Romney – Ryan: Game On!

Republicans have a ticket.  Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to be his running mate.  His official announcement follows:


Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate. Below is Congressman Ryan’s biography:

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is in his seventh term in Congress representing Wisconsin’s First Congressional District.  He is Chairman of the House Budget Committee, where he has worked tirelessly leading the effort to reign in federal spending and increase accountability to taxpayers. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, where he has focused on simplifying the tax code and making health care more affordable and accessible.

In January 2010, Ryan gained attention nationwide after unveiling his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a proposal to eliminate the federal deficit, reform the tax code, and preserve entitlements for future generations.

Representative Ryan was born in Janesville, Wisconsin on January 29, 1970. A fifth-generation Wisconsin native, Ryan was the youngest of four children born to Paul Ryan Sr., who worked as an attorney, and Betty, a stay-at-home mom.

In April 2000, Ryan proposed to Janna Little, a native Oklahoman, at one of his favorite fishing spots, Big St. Germain Lake in Wisconsin. Later that year, the two were married in Oklahoma City.

The Ryans reside in Janesville with their three children, Liza, Charlie and Sam. The family are parishioners at St. John Vianney Catholic Church.

Upon entering Congress in January of 1999, Ryan was the youngest member of the freshmen class at the age of 28. Prior to running for Congress, Ryan served as an aide to Republican Senators Robert Kasten Jr. and Sam Brownback, former U.S. Rep. and Vice Presidential Candidate Jack Kemp, and as a speechwriter for Education Secretary William Bennett.

Ryan is a graduate of Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville and earned degrees in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio.  He is an avid outdoorsman and is a member is of his local archery association, the Janesville Bowmen.


  1. caroline says:

    Judging from the posts around here it would seem that the Ryan pick plays well with the base. It will be interesting to see whether he has any appeal past that.

  2. ricstewart says:

    It was impossible for Romney to pick a running mate who improved the situation. How can your running mate balance the ticket when you’ve been on both sides of every issue?

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      Agreed! He’s got a plan to correct the fiscal mess and Romney didn’t shy away from choosing a real conservative. I was afraid he’d go for a southern evangelical that wouldn’t bring anything to the table but bad hair and dimples.

  3. Rick Day says:

    Such a nice pair of photogenic rich white males they make!

    R/R= Ronald Reagan? heh…one could only hope as both are less than half what Ronnie was.

    • GTKay says:

      I read that Ryan sleeps in his House office or bunks with his wife’s relatives when he’s in Washington. He doesn’t sound rich to me.

  4. Charlie says:

    WASHINGTON-U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), released the following statement today:

    “In choosing Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, Gov. Romney has once again underscored that this election is about serious ideas and a turnaround in our nation’s fiscal health. I served with Paul in the House, and know firsthand that, when it comes to budgetary matters, few in Washington are more respected than he is. I congratulate Gov. Romney on his choice of partner to lead America back to economic stability.”

  5. View from Brookhaven says:

    Interesting dynamic that this flips the race to.

    Romney doesn’t want to talk about himself, so let everybody talk about the policies of your VP.

    Don’t think it has much effect on the map, so the end result still ends up the same.

  6. Charlie says:

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today made the following statement in response to Gov. Romney’s announcement that he has chosen Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to be his running mate in the upcoming presidential election.

    “I congratulate Gov. Romney for making a thoughtful and serious choice by selecting Paul Ryan to be his running mate. I served with Paul Ryan in the House and have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Paul Ryan is a serious candidate who has clearly demonstrated that he has the discipline to help Gov. Romney tackle our country’s very serious fiscal issues. He understands that America cannot afford to continue to go down a path of record debt and deficits, and he has real solutions to get our nation back on a path of prosperity.”

    • analogkid says:

      Isakson calling Ryan “a thoughtful and serious choice” and “a serious candidate” sounds like a thinly veiled (and well deserved) shot at McCain and Palin.

  7. Charlie says:

    (RANGER, GA) – U.S. Rep. Tom Graves released the following statement after Governor Mitt Romney announced Congressman Paul Ryan will join him on America’s Comeback Team as his Vice Presidential running mate:

    “Governor Romney made a big choice in selecting Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America’s comeback team. Congressman Ryan is a taxpayer champion and understands empowering the private sector is the best way to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan believein the hard work and determination of the American people, not bigger government. A Romney-Ryan Administration will lead America away from the current trajectory of spiraling deficits and wasteful Washington spending and back on a path to economic vitality and greatness. I am excited about campaigning for the Romney-Ryan ticket and the opportunity and prosperity they will bring to each and every American.”

  8. caroline says:

    From independent voter network:

    “The Wisconsin congressman actually voted with the Bush Administration’s agenda of unprecedented federal expansion 94% of the time, and it may surprise his fiscally conservative fans to know that Paul Ryan’s voting record includes votes for the TARP bailouts, the auto bailouts, the massive Bush Medicare expansion, the unprecedented federal intrusion into public education via No Child Left Behind, the 2008 stimulus package, and the $192B 2009 stimulus package.”

    Uh-oh. Ryan voted for almost all of Bush’s budget busting policies.

      • caroline says:

        Maybe a governor would have been a better pick since they usually don’t have this kind of voting record. And they actually produce balanced budgets every year.

        • Charlie says:

          Or perhaps he could have just found a legislator that always voted “present” on controversial bills. Cause that’s what demonstrates leadership, right?

              • caroline says:

                Here’s my point: how are you going to sell this with Ryan’s actual record? All Obama is going to have to do is point out Ryan’s voting record every time Romney criticizes Obama’s spending. You are hoping there are enough people that won’t consider that Ryan’s record and what he is proposing are a contradiction in terms and that people will just vote against Obama. It might work but it also might not. I’m reading that the Obama WH is salivating at this choice. At first I had no opinion until I actually researched his record.

          • Very weak argument, Charlie. “Always” voted present? According to fact check it was 3% of the time – and according to them while sometimes it was a cop out, others it was because he felt the bill shouldn’t be voted on at all because it wasn’t constitutional – many times on an issue he otherwise supported.

            If anything, Ryan is similar to Obama in that they are both very cerebral lawmakers. I think caroline makes a very valid point – any conservative congressional “hero” who happened to be around during the Bush administration is going to have some voting history that is very contradictory to current conservative mantra.

            Governors certainly come with their own issues but any Republican who spent 2000-2006 in a statehouse or the private sector doesn’t have the Bush baggage.

            Now, on another note, I don’t much care about rehashing Ryan’s votes during the Bush years, I think he’s politically toxic because of his budget, so I think he’s a bad pick for other reasons (and a very good pick for Democrats like John Barrow and challengers around the country who now can hang the Ryan plan around their opponents without first having to explain it to them).

          • caroline says:

            Let’s see maybe Susana Martinez? But I know a woman would not be picked because of what Cheney said about Palin.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              And you know that Gov. Romney cares what V.P. Cheney said. So maybe you wanted Susana Martinez? You aren’t sure if you wanted her or not?

              • caroline says:

                Well, apparently the message that was being sent out was “don’t pick a woman” or that’s the way it seemed. I think Palin undercut the experience message against Obama just the way Ryan’s voting record is going to undercut the message that Romney is trying to send.

                Something Republicans seem to ignore is George W. Bush’s spending record. Anyone who was in congress or the Senate when Bush was president are going to have to answer for their votes.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  That’s your opinion and that’s fine, but you still haven’t stated who you wanted. It seemed like you were searching for a name with Martinez. It seems to me that you weren’t going to be happy with any pick because you didn’t have one of your own that you wanted.

                  • caroline says:

                    You know what? I really had not thought that much about it until today but I think Martinez would have been the best possible pick. She would have had much broader appeal in my opinion and comes from a swing state but that’s just my 2 cents and you’re certainly welcome to disagree.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      If you didn’t have a pick BEFORE today, you weren’t going to be happy. If you had a pick at least you could have been disappointed. Disappointment means you HAD something better in mind.

                      I had a list of people I thought might work well and Ryan was on it, but he was further down. I wanted Rubio.

  9. xdog says:

    The happiest politician this morning is John Boehner. The second happiest is Barack Obama.

    Ryan’s selection reminds me of the McGovern takeover of the donks back in the day. The3 rump rules. Get ready for even more really shrill arguments from the gopers on the sanctity of tax cuts for their select and cuts in services for everyone else. Meanwhile the donks will “peel the bark off the little bastard” in the memorable words of Lee Atwater.

  10. saltycracker says:

    Rubio caught a few potholes in the frantic opposition attack. Ryan is a very strong conservative choice and hopefully makes a winning team.

    Now the government control junkies will ferret out everything any 28 yr old new legislator learned not to do again and wear us out. And make a bunch of non- issue things a big issue.

  11. GTKay says:

    I really like that Romney picked Ryan. I really hate that Ryan, if they win, will no longer be the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      Don’t worry. They’re not going to win. Rubio represented the best shot for 2012 and the best candidate for the future of the party, so naturally Romney went with his sixth son instead–a guy who is probably the only person in Washington with a thinner real world resume than Barack Obama. I find it amusing that one of his first jobs in Washington was as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp. Kemp and Ryan are similar in that they were both in Congress for a long time. Only differences are that Kemp actually got his tax cuts passed (in 1981), was true fiscal conservative (didn’t vote to expand the government repeatedly under W) and served his country in the military AND was pro football player–basically Kemp was an inspirational guy. Ryan, on the other hand, is famous for talking… and writing fantasy budgets… and fundraising. And that’s it. He’s done nothing as an adult outside of Washington and he hasn’t done much in Washington either.

    • Happy Face says:

      Is he going to run for his seat in Congress and as VP at the same time? I know this is a common thing to do but I’ve always found it to show a lack of confidence in winning the bigger race.

      • analogkid says:

        According to Larry Sabato on Twitter: “Ryan will run simultaneously for his House seat in WI-01. State law prevents him from bailing this late in the cycle.”

  12. Happy Face says:

    This probably costs Romney Florida but could bring the Ron Paul fans and the fiscal conservatives into the fold. The GOP has been way too social focused as of late, Ryan could turn the discussion to numbers. The question is, will the social conservatives who have ruled the party allow it?

    • saltycracker says:

      Florida didn’t elect Rubio because he was a local boy
      Rubio will deliver his voters and gather a few more on fiscal conservative positions he’ll get behind.

  13. CobbGOPer says:

    So now we get to spend the entire campaign talking about America’s favorite topic: entitlement reform?

    That’s a winner.

    • Happy Face says:

      That’s why I think this costs Romney Florida. Medicare and Social Security are hugely important to voters down there. But I’m glad we’re going to talk fiscal issues instead of yet another season of non-stop talk about gays and school prayer.

      An interesting question I saw over on Free Republic: when was the last time the GOP had a presidential ticket without a Protestant on it? I’m sure the dems have had a few but off hand I can’t think of one for the Republicans.

      • caroline says:

        I hope you are right about gays and school prayer.

        I don’t think there’s ever been a Catholic on the GOP ticket. I thought maybe Al Smith but he was a Democrat. Smith might have been the only Catholic to run on a major ticket until John Kennedy.

      • David C says:

        There’s never been a Catholic on a GOP Ticket. (Indeed, I think they’ve been all protestant since the party’s mid 19th Century beginning). There have only been 3 Catholics on a major party ticket, all Democrats: Al Smith for Pres in 1928, JFK in 1960, and Biden in 2008. In addition, there was Lieberman in 2000, the first and only Jew on a national ticket so far. Ironically given all the crap on the internet the last 6 years of so, in 2012, the only Protestant on a national ticket is Barack Obama.

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          Wrong. William Miller, Goldwater’s running mate in ’64 was a Roman Catholic. And Goldwater was “Episcopalian” by birth, referred to himself occasionally as “Jewish” (like his father’s side of the family) and was for all intents and purposes, an agnostic. He did not attend religious services as an adult. So there is some precedent here… Didn’t work out too well in the short term, but AuH20 paved the way for Reagan. So there’s that.

          • David C says:

            I stand corrected on Miller, but Goldwater was for all intents and purposes Episcopalian so far as it went, if not all that dedicated a church goer (which wouldn’t be the first time a politician went that route, but I digress…). Yet, for a GOP that’s been increasingly tied to an evangelical Protestant religious right, this is a fascinating development to say the least.

      • saltycracker says:

        “…..costs Romney Florida.” Huh ? Not without screaming lies to scare seniors.
        Ryan has no plans to change medicare & social security for those 55 or older.

  14. CobbGOPer says:

    I still think it’s too close to call, but considering the fact this ticket is devoid of Protestants, they’ll need to give the South a good reason to turn out. We’ll see what the new message is, but a giant confusing policy fight is a gamble that people just won’t care or understand enough to vote.

    Or they get turned off by negative campaigning, and this will get nasty. Entitlements are easy to demagogue.

    • Happy Face says:

      Meh. It’s the South. We’re going to vote for the Republican ticket no matter what. Other than Florida and perhaps Virginia, what southern states could possibly vote for Obama?

      • caroline says:

        Might be the natural result of fusing religion and politics and having a religious litmus test from some quarters.

        • AMB says:

          Exactly. You can’t force your religion and morals into every one’s lives and then say religion of the candidates doesn’t matter.
          Does Ryan’s wife use birth control? Does she pay for it? Does her husband’s government health insurance pay for it? Does she plan to have any more children? At what age? Has she ever had an ultrasound and decided to abort a fetus? I want to see her ob/gyn records.

          Not so nice, now, is it?

  15. wicker says:

    I don’t get how picking Ryan means “game on.” Mitt Romney was running as an economic conservative, and he picks another economic conservative as his running mate. How does this make the race any different today from what it was yesterday? To put it another way … who are these Ryan supporters that weren’t already going to vote for Romney anyway? What it basically does is make already loyal Republican voters more happy about voting for Romney. It doesn’t make the job of convincing blue collar white men (whose level of participation is going to decide this election … if they turn out big Romney-Ryan wins, but if they stay home Obama wins) that another round of tax and spending cuts is going to bring their factory and construction jobs back any easier.

    Don’t get me wrong … Romney-Ryan may well win, but if so it will be more because of the weakness of Obama than the strengths of Romney-Ryan. Ryan isn’t a bad choice, but there were others that the Obama campaign feared more.

      • wicker says:

        That was my whole point. Romney has been running on the economy for two years and he is still behind Obama. What is adding another guy to run on that same message going to do that wasn’t done already?

        And “it’s the economy, stupid” worked for Clinton against Bush because he was a white male with blue collar roots from Arkansas running against a pair of wealthy, privileged Wall Street types in Bush and Quayle. It isn’t going to be nearly as successful when Romney and Ryan are much more like Bush and Quayle than like Clinton and Gore.

          • wicker says:

            Yep. And Perot addressed the blue collar job losses issue that Bush was trying his best to avoid. Romney and Ryan need to make the case that reducing the national debt and cutting corporate income taxes will bring our heavy manufacturing back. That is a lot harder to do than poking fun at Solyndra.

  16. Jane says:

    I like Ryan, but he might not be the right, mix for some Republicans. He is not crazy libertarian enough for the Ron Paul people, he is not a southerner, and while he is a socially conservative Catholic, his name has not been linked with consevative culture warriors enough to make them happy. Some of his pluses that people might not be considering is that he was/is close to the Kemp wing of the party that reached out to minorties, plus he is close to Dr. Bill Bennett the senior conservative intelectual outsie DC. Bennett and Ryan can probably energize the conservatives in the upper mid-west. The Problem is that this energy may not be enough to carry Ohio, Wisconsin, Penn or Minnessota.

    • wicker says:


      Conservatives are already energized. Or to put it another way, if conservatives aren’t already energized by A) the need to beat Obama and B) the person leading the ticket, then the ticket doesn’t have a chance in November anyway. Romney needed someone to increase turnout among the blue collar white males that have been battered by this man-cession. If you can make the case that Ryan’s message of tax and spending cuts will get such people to the polls, I’d like to hear it.

      • caroline says:

        I think those voters are going to sit home. Obama is offering them exactly nothing and neither is Romney in my opinion.

        I agree with most of what you are saying. Paul was pretty much a base play but does nothing to expand Romney’s voting base. The people who were going to vote against Obama were going to do that no matter who Romney picked. The problem that comes with a “base play” is that there are not enough Republicans in the country to win an election by themselves.

    • Happy Face says:

      Have you read his thoughts on Ayn Rand? He credits her with getting him interested in politics in the first place. I think he will do just fine with the Ron Paul crowd. He speaks their language even if he sometimes doesn’t vote that way 100%.

      • wicker says:

        The Ron Paul crowd was going to vote for Romney anyway. The question is whether swing voters and blue collar white males are going to go for yet another guy who claims that the path to getting middle and working class jobs and wage growth back is more tax and spending cuts. Especially since Republicans have a much better history of delivering tax cuts than actual significant spending cuts.

        • John Konop says:

          From what I read the 2 biggest problems Romney has is Latino and women. i think Romney is rolling the dice on 2 things to make up the difference with this pick. One the economy will falter and Ryan and him can be sold as a solid team to fix the problem. Two, that the public we reward him for having a serious conversation about Medicare, rather than the current kick the can down the road solution from both sides.

          Obviously his gambling with older voters, but win or not this pick will get the conversation going.

          • wicker says:

            “One the economy will falter and Ryan and him can be sold as a solid team to fix the problem.”

            We just had two months of horrible jobs numbers before the last (relatively) positive one, and the result was Obama widening his lead. Romney and Ryan can’t sell themselves as a team to fix the problem if their plan is a continuation of the last 20 years of GOP neo-conservative policies that a lot of swing voters believe contributed to this mess in the first place. Unless Romney and Ryan convince the voters that they aren’t just another Bush and Gingrich, they’ll lose.

            “Two, that the public we reward him for having a serious conversation about Medicare, rather than the current kick the can down the road solution from both sides.”

            Where is this reward going to come from? Older voters, who believe that they are entitled to MediCare because conservatives have never associated it with big government and welfare the way that they do food stamps, WIC/TANF, public housing and public transportation? Not a chance. Liberal voters, who not only philosophically agree with MediCare but want it to be expanded? Nope. Younger voters? Not when they hear that the Ryan plan exempts older voters from the worst cuts, and not for fiscal reasons but rather for political ones (older voters disproportionately vote GOP) that are as shameless as Deal’s ending the 400 toll.

            It will start a conversation, but one that team Obama is more than willing to have. Like I said, Ryan isn’t a bad pick, but there were a lot of candidates that team Obama feared more.

          • caroline says:

            Romney is not concerned with those voters because he might have been able to draw some swing voters (suburban women and Latinos) with the pick of someone like Susana Martinez. But I think any women was taken out of the mix because of Palin.

        • Jimmie says:

          @ wicker I haven’t met a RP supporter that has outright said they were voting for Romney. He was certainly not the best pick the RNC had to choose from. As I see it currently. The polls pretty show the race tied. +/- 4%. Looks like all the RP bashing by the RNC may or may not come home to roost come November. It is what it is.

  17. AMB says:

    Puzzling pick to me. Very boring white bread guy and another boring white bread guy equals what to cheer for?

    • wicker says:

      Biden is just as boring and white bread as Ryan and Romney, and as for the people who find Obama “exciting”, allow me to propose that it isn’t the sort of excitement that this country needs or wants. The problem with Romney-Ryan isn’t the lack of excitement factor, but that they really don’t offer a plan to get our jobs back. The GOP has spent the last 2 decades selling the idea that taking care of Wall Street takes care of everybody else (Reagan was more of a main street president than a Wall Street/big business guy … George H. W. Bush was chosen as the Wall Street Republican) and now the country has stopped buying that argument.

  18. John Konop says:

    Agree or disagree with Paul Ryan, this will open up a serious conversation about Medicare. Unless we tackle this issue, we are heading for a world of hurt. Hopefully this will be an adult debate, rather than killing grandma vs. death panels.

    I give Romney credit for putting up a candidate that will open up a serious debate over key issues vs. what have seen from both sides at this point!

    • wicker says:

      This is the problem. Obama is willing to have a serious debate over serious policy issues until the cows come home. Why? Because Obama knows that while those policy wonk debates will give the inside the beltway media types a favorable impression of the intelligence, competence and seriousness of Romney and Ryan, they are totally useless when it comes to convincing unemployed/underemployed people that it will bring their high paying jobs and sense of economic security back.

      Folks would come away from this serious conversation thinking “boy, we wish there were more Republicans like Romney and Ryan … those are the types of people who need to be leading the GOP!” while on their way to pull the lever for Obama. (Or while sitting at home, because their respect for the gravitas of Romney and Ryan isn’t enough to get them away from Facebook, YouTube or The Angry Birds long enough to get them to the polls.)

      Being respected by the policy wonks is nice, but passion and energy is what wins elections, especially against incumbents. The passion and energy that Reagan and George W. Bush had, and that Sarah Palin had for awhile, is what Romney and Ryan needs, and talking about 25 year budget projections on Meet The Press isn’t going to generate it.

      • John Konop says:

        You may be right about who eventually wins the election. Yet I remember when Ross Perot but the country on notice about debt. He may have lost an election, but his influence on that election created the environment for both parties to get their act together, on the budget. Agree or not with Perot on all his policy, his voice did influence both parties on a major issue ie budget. I am hopeful that is what Ryan will do. This pick is a major victory for anyone who thinks we need a serious debate about the budget.

        • wicker says:

          I don’t agree. The reason is that immediately after winning the election, Bill Clinton tried to implement Obama’s agenda: a stimulus plan and national healthcare. The only difference is that where Clinton failed with both, Obama succeeded. So, the combination of Bill Clinton’s tax increase (which was intended to PARTIALLY pay for HillaryCare no matter what Clinton fans now claim) and an economic expansion that Clinton had practically nothing to do with (the economy began to turn around in the last quarter of the George H. W. Bush administration, plus obviously no Clinton policy had a thing to do with the boom) is what eliminated the deficit. And remember: the 1996 election saw Steve Forbes and Bob Dole (by his making Jack Kemp his VP) wanting to go back to deficit spending, followed by 8 years of tax-cut-and-spend economics by George W. Bush, and even now Romney basically stating that his election will mean a return to Bush economics.

          The reality: most Americans do not want a reduction in government services. So if reducing the national debt is a priority – which it plainly isn’t with Obama – the only way to accomplish it is with a tax increase. If Romney and Ryan admit this, they lose. If they keep pretending otherwise, that the budget can be balanced by cutting taxes to generate growth and cutting spending on unpopular constituencies, then Obama will (rightfully) claim that they’re taking us back to the same policies that helped cause the great recession in the first place.

          So, it is a serious debate, but one that is practically unwinnable for Romney and Ryan, especially if the economy doesn’t crater. That is why it is better to have unserious debate to win the election and then enact serious policy. Like it or not, the vacuousness of Hope! Change! led to ObamaCare. It would have been better for the Romney team to ride something equally empty to victory in November and THEN get serious about the budget. If Romney was aiming for respect (from both conservatives who mistrust him and from liberals who are just glad not to have a social issues candidate) then picking Ryan does it. But if he wanted to win, I wonder if Rubio or Jindal would have been better choices.

          • caroline says:

            Don’t forget that the Heritage Foundation told everybody 10 or so years ago that the Bush Tax cuts were going to pay for themselves and not only pay for themselves but ELIMINATE the deficit.

          • Noway says:

            Wicker, you are correct that most folks don’t want a reduction in services. We all like getting stuff for free or a subsidized rates. Who doesn’t? We all know the rate of spending is unsustainable. It’s the favorite phrase used to describe the budget mess.

            Our country is literally dying no one is going to do anything to stop it. The first politician, whether it’s Ryan or Romney or whoever, the first guy that actually proposes specifics on those cuts will be tarred and feathered.

            Look at Greece and France. Hell, France just elected a guy who promised to stop the drastically needed austerity measures. We all know those cuts are/were needed but the voters didn’t want anything taken away.

            In this serious discussion we’re having, with no name calling and cursing the other guy, seriously, what can we do to save ourselves?

            • Three Jack says:


              The first politician who proposed specific reform to SS did get blasted by both sides, W. Let’s hope there is at least the possibility for intelligent dialogue on redistribution programs 7 years after Bush’s failed attempt.

              • Noway says:

                TJ, God, I hope so! But I’m not hopeful. I honestly think that human nature being what it is, no one wants his ox to be gored and we are headed for our own riots and Greece-like protests. I just see no way to prevent it. You don’t have any spare Prosac you can send me do you? I’m depressed as hell at what’s happening to us.

              • John Konop says:

                Paul O Neil treasury secatray under W Bush did have a plan to fix SS. We had the money unti W blew it on his policemen of the world foriegn policy……..O Neal has pointed this out numerous times since he left office and wrote a book about it.

                The reason W Bush stop the plan to move us toward a Brazil style private account system is the piggy bank was gone…….

          • John Konop says:

            Wi ck,

            In all due respect I think you under estimate the mood of the country at that time. Clinton won because Perot was running. You are right Clinton did attempt to move away from the budget issues, but he than lost the mid-terms because people wanted a different agenda. The contract with America was straight out of the Perot fiscal talking points…….That is when we saw Fiscal reforms…….

      • Happy Face says:

        We could have Angry Birds installed on the voting machines but that would be bad for Republicans since the blue bird is usually more useful than the red bird, not to mention the black bird is a hundred times more useful than the white bird.

    • caroline says:

      The problem is that the Ryan plan is full of flaws. It’s a voucher system where most elderly people would have to just do without insurance because of the cost of insurance and insurance denying people coverage because of preexisting conditions. Do you think Paul is willing to discuss the flaws in his plan anymore than Obama is willing to discuss the flaws with the ACA? I just don’t see this making much of a difference and if you even mention what end of life costs are you are going to have Palin coming back with her “death panel” squeal.

      • wicker says:

        The problem with the Ryan plan is that it doesn’t make the link between fixing the budget mess 20 years from now and getting people back to work today. Fixing the long term economic picture is something that yields better political results during times of economic expansion – or at least stability – than when banks are failing and homes are being foreclosed left and right.

        • caroline says:

          I was really just talking about the specifics of the plan not really how it works w/r/t to the economy. And you’re right that nobody is going to care about this if you don’t have a solution for jobs.

  19. South Fulton Guy says:

    Those who don’t want four more years of malaise and decline of our nation should unite around the nominee and his VP choice, instead of giving talking points to the dems or planning to vote 3rd party – which is another vote for Obama.

    • Happy Face says:

      There are no “talking points” being brought up here that the democrats won’t think of themselves. Also not all of us believe in Reagan’s eleventh commandment. That’s how we ended up with so many in the party that are destroying us from within.

    • wicker says:

      So, voters are going to choose between the 4 years of malaise and decline that was Obama and the 8 year nightmare that was George W. Bush (two wars that no one would fight in retrospect, soaring deficits, corruption scandals and a gigantic economic collapse). If that’s the choice, Obama wins it.

      The best talking point for Obama is “Romney is another Bush.” And the GOP knows it, which is why Bush isn’t going to even attend the GOP convention. Rallying around Romney-Ryan isn’t going to change that reality. However, applying pressure on Romney-Ryan to change their message and campaign just might.

      • South Fulton Guy says:

        Only democrats want to run against George Bush by suggesting Romney/Ryan is a reincarnation.

        • caroline says:

          If you don’t want W to come in the conversation then don’t pick someone who sat in congress and voted FOR the majority of stuff Bush put forth.

    • caroline says:

      I think you need to realize that while Obama might be really crappy at actually governing, he loves the campaign. And there’s nothing that’s been said here that Obama can’t google and find out for himself. I mean if I could find what independent voters are saying about Ryan and I”m sure that Obama’s campaign operatives are lot smarter than I am, I would think they could find even more than I did.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I think what we’d want is for the Republican party to actually offer up a decent alternative. This isn’t some surprise you know, that we ended up with Romney overnight. You guys get 3 years between elections to try to pick the best candidate and somehow always end up with a guy who is only marginally different; the difference in most cases is just the party label in front of the name. Heck, if it’s that hard, start thinking about who you want to run in 2020. Give yourself a head start to come up with a good candidate.

  20. gcp says:

    Ryan has problems like any other candidate. He already modified his Medicare program to make it voluntary. Also it won’t touch anyone over 55 and it would be years before it took effect. He is a career politician and as noted above he voted for all the Bush junk. He is like other Repubs that only get concerned about deficits when we have a Dem president. Also why is he against defense cuts? If Romney wanted to excite Repubs I guess he accomplished his purpose.

    • benevolus says:

      “Also why is he against defense cuts?”

      THIS makes any discussions about a Ryan budget a non- starter.

      • Jimmie says:

        I personally don’t think $800 Billion a year on defense is enough. Let’s up it to an even Trill! It’s all funny money anyway.

  21. Harry says:

    In case the broadcast media (owned by government-dependent big corps) decided not to run it, here is Paul Ryan’s speech from this morning:

  22. Three Jack says:

    Mitt Paul — maybe Paulheads will think another one of Ron’s sons is running.

    I guess it is about as good a pick as one could expect considering the contenders. Ryan’s early ‘go along to get along’ votes are concerning, but his actions since becoming budget chair have been much better. It would be nice if Mitt’s introduction was actually true, ‘Now the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan’. Ryan can’t cover for the top of the ticket being a total bomb.

    Georgia being a safe GOP win, I think I will stand by my support for Gary Johnson.

  23. Scott65 says:

    Something striking to me is that neither of them (Romney/Ryan) have any foreign policy experience. Just take a look at Romney’s overseas trip if you have any doubt. At least when Obama picked Biden, it had everything to do with his time as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. If there is anything that turns attention to foreign policy in the next couple of months, R/R might be toast

    • Jimmie says:

      who needs foreign policy experience? Just keep it status quo. Obama campaigned religiously on changing it. He did nothing. Actually furthered the intervention in useless/needless causes.

      • AMB says:

        Jimmie, head up out of the cave before you post. Iraq War-over. Afghan War-over soon. New wars-nope. Endless War is a GOP phenom that Mr. Obama has ended.

        • gcp says:

          Obama simply followed the Bush timetable on leaving Iraq and he upped our involvement in Afghanistan. He also used our military resources in Libya, another useless venture. Obama foreign policy is a continuation of Bush foreign policy.

            • Jimmie says:

              Clueless. Simply Clueless. Syria is next on the list. It’s already in progress. We’ll see about Iran. How many of our servicemen have been KIA this past month in Afghanistan? How many “advisors” are in Iraq? Nothing whatsoever will change with the election of Mittens.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Until our troops stop coming home from the M.E. in caskets draped with flags, we’re still involved in *T%$ we shouldn’t be involved in.

            • jbgotcha says:

              This culture of permanent war is not a new thing and has been used by both Repubs and Dems as a way to crank up the faux nationalism and spread propaganda. All the while they continue to strip us of civil liberties and raid the coffers for their own benefit. It honestly doesn’t matter who gets elected in regard to this issue.

  24. SallyForth says:

    Well, I just flipped on TV and saw R & R do a stump speech live. Paul R came across pretty well, and Mitt R busted out a stem-winder! Surprised me. Dems may need to start worrying whether voters will go for some of that R & R.

  25. David C says:

    I’m just kind of amazed at what this pick says about Romney’s vision for his Presidency. What kind of nominee picks someone who’ll effectively make himself Romney’s Prime Minister and reduce the actual President to a head of state who welcomes football teams on occasion. He’d be Medvedev to his Putin. There’s a great quote from Robert Caro’s new LBJ book, where someone questions LBJ pushing forward on Civil Rights after JFK’s Assassination, and LBJ said, “Hell, what’s the Presidency for then?” After six years of running for President, this pick makes clear that Romney has no real vision for the office or plan for what he wants to do, because he’s outsourced that job to his #2. If Romney thinks that this is 1932 or 1960 and he’ll be able to exile his #2 to foreign trips and funerals with no power, he has no clue about the Republican House or Conservative Movement’s fealty and infatuation with Ryan. Make no mistake, Ryan will be Romney’s Prime Minister in charge of Domestic Affairs if they should win. That’s just astounding to me, and speaks to a kind of character I want nowhere near the White House.

  26. SallyForth says:

    Well, this sure took all the air out the room today! I’m just glad Romney went ahead and named a serious running mate who is a polar opposite from the airhead put in that slot four years ago. Whether you agree with him or not, at least Ryan can walk and chew gum at the same time, actually intelligent and articulate. Palin was an embarrassment to our government and nation in general.

    This time around, we have serious statesmen on both sides. As Charlie said, it’s game on!

    By the way, I just saw you commenting re this topic on 11-Alive news, Charlie – good job. 🙂

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      Good point Sally. I wanted Rubio: best chance to win and best candidate for the future of the party. And my second choice was a veteran (because Romney, Obama and Biden never served)–Bob McDonnell or the longshot Gen. Patraeus. I think the Ryan selection was a poor one for the reasons I listed above in these comments, but he’s a much better choice than Sarah Palin.

      I heard on the news that this is the first time in the nation’s history that both of the major parties failed to nominate a veteran on either ticket. As a vet, that troubles me.

  27. Blake says:

    I am very surprised by the choice. Politically speaking, great for the base, bad for the general. If Romney still feels he needs to shore up his base this late in the game, then that means he won’t be able to turn away from the right-wing crazy he talked up in the primary fast enought to gain enough independents for the general.

    Obama’s chances just got better, and that’s not just me; it’s the futures markets too.

Comments are closed.