It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

My point, though, is that Romney shouldn't have to solidify his base at this point in the campaign. He has the nomination wrapped up. If he's still worrying about his base, he's in serious trouble (and that might be the takeaway from all of this). T-Paw and Portman would have been safe bets -- able to echo Romney on the issues without scaring off independents. Ryan, on the other hand, is toxic. He ties Romney securely to his budget plan, no matter how much Romney might want to run away from it.

that speaks to the chick-n-fil-a crowd. one thing the republicans know is that the chick-n-fil-a's show up.

My thoughts exactly. And the pick does not help Mittens in Ohio as a Portman pick may have. But I am going to argue that we (progressives) should be careful what we wish for.

Although this (what most pundits are calling) bold pick can be characterized as a "hail Mary pass," we must remember that Hail Mary's sometimes work. This is a game changer, no doubt, one that, on the surface, seems to be an ill-conceived one that will solidify Obama's chances for a second term but let's not forget, Ryan is a masterful politician. He is charming and, unlike Romney, he "connects" with people. While some may argue that the contrast will make Romney seem even more out of touch, Ryan's charisma, like Palin's in 2008, will energize the base and increase turnout. The question is will the enthusiasm that Ryan brings be enough to offset his extreme policies, the most abhorrent of which is turn Medicare into a voucher plan. History, the little that we have--the New York 25th (?) Congressional election--would appear to say no.


One another note: according to polling, the majority of Americans do not know enough about Ryan to have formed an opinion, favorable or unfavorable, on the youthful and handsome Congressman. Furthermore, Ryan has never run a campaign in which other than rural people were involved. This is a risky pick, no doubt. One that appears to make Romney look desperate but sometimes desperate decisions work.

Point well taken. He should, at this stage, be concerned with the independents. That said, he is in serious trouble, and unless he did something to turn the campaign around, he would certainly have lost. This is a game-changer but is it one that will shift momentum to Romney or will it turn a fairly even game into an Obama rout?

I'm glad you brought up Palin, Roxx.

this is just about as good a move as that one was...

I agree Romney has the nomination tied up, but what about the election? At about 50%, voter participation in federal elections is low in America. Public opinion is already polarized, so there aren't that many swing voters whose mind he can change this year. So Romney may just be betting that the risk of base voters staying home outweighs the risk of Independents swinging Democratic. I'm not sure that's an unreasonable bet.

I don't see Ryan as being Palin, more like what we thought Palin was before she spoke. Ryan has experience handling reporters, talking to the public, connecting with people. He's not going to talk about how he can see Canada from his front porch or flub softball questions from Couric. I look forward to a Biden - Ryan debate because I think it will be a pure ideological debate. Palin didn't have the debating skills to fully represent the right but Ryan does and he doesn't try to wrap up right wing positions in wrappers more appealing to the middle. He's going to go full on Ann Rand and Biden is going to go full on centrist Democratic. We could actually get an honest debate on positions, the thing we have no hope of seeing between Obama and Romney.

my point being that the pick will spur the opposition more than the home team.

not that he is dumb. or can see the russians from his house...

Ten Initial Thoughts on Romney’s Ryan Choice
By John O'Sullivan
August 11, 2012 10:33 A.M.
Comments
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313725/ten-initial-thoughts-romney-s-ryan-choice-john-osullivan<br />
A few highly random first thoughts on the Ryan pick:

1. Very obviously it demolishes the argument that Mitt Romney is an overly cautious and timid politician. The pick is bold, even imaginative. It will change the opinion of many people, not merely conservatives, about the governor’s essential political nature — and favorably too.

One desperate pick does will not change the fact the Romney is overcautious.

2. It also weakens the argument that Romney is not a conservative on policy. If not, why did he choose someone who is perhaps the leading fiscal conservative at a moment in U.S. history when fiscal policy is at the top of the agenda?
Romney is far from a Tea Party style conservative and picking one doesn't change that. It only confirms that Romney will do anything to get elected.
3. Ryan will also bring the Tea Party fully on board. He’s got Sarah Palin’s credentials with them without any of her (to me adorable) drawbacks. He’s either Sarah-heavy or Palin-Lite, whichever you prefer. Which means he doesn’t grate culturally on non-Middle America.
Has this blogger looked at the demographic makeup of the Tea Party? Has he considered that these older Americans might have second thoughts abiut Ryan's policies?

4. So will we have a substantive political debate on the economy and the entitlement state this fall as a result of this choice? Or will we have a campaign of mudslinging and slander on the model of the last week? Answer: We’ll have mudslinging and slanderous debate over the economy and entitlement state. Why? Obama and Co. can’t avoid such a debate and can’t win an honest one. Ryan’s thoughtful but bold (that word again!) budget plan is open to misrepresention. [sic] It will therefore be misrepresented hideously. So it’s vital for Romney and Ryan to put their case on it fully, clearly, brilliantly, and right away.

Ryan may be able to do that but it is going to be interesting watching Willard defending them. Get the Jiffypop ready!

5. And why otherwise is it risky? Ryan will probably win Wisconsin for Romney but he may also put Florida at risk because of point 4 above.

Ah duh!

6. Choosing a Catholic as your junior partner when you’re a Mormon in a Protestant country with a significant electoral bloc of Evangelicals is another bold aspect to Mitt’s choice. It would have been madness even 20 years ago, but something big has happened since then to make it advantageous. The Catholics and the Evangelicals have come together over a range of social issues and are now allies. A Catholic on the ticket will soothe most of those Evangelicals anxious about Romney’s Mormonism. (If the ticket wins, it should thank the late Richard Neuhaus who did so much to create and promote Catholics and Evangelicals together. It won’t please mainline Protestants, for the same reason, but this shrinking High Wasp constituency has been a lost cause for about a quarter of a century.)

A "pro-life Catholic" will help with the base but I don't see how it affects voters who might be concerned with Mitt's Mormonism

7. This choice should also mean that the Catholic bishops may move from being hostile to President Obama to being friendly toward Governor Romney. They will be cautious and prudent in their pronouncements, but they will have to be clear in their defense of religious liberty and therefore in their preference for Romney-Ryan. It’s hard to see the ticket not winning more Catholic votes than in 2008.
No one cares what Catholic bishops think especially Catholics!

8. Joe Biden must be quaking — and Hillary may be hoping. People forget the fact, and though reporting by the establishment media disguised it at the time, Sarah Palin knocked Biden around the ring in the 2008 debate. Joe is slightly more experienced now than in 2008, but he had been a senator for decades even then. Ryan is very well-informed and highly fluent — the debating opponent from hell. Should be fun.

Oh puhleeze!

9. The great and good Brit Hume is on record as saying that veep choices don’t determine the election result. With almost no exceptions — Johnson in 1960? — Brit is unsurprisingly right. But veep choices often determine an election or two after the one immediately ahead. Consider as exhibit one Reagan’s 1980 choice of George Bush, which determined four of the next five elections.

10. Whether or not Romney-Ryan wins in November, this choice signals the end of the Bush Family dominance of the GOP. Of course, some future Bush of real political talent may win through in the primaries, but he won’t start out as the GOP’s establishment choice. He won’t enjoy the Mandate of Heaven. Bushies suddenly seem yesterday’s men — more honorably and respectably than the Kennedys (of course) but no less decisively. The caravan has moved on.

Its obvious with today's pick of Paul Ryan as VP that the republican party refuses to evolve to modern day policies. You would think they would have been able to get it together, reinvent, rebrand and re emerge a more fair and balanced party, but no, they took it back to the Bush years!

Nothing more conservative than that, they fight the tide of progress, growth and evolution which is always a losing battle, all that political money, and it can't stop progress

A disciple of Ayn Rand ... Yuck!

I remember near the end of the 2008 election, Palin was casting a shadow over McCain. More people (sometimes 3:1) would go to Palin rallies. Now, I recognize that Ryan is in a whole other league than Palin, but I anticipate the public and the media will find themselves more interested with Paul than Mitt.

Otherwise, for the moment, I do believe this is the objectively best option for the RNC. Whether it's what Romney wants is not a matter I'm interested in. It seems that Romney wants whatever will give him the best chance for the oval office. He knows he'll only get one shot at it.

Ryan is also good in my opinion, because I do believe that the RNC is fracturing. After all the Tea Party darlings, the nomination is going to the old guard GOP. Romney is the type that feels entitled to the position, and I think that many of the newer Tea Party types resent that. More over, many of these types would go red in the eyes if Romney lost, and they missed the chance to put a Tea Party candidate up against Obama.

I'm betting that if Romney loses, he'll be ripped apart by conservatives. I think it's safe for Ryan, for this exact reason. Win or lose, Ryan is the new face of the GOP. I expect to see other GOP candidates using Ryan-like language in their campaigns.

The GOP found somebody that they can get passionate about. If they were going to pinch their nose and vote for Romney, they are now going to vote to see through a larger Ryan vision that has been put forth. It's a dangerous ticket.

Obama has to be careful. It's not great if the Presidential candidate finds himself tangled with the VP opposition. Hard line to walk. Both Obama and Ryan speak very in a similar tone. I'm interested in how the Obama camp will use Biden. Biden, for all his faults, can speak across socio-economic issues in a relatable way. This is the only major exposed weakness I see on the Romney Ryan ticket right now:

Romney doesn't understand the lives of the poor or middle class.
Ryan doesn't care.

Obama has to hit them here for the next 87 days.

A
R
T

The main problem with Ryan is that he has called for slashing social security and medicare, or privatizing them. That won't sit well with "seniors," and they are the voting bloc most likely to vote. This is a weakness which can easily be exploited.

As an aside, I have one other thing I'd like to comment on. It's something that I don't think will matter to most in the election, but it grinds my gears to no end.

Paul Ryan is emphatic about the influence of Ayn Rand on his outlook on life, and yet he is a Christian.

This bothers me for a few reasons.

1) Being Christian is the most politically correct thing to be as a politician, and whether any candidate of any party is actually a christian, it's obvious that not being one carries a political liability. The cynic in me wonders how many just go along with this and perpetuate this standard.

2) I am constantly told as an atheist, what moral conclusions I must have due to my lack of belief in a god (and of course more specifically, whoever's god it is that I'm not believing in that's talking to me). These moral conclusions are, interestingly to me, the exact conclusions of Mrs. Rand--also an atheist. This creates the most absurd of juxtaposition. I am supposed to accept the idea that Rand's ideas are great, and they are the same ideas they want to condemn. They demand I have these ideas so that they can criticize my morality, and yet they are the only ones advocating this kind of worldview.

A
R
This annoys me to no end.

I think it's pretty sad that a Randian gets away with impersonating a Christian. Do people just not get that Rand and Christianity are incompatible?

I thought about that, and I'm not yet convinced that this will be talked about as much. Certainly not as much as I think it should. When the SS and Medicare parts of the Ryan plan first came up, I thought the reaction was rather mild by the senior voting block. I don't know if that changes now that it's a real possibility. I believe the jobs angle on the race will be the center piece, and it tends to get more traction with the media (perhaps since it's more easily measured?).

I'm sure the Obama campaign will attack this, but I wonder how hard. I have this weird feeling that people don't fully understand what the Ryan budget would do, so they are skeptical of the criticisms about it. Summarizing them to be exaggerations of the threat. That's a problem for Obama.

Obama: The Ryan plan will hurts seniors in X, Y, and Z because A, B, and C.
Romney: No it won't because jobs gays you built that! God Bless.
Public: Well, it's a toss up.

A
R
T

You think your way, and i'll think mine.

I think it's hilarious that anyone is a Randian. She absolutely hammered the idea that people should think for themselves, and not accept received wisdom.

Obama can't serve 8 more years, he is only allowed 2 terms. That's a total of 8 years.