Posted on 08/12/2012 8:27:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
>NORFOLK, Va. — Speaking in front of the U.S.S. Wisconsin at the naval museum on a muggy day here, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., introduced himself to a national audience as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate.
Ryan sounded many themes that were familiar to Washington reporters who have been covering him for years — that the America in which younger generations have it better than their parents is under threat, a problem exacerbated by President Obama’s policies, and the only way to fix it is by offering bold solutions that actually confront the problem.
“President Obama, and too many like him in Washington, have refused to make difficult decisions because they are more worried about their next election than they are about the next generation,” a turn of phrase that Republican Gov. Scott Walker often employed in his successful recall election this June in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin.
“The commitment Mitt Romney and I make to you is this: We won’t duck the tough issues…we will lead!” Ryan pledged to the audience as they waved American flags.
Romney’s decision to tap Ryan, the idea man of the Republican Party, is a challenge to President Obama.
In 2008, the central component of Obama’s meteoric rise was that politics had become too cynical and small, and that it was important to have a more substantive debate on the pressing issues facing the nation. His appeal to independents was rooted in this very idea. In the current campaign, Obama has decided that in the face of a weak economy and tepid approval ratings, his path to victory rests on destroying Romney. But with the Ryan pick, Obama has been given a chance to have a substantive debate. After all, it was Obama that helped elevate Ryan in January 2010, when he picked him out of the crowd to acknowledge the congressman had produced a “serious proposal” to address entitlements, even though he disagreed with it.
Ryan is effectively holding a mirror up to Obama. Will he live up to the promise of his 2008 campaign, and engage in a substantive policy debate when given the chance? Or will he continue to run a campaign aimed at destroying his opponent, engaging the the same sort of politics of division that he once decried?
Here is the point I want Romney and Ryan to hammer repeatedly. The policies of Obama and Biden are not good for the rich, the so-called middle class, or the poor. They’re not good for whites, blacks, or Hispanics. They’re obviously not good for any Americans. They’re not good for America or for the world.
.....and quickly notices the lack of reflection,revealing what we already suspected was true about him...
Great picture.
Paul Ryan was a very good pick. I’ll give the willard his due. It doesn’t mean that willard turned over a new conservative leaf. Unfortunately, though, this website will be overrun with willard apologists for the next few days insisting that the selection of Ryan is evidence of the second coming or some such.
I’ve learned that it doesn’t do much good to try to discuss politics with those who are in the midst of a mitt-gasm.
Sure am getting tired of voting for the VP instead of the president.
Obaba ‘decries’ positions he holds deeply & which he works hard behind the scenes to have happen.
He is a multiple personality 24/7/365.
We can have Ryan solutions, or have the next stage of Obamalutions, and the latter won’t be mere thuggery, it will be despotism like we’ve never imagined it.
Exactly
We want to see Obama defeated. You, apparently, want to see Obama win. You have two choices in November, Romney or Obama. One of those two will be President. I pick Romney.
“You, apparently, want to see Obama win.”
That meme is so old it’s grown whiskers. You need to try harder.
I have no desire to see a socialist in the White House, whether they have a “D” or “R” after their name.
I have several choices on the VA ballot. Only two of those choices will be willard or hussein. I intend to vote for the most conservative amongst them. In this case it will probably be Virgil Goode. You see I’m a conservative, not a republican. If the gop wishes to gain my support or my vote it can do so very easily: by running conservative political candidates. The gop chose not to do so this time, so I won’t support their ticket.
If you wish to vote for the pro-abortion and anti-gun willard, then that is of course your prerogative.
It’s been the great American heist.
If you wish to depend on others to get rid of pro-abortion and anti-gun Barack, then that is of course your prerogative.
You support Obama, because it will be either him or Romney elected in November. That is the reality of the situation. Obama thanks you.
“those who are in the midst of a mitt-gasm”
Clever descriptions like this tend to be the province of the vulgar, fascist Left.
I can understand your position but please explain why voting for a >10% candidate makes any sense. Your pick will have absolutely no chance of winning so why even bother, it is the same as not voting at all. It may be a moral victory but it will leave us all with four more years of Obama! It's time to think strategically. To even be in this race you need to narrow your picks to the top two, no-one else has a chance of doing anything except becoming a 'spoiler' in a close race.
Regards,
GtG
Actually, the GOP is now running a super-conservative candidate for VP.
One whose budget plan is now being discussed far and wide.
A polite question, so I’ll be happy to answer as politely as I can.
I don’t share your unstated premise that a completely unrestrained willard in office would be all that much better than a somewhat restrained hussein. As a matter of fact in the long run willard may be worse. Let me give you an example. Just today willard was talking about repealing and REPLACING obamacare. Not just repealing. It makes you wonder...just what is the architect of romneycare planning to replace it with? Whatever it is, his replacement plan will not have any significant opposition from the gop.
One comment I see a lot on FR is that conservative will “hold willards feet to the fire.” Really? Precisely who will be doing that? John boehner? Mitch mcconnell?
And in the long term having willard as President will make it that much harder to elect actual conservatives in the future. The gop-e will see no reason to elect them and for good or bad, willard will be associated with conservatism. We’ve already seen how much damage the not conservative GW Bush did with things like TARP. And willard on his better days isn’t even as conservative as GW Bush was. Conservatives already have a tough sell in a country where less than 50% of the populace pays income taxes. And we want willard to be the de facto spokesman for conservatism?
I realize that its a bitter pill to swallow, but conservatives have already lost the presidential election. In my view we lost it the day willard effectively won the nom. Bitter as that may be, it is somewhat liberating as it does allow you to pick someone whose political views are similar to your own. So I’ll vote my values even if I realize that my candidate has little chance of winning.
I absolutely agree that we should think strategically. My strategy is to see conservatism win in the long run.
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.