Posted on 08/11/2012 10:58:39 PM PDT by smoothsailing
August 11, 2012
Paul A. Rahe
In choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has opted to go for broke, and he has indicated that he is a serious man -- less concerned with becoming President of the United States than with saving the country from the disaster in store for it if we not radically reverse course, willing to risk a loss for the sake of being able to win a mandate for reform.
I have been unsparing in my criticism of Romney's political record. I unsay not one word about that. If we were to judge him honestly by his conduct as a Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts and as that state's Governor, I believe that we would find him sadly wanting.
I have also consistently been of the opinion that, of the declared Republican presidential aspirants, Mitt Romney was the least unacceptable. In his private capacity, he is a man of excellent character; as a businessman, he was accomplished in the extreme; and, as a candidate, he consistently displayed the discipline required. There were others in the race who had good qualities, but they lacked one or more of the crucial qualities that Romney possesses.
I also hazarded a guess -- that current circumstances might make a genuine conservative of Mitt Romney, that his understanding of the fiscal crisis we face might very well force him to think more deeply about the moral roots of that fiscal crisis, which is to say, about the inner logic of the administrative entitlements state and the moral as well as the fiscal bankruptcy produced by that inner logic. I was accused of wishful thinking, and the accusation was just. For my wish was, indeed, father to the thought, but this does not mean that the thought was wrong.
Governor Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate suggests, in fact, that my suspicions were correct. For by making this choice, Mitt Romney is declaring war. There will be no evasion, no triangulation, no attempt to mask what is at stake in this election. Instead, Romney and Ryan will directly confront Barack Obama and call him to account for putting us on a ruinous course.
This will alter radically the dynamics of the race. The money spent by Obama trying to demonize Governor Romney will prove to be money entirely wasted. The election is not going to be about Mitt Romney. It is not going to be about the sexual revolution. It is not going to be about Bain Capital. It is going to be about the failed policies of Barack Obama, about their dangerous character, and about the sober, sound alternative the Republicans represent.
This will help the Republicans in Senate and House races immeasurably, for it will give Romney and Ryan coattails -- now, without a doubt, the candidates in these other races have something concrete on which to run: repeal Obamacare, pare back the entitlements state, reform our system of taxation, and put our fiscal house in order. No one will doubt the capacity of the Republicans to rule.
I have predicted that Romney will win by a landslide. The choice of Paul Ryan means that Romney has chosen the path that will maximize the significance of his victory and its impact on the races for seats in the House and Senate. As in 1980, this is going to be a national election -- in which local particularities count for much less than usual.
If you still have doubts, remember November, 2010.
I don’t know how anyone could think that Romney - the Romney who was elected governor of Massachusetts - could save the country even if he gets elected president. I see Romney as Herbert Hoover, and Obama as FDR. In historical fact, Hoover was POTUS before FDR, and he reacted to the depression - "depression” was still a euphemism for hard economic times - with socialistic policies. It didn’t work. FDR ran against Hoover's economic failure, and won - then did more of the things that didn’t work when Hoover tried them. And blamed Hoover for having fouled things up so badly that nobody could fix it.
This time “FDR” is in office, and blaming his predecessor, and now the Republicans have nominated “Hoover." The question is, will “Hoover” learn from “FDR’s” mistakes, and reverse course - or will he follow his own predilections and run us well and truly into the ditch?The selection of Ryan is cause for hope that he has learned from recent history. No guarantees, just hope.
You've nailed it.
RINO is used by the Romney/Mormon hating trolls to describe anyone who does not exactly conform to their own peculiar view of Politics. It is used as a term of derision, particularly for the Republican Establishment.
Yet, it stands for "Republican In Name Only". It therefore implies that the Republican party ideals are good, and that the accused is not following them. By definition, then the Republican Establishment cannot be RINOs, because they SET the Republican party ideals.
I try to follow the Rush Rule: When someone is so devoid of intellectual capacity that all they can do is attempt to insult you by name calling, don't give them the honor of being insulted.
“In choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has opted to go for broke, and he has indicated that he is a serious man — less concerned with becoming President of the United States than with saving the country from the disaster in store for it if we not radically reverse course...”
No. This was as much a calculated political move as anything. Willard is a lot of things, but he’s not stupid. And he desperately wants to be President. Willard has what I term a Virginia Problem. He has a handful of states that he has to win to be elected. But the gop base in those states, Virginia in particular, is not at all enthusiastic about him or his candidacy.
In Virginia’s case we have the complication of a former Congressman from Virginia who is an actual conservative running on the Constitution Party ticket. It’s a classic spoiler situation. But more than than even Virginia, willard was really left with two choices: show that he is tacking right to appeal to his own base, who in many cases find him an unappealing choice, or lose the election.
He decided to take bold action to tack to the right by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate. He is to be complimented for doing so. In my view he is still a poor candidate, but giving him his due, he did the right thing here.
I disagree. Our chances of gaining 4 senate seats are probably about as good as Romney’s chances of winning which is to say, definitely possible. Either way we’ll hold the house so Barry and Harry will be limited in what they can do. Thank God for that at least.
Great graphics, I’ve already saved them. I don’t understand the line “Income/Payroll” on the next to the last chart. Do you know what it means?
BTW, are you for, or against entropy?
Romney’s character is not good? As compared to Obama?
Please my friend, come into the real world. You have a choice between only two. Jesus Christ is not on the ballot.
Well, it sures give the public a clear choice. Forty years ago the voters had a chance to elect someone, George McGovern, who had just as radical a vision of changing America as did Barack Obama. Despite the still ongoing war in Vietnam, McGovern, a hero of WWII, was trounced by Nixon. Now we have a man in the White House who is McGovern on steroids. Or marijuana. Someone like Obama shouldn’t get thirty percent of the vote if the public was half sane. If the voters re-elect Obama after his disastrous four years, then it means we’ve turned a corner (for the worse) and it’s time to consider two separate countries. One for the producers and one for the takers.
I hope they take the time to write a better plan
Unfortunately, this statement is not true. Obama has already violated the law with many of his "Executive Orders". Some examples include: Extending a Gulf drilling ban in direct opposition to a court order, Eliminating the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act, in direct violation of the Act, Dropping voter intimidation charges against the bat wielding Black Panther after a guilty verdict had already been ordered, and on, and on. Once unconstrained by another election WATCH OUT! You ain't seen nothn' yet.
The ZOT! is a dish best-served cold.
“I’ve never understood how rational people could state that Romney’s policies were the same as Obama’s, or that Romney would govern exactly the same as Obama, or that Romney would be able to govern exactly the opposite of his stated platform.”
It’s not whether willard would rule the same as hussein, he wouldn’t. It’s where you’re likely to end up in 4 years. I don’t see a whole lot of difference in the end result as willard would be essentially have a blank check from the gop. Hussein would not.
Actually, just the reverse is the truth.
The congress will present and he will not veto.
The course is set, very well defined. Obamacare will be repealed, the Ryan economy will be passed. Romney will sign both.
Once again, I find myself more enthused about the V.P. candidate than I do about the Presidential candidate.
Coincidence? I think not.
Healthcare is unaffordable for one reason, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED DECADES AGO AND HAS INCREASED ITS INVOLVEMENT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY SINCE. The only way to ever have affordable healthcare is to get the government out of healthcare. The federal government is very efficient at destroying wealth, it has no mechanism for producing wealth.
The GOP didnt ram Romney down anyone’s throat. If you recall the many other candidates were power hungry and too busy splitting the vote to care what happened down the line. Face it, Mitt won. He wasnt the first choice, but he won. So what is “staying home” or “voting Virgil Goode or Ross Perot or Mickey Mouse” or “write in” going to prove? Who will care?
Spot on. I'm no Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the choice is clear: 4 more years of Obama equals certain death for our Country.
Seems to me that's what the "Anyone But Romney" folks around here want.
It also seems to me that those "Anyone But Romney" folks are operating counter to this forum's mission statement and like other detractors/disruptors in the past should be removed from this system. (After all, they've called ror the removal of anyone who votes for Romney. Fair's fair.)
I truly don't understand at all how you can say that. Obama would appoint three Marxist supreme court justices, he would implement a single payer Obamacare system, with no tort reform in spite of any additional court rulings, he would raise taxes on businesses, destroying any hope of decreasing the unemployment rate, his Justice Department would further implement race based justice, including imposition of Sharia law in Muslim populated regions of the US, he would force union rules on right to work states, and worse. Romney would do none of these.
I truly don't understand at all how you can say that. Obama would appoint three Marxist supreme court justices, he would implement a single payer Obamacare system, with no tort reform in spite of any additional court rulings, he would raise taxes on businesses, destroying any hope of decreasing the unemployment rate, his Justice Department would further implement race based justice, including imposition of Sharia law in Muslim populated regions of the US, he would force union rules on right to work states, and worse. Romney would do none of these.
Agree with that sentiment, although there is a major case of deja vu going on here in that this is the 2nd election in a row where I'm far more enthusiastic about the VP candidate than I am about Presidential candidate.
I don't think that's a coincidence, btw...
“DING DING DING DING DING DING DING.
Welcome since April 15. I have warned people that there are Obama operatives on this site and all the conservative sites engaging in what they do best -— sabotage and community organizing. Besides going after the undecideds, Obama operatives hope to convince conservatives that they cannot vote for Romney because he is just like Obama. They want conservatives to vote third party or stay home in protest. In swing states, perhaps it will make the difference.
Because of his failed record, Obama operatives need to hammer Romney on his supposed lack of character. Nicely done. You took it right out of the playbook. Which meeting did you attend for your training? Chicago? New York? Los Angeles?”
Right you are. The only one I’m sure is not a troll is Jim Robinson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.