Posted on 05/14/2008 4:04:43 PM PDT by SJackson
Janesville Congressman Paul Ryan continues to attract serious attention as a prospective Republican nominee for vice president. And rightly so.
One need not agree with Ryan's sincere-if-frequently-myopic conservatism to recognize the strengths he would bring to John McCain's ticket.
Where McCain is ancient -- older than Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower when they attained the presidency -- and looks it, Ryan is so fresh-faced, upbeat and energetic that he sometimes seems a good deal younger than his 38 years.
At that age, the Wisconsin Republican is almost young enough to be not McCain's son but the Arizona senator's grandson.
Yet Ryan is, by most reasonable measures, more experienced than McCain when it comes to dealing with domestic economic, tax and budget issues.
While the presumptive presidential nominee has freely admitted that he has little knowledge of -- or interest in -- fiscal affairs, Ryan knows his way around the balance sheets better than just about any Republican in the Capitol. As a key player for the better part of a decade in budget debates, he was a heavy-lifting member of the House Ways and Means Committee when Republicans were in charge of the chamber. And the congressman is still taken seriously now that the Democrats are in charge.
Ryan is not bragging when he explains that "where my aptitude is is in the area of economics."
The Wisconsinite's serious focus on budget fundamentals is not the only thing that inspires confidence among his fellow Republicans.
Where McCain is a maverick who conservatives suspect of being soft, Ryan's hard to the right on every issue -- so steady in his social and economic conservatism that he makes Ronald Reagan look like a wavering ideologue.
Yet, while McCain's got a mean streak that even his carefully choreographed campaign cannot hide, Ryan is a charmer. Raised Wisconsin-nice, he does not allow partisan or ideological differences to turn personal -- so much so that he once showed up at a Madison fundraising event for his former colleague and friend Tom Barrett, who was running for the Democratic nomination for governor at the time and eventually became mayor of Milwaukee.
That's not the end of what makes Ryan an attractive ticket mate for McCain. As U.S. Rep. Phil Ensign, who serves with the Wisconsin congressman on the Ways and Means Committee, says, "Paul is Catholic, from the Rust Belt, and has the economic credentials Sen. McCain needs."
As John Gizzi, the authoritative political writer for the conservative publication Human Events -- Reagan's favorite ideological journal -- notes, Ensign's sentiments are not isolated. "Other Republican back benchers agree, and talk of Ryan-for-veep mushrooms in the House GOP conference," argues Gizzi.
Does this mean that Ryan's likely to end up as McCain's running mate?
The Wisconsinite remains a long shot.
Despite his freewheeling reputation, McCain is actually an exceptionally cautious, old-school player -- more a Bob Dole than a Newt Gingrich. He's not inclined toward out-of-the-box thinking. And Ryan -- an unknown outside Wisconsin and a few blocks from Capitol Hill in Washington -- would require the sort of leap that might be beyond McCain's skill set.
Yet the prospect of balancing a 2008 GOP ticket led by one of the oldest and crankiest presidential contenders in the history of the republic with an attractive and experienced 30-something congressman from a swing state is hardly a radical one. In fact, it makes sufficient sense that wise Democrats will be hoping that this whole notion of forging a McCain-Ryan ticket remains a conservative pipe dream.
Message to McCain: "I'm not Obama" may not be enough at this point.
I don't understand that, but if you see no difference, vote your heart, go Obama go!
Thanks, detracters aside, the GOP really does have a number of people out there, many of them young and I can’t say I have a strong opinion. I admit Enchante is probably right about Jindal, though experience is relative this time around.
It would win over many of us who remain deeply suspicious of Senator McCain.
Also, there is strong sentiment to put a "minority" in high office, and someone of (East) Indian lineage would be a choice out of the blue and would alienate neither blacks nor Hispanics.
There's quite a bit to recommend this young conservative governor.
There is not much that can help McCain in my view, no matter how young and chirpy the VP is. McCain is in trouble and, as Novak says, he doesn’t even know it. I know I won’t vote for him no matter what. Better an Obama liberal disaster than a Republican liberal disaster.
“Nichols and the Capital Times are as far left as you can get so I don’t think McCain will be taking their advice.”
Why not?
“Honestly, if you look at McCain, and you look at Obama, and can’t decide which would be better for the nation, it’s best you stay home. Or vote for a non-entity.”
Either would be unmittigated disasters for this nation, albeit in different ways.
You're right about experience not being a campaign issue the dems can raise. I admit that as one who's not enamored of McCain, but can easily tell who's best for the country in a McCain/Obama matchup, I'm motivated by the fact that Jindal is the type of conservative Republican I'd like to see moving to a higher level withing the party. As are several of the others mentioned.
Of course if we could all stay home, they can go the way of Santorum and Allen :<(.
And yes, I do believe that if Ford served a second term Reagan would have followed him, a heresy to some I know.
“As contrasted with Obama, in what way would McCain be an unmitigated disaster?”
Imagine the Goracle as POTUS, only with Bush’ foreign policy. This ass-clown actually believes the Gorebull warming BS that he spews. If that isn’t enough, he’ll make damned sure that this nation becomes Mexico Del Norte.
If it's Jindal, many of us will be inclined to both vote and work to elect John McCain, having some positive motivation concerning the future of the party.
Campaign consideration: Given present realities, which number do you think would be larger?: moderate votes lost by choosing a conservative VP, or conservatives lost by choosing a liberal/moderate?
We probably don't have the answer, but have to consider many moderates don't follow politics that closely and will only vote for the top of the ticket, that discontented moderates are likely to swing to the other candidate whereas conservatives are more likely to simply stay home. I also suspect that of those who call themselves "moderate" many are really liberals (witness the MSM deeming itself objective and centrist). So many variables in play.
If you're referring to my suggestion that Reagan could have become President had Ford won in 1976, no, there's no evidence. I simply have more confidence in his positive message than you. Reagan excelled for his attributes, not because he was an anti-Carter.
As to rewarding the GOP for moving left, your contension is that by staying home and aiding in the election of a Marxist, the GOP will look to the non-voters on the right next election, rather than those in the middle who actually show up on election day. And that the damage to the nation will be well worth it because in 4 or 8 years we'll elect .....
Hmmmmm.
Just who is this superman with no electoral support within the GOP you expect to emerge?
We'll see. I think you're a dreamy eyed as many Obama supporters. Who do show up and vote.
I disagree that it's worth 4 or 8 years of Obama on speculation that the GOP will later move to the right, to reward those who didn't show up and vote. I think you're right about the VP choice though, it's a confidence builder, and has value in reaching out to the right wing of the party. I admit I approach the topic as one who won't vote for Obama any more than I'll stay home. No different than GWB's two runs. It could impact enthusiasm though.
THANKS!
I met Col. West last week. HE IS AWESOME!
I am hearing the same thing from everyone who has had contact with him. As one writer friend said after he met him, “he has leadership in every pore of his body”!
You know, SJackson, if you have come to a place in your mind that allows you to go into a polling place and placing your vote for McCain and leave feeling really good about what you've done ... excellent and good on you! I'm certainly not going to attack you for doing what you see as your civic duty, as much as I might disagree with your choice.
It would be really kinda cool if you would, at the very least, give the same consideration to anyone else who has searched their heart and soul and come up with a different decision. This 'vote for my candidate or stay home or waste your vote' or 'if you don't support McCain you must be a liberal' attitudes are really getting old.
It is entirely reasonable and possible to look at McCain's political record and determine that he is not what is in the best interest of this country. An argument can also be made that it is more difficult to actually stand up and say 'enough' with the path of the GOP than it is to go along and get along one more election cycle. That frame of mind is largely responsible for getting us to the point that we are with arguably the most liberal republican that could have been put forward.
“We need Ryan here to defeat Doyle in 2010.”
Exactly!!
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.