GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has announced that his running mate will be Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, author of the Medicare Destruction Act of 2011.
Now, as we’ve discussed before, Paul Ryan is a total fraud - an apt running mate, perhaps, for the guy who was the object of the original (and still missed) Massachusetts political blog, “Romney is a Fraud.” There will be plenty of time to dissect Ryan’s numerous ludicrous positions on budgetary matters and to assess the number of votes in, say, Florida that this pick has cost Romney.
But for now, let’s leave it at this: Mitt Romney will almost certainly be overshadowed by Paul Ryan. Both the left and the right will now identify the ticket, at least on economic matters, not by what Mitt Romney has said (in part because, as we know, he’s been on both sides of most issues), but by what Paul Ryan has said. I’m not sure that’s such a great thing for a presidential candidate.
Discuss
15 Comments . Leave a comment below.If elected, Paul Ryan will pull the strings of Mitt Romney in the same way that Richard Cheney controlled George W. Bush. The goal of Mr. Cheney was American expansionism (he and his cronies waxed about the importance of invading Iraq long before 9/11). The goal of Mr. Ryan is to destroy modern America as we know it. What Mr. Ryan and his ilk deride as the “welfare state”, the rest of us call civilization.
The Romney/Ryan ticket is essentially a rerun of the Bush/Cheney ticket.
Mr Bush was not interested in policy. The debates with Gore made it clear he was in over his head. That left a vacuum for Cheney to fill.
Romney, whatever his faults, is unlikely to be so passive.
Mitt Romney cares passionately about something — for about fifteen minutes. Then he just as passionately advances the opposite. I see precious little evidence that Mr. Romney has the staying power to accomplish ANY but the most modest of policy objectives. Mr. Bush lacked the necessary interest; Mr. Romney lacks the necessary attention span.
The debates will be interesting. I suspect that Barack Obama will make mincemeat of Mitt Romney, and Mr. Romney won’t even know it’s happening. I’m not as clear about what will happen between Mr. Ryan and Mr. Biden.
Do you seriously think Obama will destroy Romney in the debates? Really? Romney is no dummy and I think you are vastly underestimating Mitt by insulting his “attention span”. Do you really believe he could be this successful by being as vapid as you are trying to portray? I think he’s amazing.
the skills required to succeed at the business Romney pursued with the skills required to succeed in politics. There is some modest overlap, but they are assuredly not coextensive. Of course Romney is not a “dummy” – nobody could plausibly say that he is. But he is remarkably tone-deaf on many things, and he is simply not an appealing or likable character. Neither Obama nor Romney is a natural debater (Hillary generally did quite well against Obama in the debates), but Obama has gotten much better, and Romney only slightly so.
The debates are a big opportunity for Obama; we’ll see if he takes advantage of it.
Romney’s “stiffness” is awkward at best. I wish he could relax a little and not be “on point” at all times. I also agree that he is a fantastic manager while not being so political. The question remains, does America want a competent manager or a politican at this point. I still maintain that Romney does not suffer from an “ADHD” as Tom is suggesting. As for being “likable”… I seem to remember a lot of people dissing GW about being likable vs. the competence of Gore or Kerry.
that likability is a political asset. The “manager” argument has never worked very well in high stakes races. Just ask President Mike “this election is not about ideology, it’s about competence” Dukakis.
Whether it’s the value of polls, the value of fund raising, the lack of experience, the background, the voting record, the gaffes, the personal life… PLEASE BE SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT and stop saying, “that’s different”. You guys loose credibility when you suddenly defend something for your candidate that was a total weakness for our candidate last election.
Otherwise Chris Christie would be President very soon for his likability.
to point to somewhere that I’ve said that likability is a bad thing in a politician in that it will not tend to bring in votes. *Of course* it’s a political asset. It’s why Scott Brown is a US Senator, for God’s sake.
As for Chris Christie running on his “likability,” HA – that’s a good one. Christie may be many things, but “likable” is not one of them.
or this…
“Political ADHD” is the most positive way I can characterize Mr. Romney’s stance on virtually every issue of substance. Of course I don’t (necessarily) mean that he suffers from some personal medical disorder.
I mean that he has displayed zero commitment to any value system, philosophy, or political theory other than whatever is in the immediate best interests of Mitt Romney. That utter absence of moral or philosophical compass can be a great advantage in the business world — profitable is profitable, and what makes big money today often loses big money tomorrow.
I mean that Mitt Romney was not even a resident of Massachusetts when he decided to pursue the corner office, and he spent the final months or years of his incumbency launching his first presidential bid. Like Sarah Palin, he couldn’t be bothered to actually pay attention to his office for his full gubernatorial term.
I mean that Mitt Romney was a left-leaning “moderate” Republican when he ran for Governor (and for the Senate before that) and right-moving “conservative” Republican by the time he left office campaigning for President. His waffling on the Grover Norquist pledge exemplifies his “Political ADHD” — in 2007 (gearing up for his first presidential run) he signed the pledge that he refused to sign during his gubernatorial campaign.
If you don’t like “Political ADHD”, do you prefer “shameless opportunist”? How about “philosophically bankrupt”?
I thought “Political ADHD” was a generous characterization.
.
That’s how its done. Likability for better or worse is an advantage. I personally don’t think that is a reason to vote for somebody, but if it helps my guy I’m certainly not going to say you shouldn’t vote him. If you are the challenger you tout your fresh ideas and new blood; once you’re in you press your experience. As for likability you have a much different standard than I do if you cite Christie as an example. I see him as a very unlikable bully. Good fundraising numbers are an advantage, though can be used against a candidate if much of the money is from the “wrong” sources. Polls are instructive as progress reports and tools for messaging, but they should not be used to govern and ultimately only count on Election Day.
Someone who can give shit to the press and voters who give him shit. Someone who is not afraid or too PC to say some of the things the public has wanted to say.
in part because of what you might call The Grass Is Always Greener Effect. A fair amount of voters unhappy with current choices long for Someone Else, but the positive feelings can evaporate once that candidate is put under the harsh scrutiny of an actual campaign. Not always the case, but a reasonably high risk for a candidate who is not well known on the national stage beyond a vague reputation, without lots of specifics. I mean, Giuliani led polls before caucus and primary voting started in 2008 and we all know how that turned out. I think such polls are more useful for someone who is known for something politically specific, like a Ryan. I don’t think low-information voters know much about Christie beyond a vague reputation as a moderate, blunt-speaking Republican.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 4:28 PM