Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has announced his running mate for the November election, Congressman Paul Ryan, head of the House Budget Committee. Many pundits are calling this a "risky" selection, as the Ryan agenda to slash government spending has earned him the ire of many Democrats. Despite how Democrats and media people feel about the new VP candidate, he is the perfect selection. Romney has no choice but to fight the election on the economy and government spending. His own greatest strength is his business acumen, so it makes perfect sense to double down on the budgetary portfolio, a file that nobody knows better than Paul Ryan.
Frankly, I would argue that there is no such thing as a "safe pick". Romney is going to face a trial by fire during this election campaign, regardless of his VP selection. There was a significant risk to every possible candidate, so best to select the optimal choice to fight economic battle that Romney has to fight. Joe Biden is going to struggle mightily when he has to face Ryan in the VP debates. Romney was already facing an uphill battle with Obama ahead in the polls. Of the last 4 times an incumbent President has run for a second term, 3 of them have won re-election. Under Obama's watch, Bin Laden was killed and Gitmo is still operating. If you try to fight Obama on national security, he can counter with having issued the order to kill America's #1 enemy. The economy and the budget have to be center stage, and if it is, Romney/Ryan have a better chance of winning.
Welcome back!
ReplyDelete-- Gabby in QC
old white guy says...... welcome back. ryan may be good, it is a wait and see position. he has voted for many of the things conservatives are against but for now he is talking the talk. let's see if he and romney will walk the conservative walk.
ReplyDeleteI think it is great gabby welcome back. I still think that Mitt Romeny would have done just as well with Chris Cristie. he is smart and he don't back down and he will make the media look shamefull. but paul Ryan is a great pic to.
ReplyDeleteRyan has no executive experience (ie governor) nor does he have business experience. He isn't fit to be first in line for president if Romney goes down.
ReplyDelete"Ryan has no executive experience (ie governor) nor does he have business experience."
DeleteHow much gubernatorial or business experience did Obama have? And what about Biden?
Your criticism is akin to that of those who snickered & pointed derisive fingers at Romney's misspeaking, because he introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States" ... but they conveniently forget Obama did the exact same thing when he introduced Biden as his running mate in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io
-- Gabby in QC
The GOP said in 2008 that Obama was unfit to lead because he had no executive experience. I guess the GOP didn't really mean it. Romney said just a few days ago that the Constitution should be amended to require a president to have 3 years of business experience. By romney's own definition Ryan is unfit. Do conservatives mean what they say or is it just shtick that they say to criticize the other guy? N
DeleteThis is a perfect illustration of the media's distortion of what politicians say -- usually to the disadvantage of conservative ones.
DeleteIt was NOT Romney who suggested the Constitution should be changed, it was a small-business owner, whose point was that if politicians had more business experience, they would be better placed to understand business owners' POV & what their needs are.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/30/romney-pitches-three-year-business-requirement-to-qualify-for-the-presidency-say-bye-bye-to-honest-abe/
Rick Ungar, Contributor
Writing from the left on politics and policy.
5/30/2012 @ 8:55PM |3,748 views
"Romney Pitches Three Year Business Requirement To Qualify For The Presidency -
Say Bye Bye To Honest Abe
Speaking at a campaign rally in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney decided to share an
idea with his audience——an idea calling for a constitutional amendment requiring that a three year business background be required as a prerequisite for becoming President of the United States.
“I was speaking with one of these business owners who owns a couple of restaurants in town. And he [the business owner] said ‘You know I’d like to change the Constitution, I’m not sure I can do it,’ he [the business owner] said. ‘I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution that in addition to the age of the president and the citizenship of the president and the birthplace of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States.‘”
To drive home the validity of the point, Romney added -
“You see then he or she would understand that the policies they’re putting in place have to encourage small business, make it easier for business to grow.”"
Which is what Romney says he hopes to do -- encourage small business.
In true demagogic style, however, the writer of that piece blurs the point it was the business owner, NOT Romney, who thinks politicians ought to have business experience, the business owner's way of saying "Hey, walk in my shoes".
The writer then goes on to list former presidents who didn't have that kind of experience and wouldn't have qualified to become president. Strawman argument?
Of course, himself having a background in business, Romney would be unlikely to say to that business owner: "Oh no, no business experience is A-OK".
That is why Romney is now being incorrectly portrayed as wanting to change the Constitution.
-- Gabby in QC
Gabby, Romney has been distinguishing his record from Obama by bragging about business experience. Romney has said dozens of times that his business experience is necessary to be president. And Obama doesn't have it. Gabby, you are adorable.
DeleteOh, how true! I can be adorable at times. I can also be not quite as clear in my writing as I would like to be.
DeleteI suppose you interpreted this part of my long-winded comment “… it was the business owner, NOT Romney, who thinks politicians ought to have business experience …” to mean that Romney thinks business experience is NOT important. I thought I had covered how Romney feels about business experience by later saying “Of course, himself having a background in business, Romney would be unlikely to say to that business owner: "Oh no, no business experience is A-OK".
I thought I had made it clear that:
1. Romney did NOT say he wanted to change the Constitution, as Anonymous @ August 14, 2012 12:27 PM claimed.
2. A presidential candidate’s business experience, which Romney himself has, would help him understand business owners’ problems & needs. So of course Romney thinks business experience, like his own, is an asset.
Apparently I did not make those two points clearly enough. I'll strive to be clearer and even more adorable next time.
-- Gabby in QC
Having zero experience certainly hasn't stopped Obama. By the way, working in a family business is about as good experience as you can get and Ryan has plenty of it. Experience in working for the backbone of Canada and the US, small family owned business.
ReplyDeleteYou set the bar too high. Harper has no business experience and he has been awesome despite having a spectacularly weak reume.
Deleteold white guy says..... ryan at least is capable of writing a budget.
DeleteI prefer Ryan over the bombastic Christie,whom the Democrats could have rallied the Nation AGAINST!
ReplyDeleteThey do have to make it about the economy,as there are too many other failings that don't resonate with the public or aren't "sexy" enough,so the economy it is.
The debates are going to be all important,and Romney had better be prepared. He should also demand a no Teleprompter debate,so we can see the President at his best.
Biden against Ryan should be a wipeout,IF Ryan doesn't come across as a boring accountant type,while Biden does his watered-down Will Rogers act.
As Von Rundstedt said to his boss just before the Battle of the Ardennes,"there IS still hope".
Slim, but still hope.
Romney would have done better to appoint Sarah Palin. The democrats have no folksy charm and Sarah has it in spades. It is too bad he overlooked her.
ReplyDelete