So, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan for Vice-President. I just wanted to give my readers fair warning. Ryan was a Delta Tau Delta down the street from me when I was a ZBT at Miami University. In my fevered brain, those guys occupy the pantheon populated by the likes of Confederates and class basketball. They didn’t come to my bar (The Saloon) and I didn’t go to their bar (Top Deck).
“True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.” — Kurt Vonnegut
Oh my.. Romney introduces Ryan as “The next PRESIDENT of the United States.” Even Willard realizes he shouldn’t be elected President?
Seriously. Romney flubbed the announcement. That will be a campaign ad.
The exact same flub Obama did when he introduced Biden in 2008. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Not exactly the same, Obama corrected the gaffe in the same sentence.
Please. So Obama’s gaff is different than Romney’s sentence because Obama corrected his gaff in the same sentence and Romney waited until a subsequent sentence? That has to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever read on this blog.
Lighten up. I got interrupted and hit the enter button before I finished the post.
I was going to say something about why both candidates would make such a gaffe.
I would guess it is because they are so used to being introduced themselves as “the next President of the United States” that they feel everyone should be introduced that way.
Still, it won’t make an ad.
Picking Ryan tells me that Romney still has not shored up the Tea Party “base.” Portman might have brought him Ohio. Pawlenty would have been a blue-collar Republican that was a two-termer in a blue state. “Bobby Jindahl” would have been the first VP candidate who named himself after a Brady Bunch character.
This also puts the Ryan budget on full display and may signal that it is now the Romney budget. At least the Democrats will claim that it is the Romney budget.
If I were an Obama campaign strategist, I would slaver over the opportunity to bring Ryan’s budget and his Ayn Rand infatuation into the campaign crosshairs.
But it does provide a clear policy choice.
“Zombie-eyed, granny starver” is the way Atrios described it.
That’s stolen from Charlie Pierce and the best national political blog on the planet.
It’s also an accurate description. Having stolen everything the poor have over the last 30-40 years, the robber barons from the R party have their eyes set on the remaining middle class. They can look to Indiana for a blueprint!
Who knew some people the Gilded Age was a Golden Age.
I wouldn’t use that as a campaign ad. The best thing for the D’s is that Romney is running for President, not Ryan.
I don’t know; Ryan’s vision for changing Medicare from guaranteed health care for the elderly to one where the federal government picks up some fraction of the premium is deeply unpopular.
The elderly vote with high frequency. The elderly also typically vote Republican. Ryan’s appointment could change that. The good news for Romney/Ryan is that Ryan’s appointment refocuses this debate on fiscal issues, rather than the social issues where the Republican positions are less popular.
So, if the presidential conversation stays on fiscal issues and Obama/Biden are not able to convince the elderly to switch from Red to Blue, Romney will be elected. While it is in the elderly’s best interests to keep Medicare as it is (rather than their children’s best interests, who will have to pay for those higher costs), getting elderly to switch from Republican to Democrat will not be easy for Obama. My prediction: the selection of Ryan cements Florida as the ultimate state to determine the 2012 election. If Republicans can’t win in this elderly state, they won’t win the presidency. On the bright side for Romney/Ryan, having the Republican Convention in Florida won’t hurt their chances.
Hello winning Florida
Wait, what? You were in a traditionally Jewish fraternity? As an AEPi, I’m probably supposed to make some joke at your expense now.
I was. So when I say “some of my best friends are Jewish,” I’m not just making it up. ZBT at Miami had just started up again after a decade or two hiatus. I’d say it was 50/50 Jewish, non-Jewish.
Then, after a couple of years, we felt like we weren’t getting much out of national for the dues we were paying, and we disbanded.
Mike W. took my question! (I was pinned to a ZBT about a century ago…okay, I married him, but it was a big mistake and very brief…)
My best friend growing up was Jewish. We ended up both going to Miami. I went through the initial rush, and the ones I liked didn’t give me a bid. My buddy, whose Dad was a ZBT, ended up pledging this newish chapter. Since they were new, they had a supplemental rush, trying to bolster their numbers. Jewishness wasn’t emphasized, and it wasn’t a concern of mine any event, so I joined.
Very glad I did. The guys suited me just fine. The ego levels weren’t overbearing, most of them were smart, pretty much all of us drank way too much, and loyalty was high – we’d run through walls for each other. Exactly what I needed at that time as I was transitioning from something of a wall flower to someone with some rudimentary social skills.
I was a DU, the nation’s oldest non-secret fraternity, at DePauw. I only learned years later my fraternity brothers all thought I was of the Hebrew faith. That would have been a surprise to my Roman Catholic mother and my Proestant (Baptist/Methodist/Lutheran/whatever church was issuing bids on construction contracts more frequently) father; as much of a surprise, I guess, as their later discovery that I’d become an atheist after reading Dostoevsky. That being said, Ryan only will be a “heart beat away” from the Office of President. Romney seemingly has no confidence in his long-term health, or his intro of Ryan was a flub. Otherwise, one could wonder whether Romney lacks a heart as well as a soul, given his positions on issues. Any way one looks at it, Ryan’s running for VP might give an Democrat a decent chance in the House race for Ryan’s in Wisconsin .He might not have to step down to run for VP, but will not be able to focus as much on his local race.
I was a GDI, so I cannot comment on the fraternity elements here. As a center-right undecided voter, I like the choice. I also appreciate that this will help to make the election a policy decision, rather than voting against the candidate I dislike the most (which is what is was heading toward).
Don’t kid yourself. one of these candidates is ties to a terrible economy and the other is — now — a plutocrat tied to a terrible and unpopular economic plan…..neither side will be touting why you should vote for them. the campaign, America’s most popular reality show, will stay ugly and maybe get uglier
You’re right. And I am not kidding myself. Certainly the campaigns themselves will not rise to a higher plane of discourse — at least I don’t expect that. And I don’t expect the mainstream media to engage in meaningful dialogue about it either. And while this does not change the fact that Romney is a plutocrat, he’s at least now a plutocrat that is tied to a substantive economic plan worthy of debate (whether you like it or not). My hope is that the blogosphere, and our intrepid blogger, Doug, can give us a forum for some meaningful debate and discussion now.
I’m not sure it’s a substantive plan that’s too worthy of discussion. Most of the deficit reduction seems to come from “magic.”
Or, as Ezra Klein describes it:
Certainly one can object that Ezra Klein has liberal opinions, but regardless of his opinions, if he is factually accurate that Ryan’s budget addresses deficits in that fashion, it’s not plausible; let alone substantive and worth discussion. Klein points out that defense spending alone has never been less than 3%.
Since you brought it up, let’s talk about defense spending. We are in a time of peace, with no superpowers wanting to take us down (unlike the previous 100 years, when we have been one of two or more superpowers). Why do we need 3% defense spending in 2013 and beyond?
Well, not to argue about the money, but China is beginning to flex her muscles in several ways. While Abrahms tanks probably aren’t going to help us too much there, I do believe that “peace” might be a misnomer.
We are STILL 20+ years ahead of China’s military technology. They have ONE aircraft carrier.
Not to mention we out-spend them 10-1 on defense spending….
Defense is just a stimulus program by Republicans for Republican companies
He proposes rather hilariously that discretionary spending be cut to the same level it was under Calvin Coolidge…
Well timb, conflict has changed. It’s not going to be all about aircraft carriers, tanks and fancy fighter jets anymore.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that conflict doesn’t magically go away when the bullets quit flying. A rational discussion needs to be maintained as to the defense needs of the country. It is just that perhaps Congress is a rather poor vehicle for that discussion.
Just one caveat, never get into a land war in Asia.
amen tot he last one
It’s not worth a debate in that it adds 6 trillion to the debt in the next 10 years, while not balancing the budget until 2030.
There ARE no serious plans which do not call for an end to all Bush-era tax cuts and other tax increases WITH spending cuts (when the economy is in better shape…..you shouldn’t cut spending in the middle of a recession/recovery unless you want to be the Spaniards, Greeks, or Brits. Austerity is just another word for economic failure).
Neither Paul Ryan nor his plan are serious until one of them accepts a damn tax increase. Instead, he wants to decrease tax revenue by ensuring his putative boss pays no capital gains taxes.
For what it’s worth, I don’t disagree with you. And neither am I saying that Ryan’s plan does this or is otherwise perfect. I am just pleased that it’s even part of the discussion now.
And I should have clarified that I think the reduction of the deficit should be the most important issue in this election. The selection of Ryan as a running mate moves it to the forefront of the dialogue now.
I think stimulating the economy is the most important issue. once the economy is rolling again, then deficit reduction can happen, just like Keynes explained oh those many decades ago
It is interesting that when discussions are had regarding our best historic presidents, (Lincoln, FDR, Washington, etc.) very rarely is there any discussion of how the economy did on their watch. Heck, we had a national depression under FDR for 8 years.
Paul C., the Depression during the early FDR years was the result of Republicans sleeping at the helm during the late 20s. FDR did have a setback in 1937. That recession took about a year to recover. Then, in a few more years the Arsenal of Democracy turned the economy around artifically until 1946.
Lincoln was at war for most of his tenure and Washington ran the country when taxes was still a very negative concept. Of course, there was little infrastructure and no safety nets for the poor, except for indenture or migration to the “open” West.
Really? So you believe that the multiple recessions during the first 8 years of Roosevelt’s reign was the responsibility of the Republicans in charge during the “Roaring” 1920’s? Does this mean that George H.W. Bush and Reagan should receive the credit for the success of the economy in the 1990’s? Does this mean Clinton bears responsibility for the poor economic performance of the 2000’s? Roosevelt had terrible fiscal policy. No doubt about it.
Maybe the old days were better when the VP was more of an afterthought and the job was not worth a bucket of “warm (pick your bodily fluid.) ”
My political history knowledge is not deep enough to identify when the VP office changed to more of a policy assistance role. Maybe Ike with Nixon coming out of the Senate. Or Kennedy with Johnson.
Definitely not Kennedy/Johnson. I think you want to look at Gore first and then Cheney taking it to a whole new level.
As Robert Caro noted in his latest volume on LBJ, a President risks something legitimate when he gives his VP any power, since the only Executive Branch figure who cannot be fired is the VP. If the VP goes to the mattresses against the President, there isn’t much the President can do.
That really makes sense. I will check out the Will peice, too.
George Will discusses that very subject in his column today.
George Will is still alive?
The policies implemented during the Clinton years deserve part of the blame. For example, repealing Glass-Steagall helped fuel the Wall Street casino that blew up and popped the housing bubble.
“Multiple recessions”? I think the majority of people that lived through that period might take issue with your characterization.
Likely enough, Presidents should not get much credit or blame for economic booms or busts. After all, they aren’t the people holding the purse strings. Theoretically, they are the people who are supposed to be leading this cattle drive, but many times the drovers herd the cattle where ever they want, no matter what any particular President thinks.
Instead, I would look to Congress first when looking for causal connections. Congress enjoys the fact that it is much more difficult to assign blame to them (since there are so many candidates to pick from). Otherwise, very, very few would ever have been reelected.
FDR’s policies might have not been perfect, but consider this, the economy was suffering under unprecedented stresses and no one had ever seen the like, or planned for it. That we survived it at all without the whole thing collapsing (save for another world war) should surprise anyone. The difference today is that we don’t have any such regenerative engine to look forward to, policy proposals from either side of the fence seem lacking.
I would have to think about your assertations concerning Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. I’ll assume you were being flip, so I’ll hold off on actually putting any effort into it.
As to FDR, well, we’ll just have to disagree. But, I know more than just a little about the period starting in 1936, so if you want to continue, please feel free to mention specific examples.
And now he’s Speaker of the House.