Thoughts on Paul Ryan

I think this will turn out to be a great choice.

First, Ryan has a demonstrated capacity to get under Obama’s skin. (h/t Drudge) If Moe Lane is correct, this will generate more irrationality in the Obama campaign.

Next, the choice appears to have involved no pandering. Rubio would have been seen as pandering to Latinos; some other choices would have seemed efforts to lock up swing States. (Herman Cain made this point on Fox News this morning.)

The election is now a clear choice between governing philosophies.

Paul Ryan is, without doubt, a solid conservative. Shores up the base. Comforts the Tea Party.

This may bring some of Scott Walker’s electoral success to the Romney campaign.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Thoughts on Paul Ryan

  1. Interesting. My “crazy board” speculated that Marc Rubio turned Romney down. I actually think that comforting the Tea Party is unnecessary. They certainly will turn up to vote since they want Obama out. Romney won the primary because in the end, people couldn’t quite stomach the Tea Party ticket and moderates frequently refer to the Tea Party as “the far right.” Or the politically correct term for nuts, “libertarian.” That’s not a good sign, and it’s why other conservative darlings couldn’t beat the luke-warm handsome gentleman.

    To sum it up- Romney should have pandered to Latinos, and he certainly should have locked up the swing states.

    • YTD,
      I have a hard time imagining any politician turning down the VP slot. It would be a serious career-limiting move. Is there any basis for the speculation on that board?

      The Tea Party folk will most certainly not vote for Obama. What was missing was a sense of enthusiasm for Romney. Enthusiasm translates to contributions (not that Romney is suffering for lack of contributions) and turnout. A dispirited army, however large, can be defeated by opponents who are fired up. (See Viet Nam, Afghanistan, for examples.)

      The VP choice can be an indicator of the character of the Presidential candidate. It’s one thing to choose a placeholder whose only contribution is the winning if a few electoral votes (JFK & LBJ), quite another to select a running mate who can add substance to the ticket (Clinton & Gore). Romney showed himself to be a serious candidate, not interested in winning for the sake of winning.

      Other politicians, such as Rubio, can deliver electoral votes without being on the ticket. Maybe it’s an application of the Pareto principle: getting 80% of the benefit for 20% of the investment. Rubio & Portman & others will not be idle, nor ineffective.

      I still like the choice of Ryan. Maybe he will choose Rubio as his running mate in 2020.

      • Yes, a luke warm army can’t defeat fired up opponents. The problem is, Paul Ryan has fired up Obama supporters even more. Not only will he alienate moderates, but Obama supporters who may not have particularly loathed Romney do now. The GOP reluctantly went with Romney because they knew Paul Ryan like candidates would never get moderates in the swing states. And it wasn’t for a lack of trying to introduce them. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich all failed despite being firmly red, while Romney was arguably purple. Now Romney has appeased Tea Partiers somewhat, although he is still Romney. But he has turned off middle of the road people. He abandoned the one strategy that made him the winner. I don’t know why he has decided to use the tactics that made all his fellow GOP candidates lose.

  2. Fiddlesticks. Romney and Ryan are attracting huge crowds. Romney himself seems to see energy from his running mate. In the meantime, embarrassed by poor turnout, the Obama campaign had resorted to claiming that they are deliberately limiting the size of their crowds so Obama can interact more one on one with the voters.
    The only people ‘advising’ Republicans about the un-wisdom of selecting Ryan are the Democrats. If they truly believed that Ryan was bad for the GOP, they would be celebrating. At first, there was an attempt at glee, but no more. Reminds me of what someone, perhaps Edmund Burke, said about the French Revolution: now they are ringing their bells; soon they will be wringing their hands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s