Romney's excellent VP choice: Paul Ryan
Yael T. AbouhalkahWhether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, Mitt Romney has made an excellent choice as his vice presidential running mate in Paul Ryan.
It’s great news for many Republicans, because they will be excited about the younger, fiery Ryan and his ultra-conservative views on everything from God to guns to entitlements.
And it’s good news as well for Democrats, who will vilify Ryan as someone who wants to gut government programs such as Medicaid and bring religion into everything he does as vice president.
The 2012 presidential election now will offer a very clear choice to American voters: Stick with the liberal Barack Obama/Joe Biden ticket, or opt for the conservative, we-promise-to-cut-spending Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney announced Ryan on Saturday, and it’s almost certainly going to give a bump to his presidential campaign.
Romney has not been Mr. Smooth on the trail in recent weeks - from his disastrous overseas slip-ups to his continued decision not to release his tax returns,
But Ryan could change all that - if he performs as expected.
The seven-term congressman is known for being a decent orator, quick on his feet and sharp in his criticism of government entitlements.
Democrats will want to pounce on that fact about Ryan: He really hasn’t had a job in the private sector. Instead, he’s worked his life on the public dime, making money from the taxpayers.
Still, it appears Romney learned from the disastrous Sarah Palin pick of 2008, when John McCain selected a political neophyte to be his running mate.
Palin actually performed well in the first few weeks, firing up crowds. But the longer people looked at her and her record, they less they liked both.
Ryan has a more of a track record, with hundreds of votes in Congress, which is good for Republicans, who want him to run on it as an ultra-conservative politician.
And Democrats love that he has a record, too, because they will pound on it for the next three months, partly trying to scare Americans into not sending Ryan to a spot where he will be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
William Buchanan
9 months, 1 week agoTwo points. The term slip-up does not necessarily confer the intensity of the error. Even a minor slip-up can be disastrous.
Ray Parker
Overland Park
9 months, 1 week agoRyan has proven that he can tear the Marxist medical takeover to shreds.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoAs YT said, Americans will have a clear choice on Nov. 6. Continue with the gloom and doom policies of the big 0, or return to the days when America was growing and people had the opportunity to prosper.
Today, we have a choice of take your entitlement and NEVER have the chance to better yourself, or shrink govt. and its paralyzing entitlements so you have the chance to prosper. You are not promised anything, other then that golden American style chance to prosper.
I have to hope that there is still a majority of Americans who thrist for the return of that independent spirit that has made America the greatest nation in the world.
Go R&R!!!!
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoYael, you write opinion, so it’s perfectly OK for you to skew your verbiage to make Republicans look bad. Examples include how you write that Republicans are ultra-conservative while Democrats are merely liberal, or perhaps only…Democrats. Also, the Republican side of this race, in your writing, is for spending cuts, but apparently, the Democrat side is….what? You didn’t say. But, that’s OK, Yael, it’s your blog. Just don’t think no one notices.
It is interesting that the left seems to agree that Romney’s trip was a disaster for him. Why? That is what the MSM said. And well, now Yael has said it too.
First, the so called gaffe in England was simply what the English press had been saying for a month. The liberal Piers Morgan, a Brit with political knowledge of both sides of the Atlantic, went to Romney’s defense and said he made no gaffe.
Secondly, Instead of cancelling a pro Poland treaty at the behest of Russia, as Obama did, Romney spoke of how our two countries have supported each other. Lech Welesa came as close to endorsing Romney as he could get. And Welesa is a man who at least earned his Nobel Peace Prize, unlike Obama. Oh, the supposed Romney gaffe in Poland? One of his staffers told a hounding journalist to “shove it”. Ironically, that is the same exact thing Teresa Heinz said to a journalist. Romney got criticized for what his staffer said, but Heinz was supported by our current Sec of State. I guess only liberal Democrats are allowed to say “shove it”.
Thirdly, the supposed gaffe in Israel regarding cultural differences between Israel and Palestine. The left jumped at that as if Romney was terrible, even racist. Oddly, Romney’s quotes pretty much summed up a report the UN commissioned a group of Arabs to write. The report is titled “United Nation’s Arab Human Development Report”. Why is it ok for the UN to say it, but it is heinous if Romney says it?
And regarding the tax returns. Which affects the US more? The fact that Romney has not released tax returns that he is under no obligation to release? Or, the fact that Harry Reid, one of the highest ranking Democrats, has spiraled politics to a new low where it apparently is OK to make unfounded claims against an opponent and then say he has to produce proof of his innocence. Think about that. Those are McCarthy tactics. The lowering of the floor of what is acceptable in dirty politics is surely more damaging that Romney not doing something for which he has no obligation.
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 1 week agoActually, Yael, a choice is not excellent based on the fun either side will have with the election. The GOP has a number of intelligent, experienced possible candidates who would be superior to Ryan. Good hair, good teeth and intensity of ideology are the least reasons to Make such a pick.
Bill Clinton was asked why he chose Al Gore — a guy who brought no regional balance and no ideological intensity and dry personality to the ticket. His answer was in only 4 words: “Because I might die.”
That is the real criterion. Regardless of your opinion on Mitt, can anyone really think that Paul Ryan is ready to serve as president?
George White
9 months, 1 week agoLOL, these right wing fools once again do not get it. Where where these whiners when Bush DESTROYED the economy and had a HUGE deficit? I call these idiots “Born Again Deficit Haters” because they always ignore the GOP fools who have deficits. There is not ONE GOP friend or supporter who I respect or think has ANY solution to any issue in this country. If you can preach anti-abortion, pro-religion and pro-guns then any GOP idiot will cast their vote for you. No matter how much they dispise you because you are not rich you continue to support the GOP because you are basically not very smart! Romney has something really bad in his taxes and he picked Ryan to try to hide this issue. Ryan does not give a crap about any average Americans. Romney is hoping Bain and his crooked taxes disappear. Axelrod is too smart to let that happen.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoGeorge, what is it like to be filled with so much hate?
As far as tax returns go, when did it become OK to make a slanderous (even Reid says he doesn’t know if it’s true)and then say there victim of slander has to prove himself innocent? That’s not the US I want.
Harry Reid has taken dirty campaigning to an all time low. Good work, liberal.
George White
9 months, 1 week agoLOL, all time low? We learned it from the GOP and the Tea Baggers.
Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of the GOP at this point. And you know it.
They are an out of control party of NO NO NO NO.
William Buchanan
9 months, 1 week agoWhich words did you have trouble with, Buzz?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoLeave it to George to use vulgar names. You can’t be civil, can you? Do you even know that what you said shows you to be homophobic?
Until you can be civil, you don’t count. Good Bye.
Johnathon Busby
9 months, 1 week agoWillard chose Paul because he needed a game changer, much as McCain did in ‘08. That said, Paul Ryan gives Willard a much better starting point than Palin ever gave McCain. Paul Ryan was a risk; Willard’s base loves the guy, but his enemies now have ammo. We’ll see in the end if it pays off.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week agoCurious choice. Gov Romney was going to get hammered over his endorsement of the Ryan budget et al anyway. Now he’s going to have it standing on the podium next to him. It’s clear that the Teas will be excited but given their low favorability ratings (even among a number of Republicans) that seems to be a dubious step. Most politicians move back to the center after the primaries but the Gov has moved farther right, away from the center undecideds. Is this another example of how malleable the Gov’s convictions are?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoMark, it’s Obama who has moved away from the center. You said Romney had already endorsed the Ryan budget process, so how can this be moving to the right? He already had the Ryan budget process in hand.
Besides, it’s the only budget proposal out there. The gutless Democrats won’t produce one.They only run ads of Republicans pushing old ladies in wheelchairs off a cliff. Now, that is an intelligent commercial, isn’t it.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week agoI’d say in choosing Ryan Romney has bowed to the wishes of the most conservative elements of the party. What’s said on the campaign trail can be ignored, you can shake the, Etch-a-sketch,but you can’t shake a VP pick away. Yes there will be ads intended to scare people about SS, Medicare, and other programs that benefit middle and blue collar Americans. They should be scared. Remember privatizing SS? Giving you retirement future to those nice men at Goldman Sacks, or Merril Lynch, or Bear Stearns, or JP Morgan Chase? That was Paul Ryan. Couple that with the repeal of O-care and the budget that threatens Medicaid for the poor that will leave as many as 14,000,000 uninsured, student loans, Pell grants, and lots of other programs and you’re going to have a big bunch of Americans concerned about Mr. Ryan’s ideology. I think it’s accurate that this was a giant step to the right. Question is, are they so far right that now the Dems are nearer to most voters that the Republicans? Has Obama moved left? I think you’d be hard pressed to make that case. Take time to analyze all the harshest criticisms and you’ll they’re about former conservative ideas. The ideas didn’t move, your party did. If I were Big-O I’d call for the immediate adoption of Simpson-Bowls
Johnathon Busby
9 months, 1 week agoObama has moved towards the center. Just ask all the leftists who are displeased and dis-satisfied with his first term.
Patrick T. Condon
9 months, 1 week agoGeorgey Porgey Puddin’ Pie, You’re a Democrat who lives the lie….
The actually cause of the economic downturn came from your camp, Champ. It’s called the CRA introduced in the 70’s by Wm Proxmire (D-WI). Your knight in shining armor, Bill Clinton, turned up the heat on banks to extend home loans to those who could not afford them. In April 2001, George Bush actually said this is looming on the horizon. Democrats harumphed at the idea. (Dodd and Frank both said we are in fine shape - no need to worry.) And then the Caca hit the fan and being the scurrilous weasels the Dems are, they started screaming Bush did it. I would suggest there’s enough blame on several levels to go around to both parties but to continue the lie with the fervor you display requires an extra serving of delusion that comes from bulk purchasing from Wally’s World of the Weird. Good luck with that.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoMark, would you detail the serious proposals that would privatize SS? Your distortions are nauseating.
The only serious plan was for 1%….1%!!!!!!! of income to be directed to investments voluntarily……..voluntarily!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That 1% is less that 1/6th the total employee contribution. It is less thant 1/12th the total contribution for that employee.
You said “giving your retirement” to Wall Street. That is not true at all, Mark. Voluntarily putting less that 1/12th of one’s SS contributions into broadly diversified, low cost index funds is NOT giving your retirement to anyone, Mark. Pleas stop saying that.
So,Mark? Are you going to stop repeating that lie?
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week ago“Mark, would you detail the serious proposals that would privatize SS? Your distortions are nauseating.”
11/10/2004 WASHINGTON (AP) — Fresh from re-election, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious proposal to overhaul Social Security, a controversial idea that had been shelved because of politics and the administration’s focus on tax cuts and terrorism. Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts similar to 401(k) plans.
A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 that would divert 2% of workers’ payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2% — and the Social Security taxes employers pay — would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves a shortfall of at least $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for those current retirees.
For the record that’s 2%, not 1%, that’s $2trillion+ shortfall. Tummy feeling better?
Besides all of us are at liberty to invest all we want to in stocks & bonds in IRAs, 401Ks, and private accounts. SS provides a base not unlike an annuity payment from which to build just in case we’re not all investment geniuses. The Bush/Ryan proposal was nothing but Wall St welfare.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoSo now we have SS compared to an annuity. Of course, I have NEVER HEARD OF an annuity with specifically no guarantee of repayment, but I am not a smart lib….
Libs are a hoot!!
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoMark, what you referred to is oh so similar to what I wrote about. There are only two differences. Bush started out at 2% instead of the 1% that had the most support. But, I’d go for the 2% if it was on the table.
The other difference is what you mangled and what you left out of your description. The so called similarity to a 401k means nothing. That reference can be mangled to get people to compare the plan of being in broadly diversified index funds with their own sad choices of being in go-go high tech funds just before the bubble broke.
Any shortfall would occur because of the deceitful way SS has been operated. Supposedly, there is a huge pile of assets in the fund. That can be used to pay beneficiaries. Right? That is why that pile of treasuries was accumulated, to pay benefits. Right? In the long run, SS is off the hook for the portion of benefits commensurate with the monies going to the self directed index fund accounts.
And you also left out the part that participation in the index funds would be totally voluntary.