promise to shut up), there’s no way around this logic: if you truly care about the survival of the Republic, you must support whatever makes the Romney ticket more electable (via the Electoral College!) than Obama/Biden. Period. Full stop. Who you personally like, whether you are a fiscal, a national security or a social conservative . . . none of that matters. Put another way, those issues were settled in the Primaries. We have a candidate and short of some tragedy happening to him, he is the only hope of derailing the catastrophe Obama and the Democrats have us hurtling towards. It’s time to get past whatever emotional discomfort this causes. I don’t trust Romney either! But we’ll survive a squish; we probably won’t survive the Alinsky hounds once unleashed from re-election worry.
May '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
The best argument for Ryan is that, like it or not, Romney is now married to the Ryan budget (personally, I like it). He's ALREADY all in, and in fact Dems have taken to calling it the Romney/Ryan budget. Given this fact of life, it might be wise to put front and center the human being most effective at selling the Ryan reforms; that is, Ryan himself. So it's possible the move would make both electoral AND conservative-governance sense.
Oct '10
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Sorry – I have to break my vow of silence. Forgive me. Then seek forgiveness all ye blinded by any light other than the light of sweet reason! [:-)
If it’s already the Romney/Ryan budget than Romney doesn’t need the co-author! Those that find it anathema won’t be persuaded by Ryan; those that like it aren’t voting for Obama regardless. The mushy middle, by definition, isn’t sure what to think. But they aren’t hanging their vote on whoever comes up with the killer Ryan Budget argument! This looms large for people like us, not the demographic Romney needs to focus on.
Dems look lame to mushy middlers if they attack the Ryan budget. The party that hasn’t passed a budget in three years complaining about a mere proposal which Dems effectively killed anyway? Bringing it up begs the question: what the hell is your plan to end this red ink? They have no plan. That's not something to highlight for undecided voters who intuitively know we can't live this way forever.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Campaign Vetting Paul Ryan
Bobby Jindal won the Hot Gas poll :
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/23/hot-air-survey-vice-presidential-results/