74 thoughts on “Paul Ryan”

  1. Hrmmm…

    Paul Ryan topped my “I hope they enter the race!” list last year, mainly because he’s a budget expert and the budget is out largest problem.

    I’m torn by his selection, if true; he’s chairman of the house budget committee. That’s a powerful and effective post, so would he have more impact as VP?

    However, *IF* Romney uses him wisely, maybe… plus, he’s popular in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin going red would really give Obama an electoral-vote headache.

    Incidentally, the announcement is apparently going to be from the Nautica museum in Norfolk. I’ve been there, and it’s a great place to visit, as well as being the home of the USS Wisconsin (An Iowa-class Battleship). I would not be at all surprised to see the announcement made from her decks.

    If the Ryan rumors are true, his debate with Biden will be amusing.

    And speaking of Biden, I find it very interesting that he’s been so low-profile lately. Normally, the VP is out on the fundraising circuit and stump even more than the POTUS at this point in the cycle. It makes me wonder if he’s about to find himself dumped from the ticket.

    1. A budget “expert” which isn’t willing to cut defense spending if I read Wikipedia correctly. He also wants to cut aid to the old and poor in the middle of an economic recession as usual. Somehow I doubt adding this particular person will help Romney’s prospects. The Democrats are already portraying him as a tax evading corporate raider as it is. My opinion is also that the selection of the Vice Presidential candidate usually has little impact on an election. It is better to get a behind the scenes wheeler and dealer or an utterly boring managerial type of candidate than a demagogue as VP. The risk of the actual candidate being obfuscated or fading out of the picture is too big.

      If I had to bet I would still say Obama will win this election. I wouldn’t be surprised if candidates other than from the two main parties will have better results than usual either. It has happened elsewhere. Seems to be a trend.

      1. Well, it does indicate a lot more commitment to fiscal responsibility than Romney had shown before. Much like Obama’s selection of Biden indicated a degree of commitment to foreign affairs and upholding the old media oligopolies.

        1. commitment to fiscal responsibility

          Ryan voted for every Bush budget, the unfunded Medicare Part D expansion, the tax cuts (he argued they should be bigger), the Iraq war, and TARP. Where is this commitment to fiscal responsibility you speak of?

          1. Without TARP our economic system would have collapsed during Obama’s first few months. Instead Obama got the end to a recession and the taxpayer got largely paid back.

            The $100b spent on Iraq war was just a small part of our $3t+ yearly spending.

            Where are Obama’s budgets? Not even Democrats are voting for them. Over 1200 days now without a budget from the Democrat controlled government.

          2. Wodun (Sarcasm Alert!!!!),
            Only an evil, racist, warring-on-women pollution-lover could expect Nancy P and Harry R and Barack O to constrain Fed spending with a fixed budget each year! No expense is too great to protect our children from dirty air and water, and give them first-class schooling and 3 nutritious meals a day at school! And without totally renewable energy sources for all US energy needs within 10 years, Gaia will DIE. (A NASA scientist says so!) We need to spend whatever Nancy and Harry and Barack believe is needed for the children and green energy and simply sell more T-bills to the Chinese whenever we run out of cash. And don’t forget that we need to provide free wellness care doctor visits and contraceptives and so forth to all US women, you woman-hater you! No expense is too great to protect women’s health “rights”!!!

      2. Wikipedia isn’t a useful source about anything political, especially anything that isn’t left-wing political and even then it’s mainly useful for seeing what the approved politically correct line is at the moment.

        But the defense budget is not what’s bankrupting the country in any case, it’s entitlements.

        The Democrats are trying to portray Romney as a tax cheat and a corporate raider, but the effort doesn’t seem to be getting any traction among people who haven’t already drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. They’re also trying to portray Romney as a killer. Not having too much luck there either.

        You’re wrong about the influence of VP picks on electoral prospects. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin in 2008 made him a contender virtually overnight. True, he then managed to stupid away this real shot by screaming like a little girl and running in circles as the long-building housing finance bubble burst in September. That’s what happens when you have someone at the top of the ticket who doesn’t understand money. But the Palin pick took him from hopeless case to contender before he stepped on his crank. Unlike McCain, Romney is actually ahead this time, but the selection of Ryan will have a similarly tonic effect.

        So I don’t see Obama winning this election. I think he’s going to lose and I think the Romney victory margin will be 8 – 12 percentage points.

        Agree with you about the prospects for 3rd-party candidacies. Unfortunately for Obama, nearly all of this “success” will some out of his hide, not Romney’s. The dopers are really torqued off at Obama for massive arrest campaigns and federal hobnailed bootsing of pot dispensaries in several states – notably here in California. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson seems to be attracting most of the backlash support on this issue. The real hard-core fever swamp leftist crazies haven’t been too happy with His Nibs either. Since Roseanne Barr has been one of their higher-profile troops for years, I suspect she’s going to attract significant traction for her Peace & Freedom Party candidacy from the Bolshevik demographic on both coasts and in college towns. Hey, Ralph Nader never won anything either, but he lost FLorida for Al Gore in 2000 and, well, want of a nail and all that.

    1. It didn’t blow up in her face. She’s more powerful now than she was as Governor of Alaska. Three and a half million people Like her on Facebook, and everything she says in public is all over the news. Four years ago the only people who even knew her name were the 700 thousand people in Alaska.

      1. Exactly right Ed. Were I Palin I think I’d prefer the position she has now over being VP. Or maybe even over being POTUS for that matter.

  3. The consolation prize is, if Obama wins, Ryan is next up in the Republican conga line for the nominee.

    1. Fenster314,

      And how many of those actually won, especially if they were not actually elected as a Vice-President?

        1. Don’t care how it happened. Just glad it did.

          The left has already gone ballistic, although nothing like for Sarah.

          We should be hearing all about Darth Ryan for the next decade.

          Which will give him time to mature into our next president.

  5. Well Rand unfortunately the republicans had a bunch of bozos running, out of the Newts, Hermain Cains, Santoroum, Perry, Bacchmen, Palentry, and Huntsman. Romney has best chance in general and currently among conservative have a actually view of what he actually is “not that conservative/libertarian” unlike the likes of Santoroum or Perry he played the part of conservative but alot of there actions fiscally go against that view. With that proper view I hope the republicans/Tea Party in congress won’t attempt to appease and vote or provide laws for a presidents Romney more compromising positions. Don’t need another George bush presidency with the president and republicans in congress increasing the spending bar.

  6. Ryan voted for TARP and Medicare part D, no child left behind, the 2008 and 2009 budget busting stimulus packages. He talks the talk but does not walk the walk….another blow hard political hack. There is even video of him begging other republicans to vote for the massive bailout.

    1. Here’s an interview where Ryan explains some of his choices for TARP and stimulus. Thanks Paul, I wasn’t fully aware of his history, as I haven’t followed him as much. It’s difficult following the follies of Hutchison (can’t leave soon enough) and Cornyn.

  7. Romney must be thinking that he needs more GOP base enthusiasm, or that his chances are looking so slim that he needs to shake things up. His best shot was making the race a referendum on the state of the economy, and not a choice between policy options. Now he’s lashed himself to Ryan’s policy record, and the race will be less about the unemployment rate, and more about whether voters want to privatize Social Security, cut & privatize Medicare, and gut non-military spending in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

    Romney could still win if Europe falls apart or there’s some other economic shock, but overall he’s hurt his odds by moving the race onto Obama’s preferred fighting ground. But it’s definitely a win-win for Ryan; if they win he’s the presidential frontrunner for 2020, if they lose he’s the frontrunner for 2016.

    1. Jim,

      If Romney is in such trouble and Obama is so golden, why does Obama’s campaign in the past month reek of panic and desperation and Romney’s of a confident winner? Winning campaigns don’t run ads about cancer killing someones wife 7 years later and have Harry Reid lead the dirty tricks squad.

      No President in modern times has been re-elected with an economic record approching Obamas. The economic models show him losing badly in November.

      1. Romney’s of a confident winner

        The Romney who yesterday was begging Obama to stop talking about his Bain record and his taxes?

        The economic models show him losing badly in November

        Which models are these? Do you have any links? Here’s one that predicts an Obama win. Here’s another.

        A lot can change, but the last month has been terrible for Romney. His trip was a disaster, the tax return story didn’t go away, he was caught trying to disown his leadership of Bain. The race has become about Romney, and not his one winning message: that the economy’s a mess.

        There’s no way Romney would have picked Ryan if he thought he was winning.

        1. Those aren’t economic models Jim. Those are speculation. The ones that model economic factor predict Romney to win.

          Obama and Romney are tied in Gallup and Romney is ahead in Rasmussen and Rasmussen is the best pollster in the business by far.(Don’t bring up that stupid Hawaii poll. All pollsters have bad polls. Rasmussen correctly predicted the last two presidentila races within a point and the composition of the House by Five seats in 2010 when he underperdicted for the Republicans and the Senate by one seat when he overpredicted Republican gains by one Senator. )

          I’ll take actual scientific polling of Scott Rasmussen with his extensive trackrecord and resourses over the speculation Nate Silver any day.

          1. Those aren’t economic models Jim.

            Look again, both models put heavy weight on economic statistics.

            Rasmussen is the best pollster in the business

            Rasmussen was one of the least accurate pollsters in 2010, with a 3.9% bias towards Republicans.

        2. There’s no way Romney would have picked Ryan if he thought he was winning.

          If Romney were in trouble, he would have picked Portman or Rubio. The fact he DIDN’T pick a candidate from a major swing state speaks of confidence.

          1. If he thought he was winning he’d have made a low-risk choice like Portman or Pawlenty. Ryan, Rubio and Christie were his high-risk, game-change options.

        4. What Puckett said.

          Begging is TPM spin. Romney was demanding that Obama quit lying about his taxes and his Bain record. Quite a reasonable request given Obama’s failure, thus far, to say anything true on either subject.

          But your main mistake here is your off-the-wall confidence that Obama is ahead in this campaign. Rasmussen is the only polling organization with an accuracy track record worth citing and they say Mitt’s four points up. The MSM keep touting phoney polls done by other organizations that don’t poll likely voters and have laughably Democrat-skewed sample populations. Even with all the blatant scale-thumbing, Obama’s alleged “leads” are unimpressive.

          This is not going to end like you think it is.

    2. I doubt that an European collapse will help Romney win. The countries faring worse in the EU have been following the IMFs recipe of cutting pensions, cutting unemployment benefits, trying to trim the budget. However those economies keep going down the drain and they cannot cut expenses fast enough to keep up with declining tax revenues. Unemployment keeps rising and is much higher than in the US. In comparison Obama’s fiscal stimulus has stopped unemployment from rising and the economy is in much better shape.

      1. American voters aren’t analyzing European policy choices, they’re noticing how the economy is around them. The worse the economy is, and the more worried voters are about it getting worse, the worse Obama will do. A Euro collapse would slow US growth a bit, and be a blow to consumer confidence.

        1. Jim writes:

          “American voters aren’t analyzing European policy choices,…”

          How the hell do you know?

          “A Euro collapse would slow US growth a bit, and be a blow to consumer confidence.”

          Are you serious? A Euro collapse would immediately drop us into a severe recession.

      2. Obama said his stimulus would keep unemployment below 6%. It has been a total failure. Even Obama admited, with a laugh, that there are no shovel ready projects. The man knows nothing about how the economy works.

      3. I’m not aware of any European country except Estonia that actually cut government expenditures year-on-year. There are several that have “cut” in the Washington D.C. sense of that word, i.e., cut the rate of increase over what had been projected/planned. Estonia, by the way, is doing fine. The bigger countries with the phony “cuts” – as you have pointed out – not so much.

    3. Jim, in your slathering desire to attack Ryan for.wanting to kill old people think for a moment that this might back fire on Obama and the Democrats? I mean, you guys ran ads with Ryan literaly throwing grandma off the cliff. Is this type of negative campaigning really going to serve any other purpose than to depress voter turn out?

      I think Obama just stepped into a.trap. Let the negative ads commence.

  8. I am thinking the GOP just sewed-up the EV’s from Wisconsin and likely Iowa too.

    This will give them a firewall against losing a swing-state.

    1. Ryan helps in WI, but hurts in FL, where they like their Social Security and Medicare. Romney basically can’t win without FL.

        1. Romney has the 500 million in cuts to Medicare card yet to play in florida.

          Those same cuts (and more!) are in the Ryan budget, so Romney just took them off the table.

          1. Jim, I often disagree with you and regard your point of view as the Liberal party line. Your recent posts, however, stipulate that 1) Mr. Obama “owns this economy” and is vulnerable on that score — an Obama partisan won’t even cede that point, and 2) that there was money (the 500 billion) taken out of Medicare to help fund the Affordable Care Act — a true partisan would not have given ground on that point either.

            The common ground between us is that we share the observation that it could have been a Romney tactic to scare seniors regarding the Affordable Care Act gutting Medicare, but the selection of Mr. Ryan for all purposes takes that campaign position off the table.

            It goes without saying that the VP has little to say about anything unless the President authorizes it, both in candidacy and in office. On the other hand, Mr. Ryan “owns” the position of “entitlement reform” on account of his very public service to that cause in the House of Representatives, and now Mr. Romney has as much as endorsed that position as a campaign theme.

            Were I running for President against Mr. Obama, my three themes would be energy policy, energy policy, and energy policy. I would attribute our current woes to the little war Mr. Putin waged against his neighbor Georgia, which caused oil prices to spike and started a cascade of world wide financial collapse. That and some overly loose lending rules that were driven by an agenda of allowing people to borrow money against homes who were not ready for that degree of financial obligation.

            I would point to the Bush Tax Cuts as where “taxes ought to be” and suggest that the reluctant extensions of those cuts in fits and starts along with Mr. Obama’s continued threat of increases on “the rich” are hamstringing the recovery. I would point to a controlled experiment, where we tried an energy policy of developing domestic oil and natural gas under the Bush years, which is paying off in the only bright spot in the economy with the domestic gas and oil boom, and an energy policy of overreliance on renewable energy sources that don’t seem to be paying off according to the optimistic projections.

            I would propose fixing our energy economy as a fix to our general economy, and yes, worry about entitlement reform once we got people working so they don’t need food stamps, allow seniors to work if they want if they don’t want to retire and collect Social Security. Call that “kicking the can down the road”, but that is what I would propose.

            The Ryan selection endorses the Libertarian/Right/Tea Party emphasis on entitlement reform as a “social justice by ending government dependency” end in itself, much as Mr. Obama’s “tax the rich” is a “fairness/social justice the rich need to pay their ‘fair’ share” end in itself.

            I will even go so far as to say that the selection of Sarah Palin by McCain was a better strategic choice than the selection of Paul Ryan by Romney. When Sarah Palin was chosen, she was known as “that Governor up in Alaska who negotiated those oil and natural gas deals.” Sarah Palin was initially the “drill here, drill now” campaign platform, that is until events overtook her and the McCain campaign and she became a right-wing icon (there was very little Libertarian about her record in Alaska — her iconoclastic politics was drill for oil and share the wealth, more old-style New Deal than anything else). “Drill here, drill now” is bitterly opposed by all right-thinking Peakers and Warmistas, but it is a platform of prosperity. The Ryan Budget, however, is campaigning on odd-tasting medicine, it is Walter Mondale campaigning on raising taxes to balance the budget.

            My two cents is for running the “referendum election” but now we are running a “choice election.” Maybe I am wrong, the sentiment for rolling back entitlements is strong, and this will work out in the end for Mr. Romney.

          2. Very good comment Paul. I would point out that “energy, energy, energy” by Romney would allow Obama some pivot room. He could change his mind on KeystoneII, flood the airwaves with pics and videos with oil derricks and pipe in the background, etc. The greens aren’t going to vote for Romney; the worst thing that could happen would be somewhat reduced turnout.

            With this pick there is no pivot space available. The choice has become very stark. Is that the best way to win the election? I don’t know. Your points are valid.

          3. Were I running for President against Mr. Obama, my three themes would be energy policy, energy policy, and energy policy. I would attribute our current woes to the little war Mr. Putin waged against his neighbor Georgia, which caused oil prices to spike and started a cascade of world wide financial collapse.

            Why would you do that? Putin isn’t your opponent and he didn’t have a thing to do with the financial crisis. Nor I don’t see energy as a big issue. For all the talk, energy is cheap and won’t jump again in cost until the economy has come back to some semblance of life. Obama’s problems with energy are merely that he has picked winners and losers, harming the economy in the process.

            And the sins of Obama go far beyond “energy”. Basically, the US has now a substantially increased “safety net” that it is not willing to pay for with taxes, but borrows heavily to sustain. Romney would be able to make spending cuts and tax increases, that the Republican side would abide by, to close that gap (whether he actually will is a different concern, which I gather the Ryan selection is supposed to address). It’s not clear that Obama even recognizes this as a problem.

            Obama also has a habit of distorting and breaking the law. Focusing on “energy”, ignores the overstep of various federal agencies (particularly, the several hundred cases of accessory to murder, but there are other odious examples of abuse of power).

      2. Um, Jim, did you AARP’s polling in Florida this week? Romney 46 – Obama 44. Connie Mack is doing better than Nelson too.

        As I said Jim, you are really writing very stupid things. Puckett’s right, Obama and you are getting very desperate. It’s the economy, stupid; and Romney’s pick of Ryan shows that Romney gets it.

        1. One poll doesn’t say much. The RCP average for Florida is Obama +1.4.

          It’s the economy, stupid; and Romney’s pick of Ryan shows that Romney gets it.

          Ryan has no particular credibility with independents on the economy, he’s a career politician. Choosing him changes the conversation from the state of the economy, Romney’s best terrain, to policy options. If the election is about Medicare and Social Security the Republicans lose, and Romney just made those bigger topics.

          1. Also from RCP: Appeal Obamacara +7.6 No Democrat since JFK won election without Wisconsin. Florida is a must win for Obama, and he’s within margin of error, maybe… No wonder he has the DOJ trying to prevent early voting. Can’t let the military folks in the panhandle mail in their votes, right Jim?

          2. No wonder he has the DOJ trying to prevent early voting.

            Obama benefitted greatly from early voting in 2008, but the GOP in Florida has since restricted it. Are you sure you don’t have your sides switched?

            Can’t let the military folks in the panhandle mail in their votes, right Jim?

            Romney’s lied about Obama opposing military early voting in Ohio; has he lied about Florida as well?

          3. I was referring to the DoJ’s lack of enforcement of the MOVE Act. Holder’s to busy making sure illegals can vote, but not interested in making sure our deployed military can. In both cases, the administration is acting against the democratic will of the people.

      3. Seniors abhor Obamacare. When Romney convinces them he’ll either repeal it, refuse to fund it, or otherwise make a joke of it, they’ll vote for him.

  9. From the irony-exised so-predictable-its-MEGO-boring MSM, here’s Ryan Lizza:

    First, let’s tally the risks of a Ryan pick.

    For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience.

    Yeah, better to choose a community organizer. Or a 50-year senator from one of the smaller of the 57 states.

    1. A few days ago, someone mentioned debating and how Romney isn’t really polished in that category. I know there are 3 Presidential and 1 VP debate. While the debates are tedious, they are when normal people start thinking about whom they are going to vote. Obama/Romney debates will probably be interesting and a toss-up for now. But… Can you imagine the Biden/Ryan debate? The shake-up might be Obama jettisioning Biden while he still can.

      1. I expect the Biden/Ryan debate to be at least as cringe-worthy for Democrats as the Cheney/Edwards debate was. But even a James Stockton VP debate performance by Biden isn’t going to swing the election.

    2. The issue with Romney picking a career politico is that it defangs the “no private-sector experience” attack on Obama/Biden. Romney can’t honestly attack Obama for lacking business experience at the same time that he’s saying Ryan is totally qualified for the Oval Office. Similarly, McCain gave up his opportunity to attack Obama for lacking foreign policy experience when he picked Palin.

      1. I’ll give you that Jim. But those aren’t major issues. The economy is what will bring Republicans to the polls and give Democrats pause in wanting another 4 years of Obama/Biden.

      2. Romney isn’t attacking Obama for lacking business experience, he’s pointing out that Obama lacks business intelligence. And that America will reject european solialism if given a clear choice. Ryan will help him communicate that choice.

        1. European “socialism” is doing fine in Germany and Sweden. Meanwhile in Ireland the “Celtic Tiger” is down the drain.

          1. You can drop the quotes; Germany and Sweden are european socialist countries. If you think “Re-elect Obama, Become more like Sweden” is a winner, then I encourge you to send your resume in. Or move there.

          2. Germany is not “doing fine” and it seems unlikely Sweden is doing any better as both countries have strongly export-dependent economies and their usual markets – the U.S., other european countries, even China – are not in radiant good economic health. The best hope for european socialism – with or without quote marks – is that serious adults resume control of the U.S. government, expand the American economy and provide the demand engine that will pull our more dirigiste trading partners out of the fiscal mud along with ourselves. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats; even those occupied by people who are not particularly deserving of the good fortune.

      3. Why would Ryan as VP take Obama’s business acumen as president off the table? Ryan wouldn’t be president, Romney would. And why are Democrats all the sudden concerned with “qualifications”. Ryan meets all the qualifications and it is hard to argue that anyone on the face of the planet would have done a worse job than Obama on the economy.

        You have to get into some imaginary wonderland and wonder how Ryan would perform but we already know how Obama performed at it is not well, not well at all.

      4. The issue with Romney picking a career politico is that it defangs the “no private-sector experience” attack on Obama/Biden.

        I’m as puzzled by this statement as everyone else. Does picking this particular VP somehow erase Romney’s past, so that he never ran businesses in the first place? Tell us how that works.

        Look Jim, you’re just making up excuses.

  10. Win or lose this is a good move for the Republicans. It gets Ryan off the Budget Comm. so they can ALSO keep spending money. And the Dems will rip him up as radical, extream, etc.

    But niether Romney nor Obama is going to be the next President: Hilary Clinton.

    Biden steps down as VP pick, serves out his term until January. Hilary is new VP pick.

    After BO/HC ticket wins tight race it is found BO is NOT qualified or some other corruption takes him out. Bang: Hilary Clinton is POTUS.

    1. I now hear that Ryan will be on the local ballot as Congressman and VP. So maybe he will stay in the House and on the Budget Comm. after all. I hope WI voters vote for him twice!

  11. His trip was a disaster

    Perhaps in London, which has a press even worse than ours if that can be imagined, but he hit it out of the park in Israel and especially in Poland.

    Don’t tell me his comparison of Israelite and Palestine economics was racist. That was just more media crap. Israel does well economically because they take responsibility for it.

    If Romney gives the speech he gave in Poland here; people would see him as our new president.

  12. When McCan named Palin as his running-mate, someone at (as I recall) NATIONAL REVIEW said something to the effect, “Good–she’ll make all the right people mad.” And by the “right people” they meant that confederacy of State-shtuppers either Tom Bethel or Joseph Sobran so aptly dubbed “the Hive.”* I get the same feeling about Ryan. Watch the message board here for confirmation.

    *See http://www.sobran.com/hive/hive.shtml

  13. Well, the one thing we know for sure is that the Democrats will be diving off the deep end with their new civility.

  14. Well, the one thing we know for sure is that the Democrats will be diving off the deep end with their new civility.

    “Well, the one thing we know for sure is that the Democrats will be diving off the deep end with their new civility.”

    Yes, I’m sure even now the Hive’s ubiquitous Agitptrop Division is already sharpening its knives.

  15. Rand, you prefer Ryan and Palin because you’re more conservative than most Americans. That’s why Mitt needs Ryan though – Mitt was already doing fine with the non-ideological voters in this cycle. It was the base he needed to tie up. And Ryan helps him do that.

    1. Romney needed to tie up his base? I admit I am not following your comment and need some amplification.

      I can’t see conservatives staying away from the next election, and I can’t see them switching their vote to Obama either.

      1. Indeed. Chickenstock revealed that the spirit of 2010 is still alive. Tapping Ryan shows that Mitt is serious about finances. It’s an actual VP pick, not just a “running mate” pick to shore-up support for the general.

        Gusty!

  16. Rand,

    If the Democrats keep pushing Governor Romney on the tax issue you may get your wish 🙂

  17. Pingback: The Ryan Pick: « Tai-Chi Policy

Comments are closed.