Originally Posted by herbal tee

And there is a reason why. It is the reason why Romney is the nominee this year and it is also the reason why he is unlikely to release any meaningful info.
Simply put, conservative thought is hierarchial. Romney is the nominee this year because it is his turn. The Republicans almost always run the second place finisher from the last competitive GOP race. Also hierarchial systems don't encourage questioning. To put it another way, Romney is right (in the conservative worldview) not to release his tax returns because it is his money.
It's no one's business how he made it. The fact is he's got it. And the ungrateful should be thankful that this highly successful man is willing to give his time to governing the country.

It's not likely that you'll hear it put this way by anyone else, but that's about the size of it.

I think that is well put.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see how losing your job in this economy would equate in peoples' minds with indolence.

Guess the names Harry and Louise don't mean anything to you: They of course were the fictional Boomer couple in the right wing's anti-Clinton health care commercial who all but came out and said that Gen-X "slackers" would be the inordinate beneficiaries of the plan - a complete falsehood, of course, but extremely effective.

Progressives are calling Mittens pick of Ryan "The Committee to End Medicare as We Know It."

I think this has potential to stick.

Given the heighten sensitivity to health care brought on by fight over the ACA, messing with Medicare could be more of a mistake that Bush's earlier attempt at privatizing SS. Massive numbers of Boomers coming into the Medicare age that also has the highest level of voter turnout of any group including Mitten's core of old white people.

Bye-bye Florida.

Romney's selection of Ryan brings the federal deficit front and center. Perhaps like how the debt ceiling debate and S&P downgrade finally got people to understand that the US govt cannot default on its debt, the Ryan selection will get people to begin to really think about what federal deficits really are and really mean, which would if fully pursued lead to them understanding the NECESSITY of federal deficits.

From there, maybe we will come to stop being frighten ignorant children so easily manipulated over a fear that will never happen.

Originally Posted by Aldaris

It looks like Romney, in his bid to lose the election, will choose Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Oh God, the RW Xer Boy Wonder should not be anywhere near the White House.

Remember that I said Paul Ryan has a great chart for a candidate. He's a man to watch, definitely (and unfortunately, from my point of view, has a chance to win the presidency in the future). Romney helped the future of his party by picking him, but he doesn't help himself this year, because I don't think Ryan gets Wisconsin for him.

I think that's a good title for this team: "the committee to end Medicare as we know it."

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Guess the names Harry and Louise don't mean anything to you: They of course were the fictional Boomer couple in the right wing's anti-Clinton health care commercial who all but came out and said that Gen-X "slackers" would be the inordinate beneficiaries of the plan - a complete falsehood, of course, but extremely effective.

No, I remember the couple, and Rush's propaganda campaign too; but that doesn't mean people will equate unemployment with indolence, especially in this economy.

Some great, as usual, analysis from Nate Silver; this time on the Ryan pick -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...an/#more-33035

A Risky Rationale Behind Romney’s Choice of Ryan

Of particular note is the analysis of all VP choices going way, way back and their relative standing on how moderate/extreme. Ryan is the most extreme of any previous VP pick in history; beating out even Dick Cheney! [Note - Ryan sponsored a SS privatization bill that W's White House rejected as being to extreme].

On Silver's model, Ryan barely moves the needle on Wis probability outcome with the state still very very likely going to Obama. Silver's notes that is too small of a gain on the electoral map to justify the big national risk Romney is taking with the Ryan selection.

Silver's point is Romney deciding he had to take the risk for a game-changer was because Mittens realized he was clearly on a path to losing.

It was only 4 years ago, when McCain made the same kind of decision. I think its going to end the same way except in a year or so Romney will be even less relevant than McCain.

In 2016, when Palin and Ryan are battling it out for the GOP nomination, the death knell of the GOP will be more clearly evident.

Anyone else think Romney and Ryan look like Herman and Eddie Munster?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That could well mean that Ryan is elected president in 2016.

...but if he is he would face a Senate with a decisive D majority as Tea Party winners from liberal-to-moderate states of 2010 (NH, PA, OH, IN, IL, WI, FL) and likely open seats from very old Republican Senators (IA, AZ) are up for election. I wouldn't count David (Consort of Whores) Vitter (LA) as a sure thing in 2016.

The big point is that the last two VP nominees from the House... lost. Those were Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) and Jack Kemp (R-NY). Both lost their own states. Ferraro and Kemp were both well-regarded politicians from both sides of the partisan divide. Paul Ryan is simply partisan to an extreme degree. Except in at-large states, Representatives almost never have won statewide elections and never have much of a statewide political apparatus, and the states with at-large elections for one House seat are almost never microcosms of America (Delaware was at one time, but that is past). The same can be said of big-city mayors (Rudy Giuliani is a prime example). Former big-city mayors can run in statewide elections and win (Lugar, Voinovich)... and either might have been a fine President if given the chance. Either would have been infinitely better than Dubya.

Ryan doesn't know his way around a statewide campaign. I predict that he would try to campaign in places that won't make a difference. Paradoxically that might be good for some embattled R members of the House, and that might be the best thing that he could do for the Republican Party. If the Republicans lose the Presidential election, then that might be the best thing that he could do.

Originally Posted by Odin

Anyone else think Romney and Ryan look like Herman and Eddie Munster?

Already noted, with pic -

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rom...-munster-ticke

Romney-Ryan 2012: The Herman & Eddie Munster Ticket

Not quite the whitewash of the 2008 Obama Hope poster by the Right, but it might stick.

I like the ref. to Ayn

Remember this -

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a leading advocate of shrinking entitlement spending and the architect of the plan to privatize Medicare, spent Wednesday evening sipping $350 wine with two like-minded conservative economists at the swanky Capitol Hill eatery Bistro Bis.... The pomp and circumstance surrounding the waiter’s presentation, uncorking and decanting of the pricey Pinot Noir caught the attention of another diner who had already recognized Ryan sitting with two other men nearby.

Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan’s table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350.... Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle.... “We were just stunned,” said Feinberg, who e-mailed TPM about her encounter later the same evening.... She snapped a few shots with her cell phone to record the wine purchase.... Members can also run into trouble if they accept more than $100 per year from anyone - even a friend. “Basically, you have a situation in which the person who bought the meal says I bought it on the basis of a personal friendship and if it’s under $100, you have to show the history of the relationship and some degree of reciprocity,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center. If the gift is more than $100, House rules require members to obtain written determination from the Ethics Committee on whether they can accept it or not.

After ending their meal and paying the check, Feinberg decided to give Ryan a piece of her mind. She approached the table and asked Ryan “how he could live with himself” sipping expensive wine while advocating for cuts to programs for seniors and the poor. Some verbal jousting between Feinberg and the other two men ensued. One of the two men said he had ordered the wine, was drinking it and paying for it. In hearing how much the wine cost, Ryan said only: “Is that how much it was?”

The clash became especially heated when Feinberg asked the men if they were lobbyists.

“F—— her,” one of them replied and stood up in a menacing way, according to Feinberg’s account. Feinberg said her husband then “puffed out his chest” in response before the manager and a waiter came over and Feinberg decided she had said her piece and it was time to leave.

Ryan does not dispute most of the details of Feinberg’s account, although he told TPM the two men are economists, not lobbyists, and characterized Feinberg as “crazy” and possibly drunk. For her part, Feinberg said she believes the economist at the table who got out his seat to challenge her was the one intoxicated....

The one major aspect of the story in dispute was the topic of conversation at Ryan’s dinner table. Feinberg said all three men were “droning on loudly during the evening that liberals think that if you’re a millionaire, you have done something wrong.” Ryan said the discussion focused on monetary policy and QE2, the Federal Reserve’s second round of quantitative easing, i.e. efforts to bolster the economy through the purchase of $600 billion in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. TPM caught up with Ryan after a vote outside of the Speaker’s lobby. In further explaining his side of the story, Ryan said he only had one glass of wine out of the two bottles but decided when it came time to pay the bill that he should pay for one of the bottles of wine out of an abundance of caution. He even produced the receipt for the meal, which you can view here. The receipt shows a charge to Ryan’s credit card for $472 — $392 for his meal and the bottle of wine and a generous $80 tip.

“I didn’t order - they ordered,” Ryan told TPM. “I had one glass, uh, with my water, and when [Feinberg] was talking about how expensive it was, I didn’t even know [the price].”...

Ryan: “A.) I didn’t order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) …I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals.”

TPM: That was very smart. … But do you think it’s appropriate now that you know how much the wine cost to be drinking [such expensive wine] when you’re advocating cuts for seniors?

Ryan: “I think it’s stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance.”

TPM: But you had to pay for it…

Ryan: “Yeah, I was like this is ridiculous. Who buys wine that expensive? It surprised me, and I think it’s stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine.

TPM: So you wouldn’t do it again?

Ryan: “Well, of course not, because I think it’s too much money to pay for wine. Yeah, I don’t really know what exactly it cost. It was expensive. But um, 250 maybe it was 250, I don’t really remember.”

Could it be that the GOP heard the Twilight series has done extremely well and from that decided the running of vampires would be a sure win in 2012?

Ezra Klein's people are weighing in on the analysis -

http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/clic...47dc8c64ccb29a

Ryan wants to give the wealthy even bigger tax cuts than Romney does

- with a great graphic showing the Romney tax hit on the "little people" getting magnified by Ryan.

If this pouring out of what Ryan means continues and gets magnified on the Sunday talk shows, by Monday, we could get an unprecedented bump in polls when a VP is picked ---- for the other side!

If that happens, the election is effectively over.

The person most happy about that outcome? Easy, John McCain.

Ryan worships Ayn Rand, that tells me everything I need to know.

Originally Posted by playwrite

In 2016, when Palin and Ryan are battling it out for the GOP nomination, the death knell of the GOP will be more clearly evident.

In the last half-century, the only losing vice-presidential candidate (other than Walter Mondale who was incumbent VP when he lost) who would later be the presidential nominee was Bob Dole (1976 and 1996).

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

In the last half-century, the only losing vice-presidential candidate (other than Walter Mondale who was incumbent VP when he lost) who would later be the presidential nominee was Bob Dole (1976 and 1996).

Yea, I'm sure Palin will use that against Ryan when the time comes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...but if he is he would face a Senate with a decisive D majority as Tea Party winners from liberal-to-moderate states of 2010 (NH, PA, OH, IN, IL, WI, FL) and likely open seats from very old Republican Senators (IA, AZ) are up for election. I wouldn't count David (Consort of Whores) Vitter (LA) as a sure thing in 2016.

The big point is that the last two VP nominees from the House... lost. Those were Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) and Jack Kemp (R-NY). Both lost their own states. Ferraro and Kemp were both well-regarded politicians from both sides of the partisan divide. Paul Ryan is simply partisan to an extreme degree. Except in at-large states, Representatives almost never have won statewide elections and never have much of a statewide political apparatus, and the states with at-large elections for one House seat are almost never microcosms of America (Delaware was at one time, but that is past). The same can be said of big-city mayors (Rudy Giuliani is a prime example). Former big-city mayors can run in statewide elections and win (Lugar, Voinovich)... and either might have been a fine President if given the chance. Either would have been infinitely better than Dubya.

Ryan doesn't know his way around a statewide campaign. I predict that he would try to campaign in places that won't make a difference. Paradoxically that might be good for some embattled R members of the House, and that might be the best thing that he could do for the Republican Party. If the Republicans lose the Presidential election, then that might be the best thing that he could do.

...The worst thing for the nation, but yes I agree. I don't think this choice helps Romney much, if at all, but it does help Ryan! Here is move-on's take on Ryan, very well put I think:


"Paul Ryan is the author of the most extreme right-wing budget ever proposed in Congress. He wants to dismantle Medicare, privatize Social Security, and cut taxes for millionaires while raising taxes on the middle class.

Simply put, the policies Paul Ryan stands for are politically toxic.

But here's the thing: Paul Ryan isn't just a extremist—he's young, smart, and charming. The media constantly describe him as looking like "the boy next door." He's the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing."

Ah, note this little gaffe reported by the New York Times:

In introducing Mr. Ryan at the morning rally, Mr. Romney mistakenly called him “the next president of the United States.” He left the stage, then returned to correct himself as Mr. Ryan prepared to speak.

The media (and this thread) has been yammering about Ryan's appeal to the GOP base and on his budgetary ideas, but nobody has mentioned what Ryan does not bring to the table -- foreign policy expertise. Romney does not have experience in this area either (unless you count organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics). Obama was weak in this area in 2008 relative to McCain, which is partially why he picked Biden.

Any thoughts?

My thought is that Obama probably will use the lack of foreign policy experience against Romney (he'll use anything), but the truth is that nobody enters the White House really prepared for the job. The only people alive who have as much relevant experience for the presidency right now as Barack Obama are George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, only one of whom could legally serve and none of whom are running. There is no other position in our society that compares to the presidency or provides good overall experience for it. Every new president has to learn on the job.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The only people alive who have as much relevant experience for the presidency right now as Barack Obama are George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, only one of whom could legally serve and none of whom are running. There is no other position in our society that compares to the presidency or provides good overall experience for it. Every new president has to learn on the job.

Just curious -- is the two-term limit in place if there is a gap? In otherwords, is it a limit of two consecutive terms or two total terms?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just curious -- is the two-term limit in place if there is a gap? In otherwords, is it a limit of two consecutive terms or two total terms?

Two total terms.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just curious -- is the two-term limit in place if there is a gap? In otherwords, is it a limit of two consecutive terms or two total terms?

I believe if a vice president becomes president with less than two years until the next election, he can run for the office twice. Thus, someone can serve just under ten years.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The media (and this thread) has been yammering about Ryan's appeal to the GOP base and on his budgetary ideas, but nobody has mentioned what Ryan does not bring to the table -- foreign policy expertise. Romney does not have experience in this area either (unless you count organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics). Obama was weak in this area in 2008 relative to McCain, which is partially why he picked Biden.

Any thoughts?

The comparative lack of experience on foreign policy and military affairs was a huge rap on President Obama. Nothing gives OJT so effectively as the Presidency, and the big question may not be how much experience the incoming President has but instead whether he can learn quickly and effectively enough. President Obama has answered that question very well. Maybe only to the liking of a bit more than 50% of all voters, but that is enough.

A Romney-Ryan administration will put economics above all else. Whether such results as they seek is what we Americans will want will be another question altogether. If the agenda is a return to the Gilded Age in all but technology and race relations such might be extremely unpopular. We just are not well fit to such a dog-eat-dog world. At age 57 I doubt that I could long survive 80-hour workweeks.

Paul Ryan has an ideology -- that of Ayn Rand, the person who looks at a Marxist critique of capitalism and endorses everything that a Marxist finds objectionable. He stands for the maximization of economic inequality because such allows economic growth. Maybe economic growth through the more rapid depletion of resources is a bad idea -- and economic growth that goes entirely to a few people does no good for the majority. Maybe we have hit a wall and must adjust to it as scarcity becomes less a cause of poverty than do perverse choices of economic and political leaders.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, I remember the couple, and Rush's propaganda campaign too; but that doesn't mean people will equate unemployment with indolence, especially in this economy.

But we all know exactly what tack the Republicans will take - that the Democrats' first concern, as always, is for those who don't work, regardless of the reason.

If only the Democrats could have found some dude who has worked - and still does - at say McDonald's or better yet Walmart, whose wife died of cancer.

I was surprised by Romney's choice of Ryan. It is pretty clear that Ryan was the worst choice electorally. With just about any else on the short list, Romney would likely end up with more votes come November. Not only that, but after months of of failing to provide any information on who he is or what he plans to do if elected, by selecting Ryan he has now revealed an agenda.

So I was puzzled. It seemed by picking Ryan, Romney was indifferent to the impact this choice has on his chances of victory. Presidential candidates almost always pick Veeps for their effects on the campaign. After thinking about it I concluded that Romney hasn't changed his strategy at all. Romney's stategy has always been to win by default when an enraged electorate hurls Obama from office for incompetence. To aid this effort Romney tired to show a a smooth and featureless exterior so as to minimize the effectiveness of attacks against him, while mounting an all-out offensive against Obama's record.

Attacks on him have made a small dent in his popularity, while his attacks have been ineffective. Studying the data, Romney may have concluded that his campaign isn't really going to have any effect on the outcome of this election. So it doesn't matter who he chooses for Veep. If he wins it will be up to external forces beyond his campaigns control. If the economy sours Romney wins, if it does not he loses.

So now the objective for a Veep selection is not how it impacts Romney's electoral chances, but how it affects Romney after the election. Romney himself has already given reasons for how Ryan provides benefits were he to win the election. But Ryan is also a superior choice should Romney lose. In the event of his defeat, Romney has given the party its 2016 nominee. Unlike Palin, whose star has since faded, after a Romney defeat Ryan will go back to Congress where he will continue to grow in stature by leading the opposition to Obama in his second term plus have time to burnish his religious/social conservative cred. Ryan will get the nomination easily, like Bush did and enjoy a unified party from the start. He will be able to run against Obama without having the face the formidable Obama machine or the politician himself. Surely Ryan would be a better candidate for 2016 than someone like Bob Portman.

By selecting Ryan, Romney positions himself better for the future, win or lose.