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?
Good one! Chuckling away here.
Don't over-think what I said. By looking for an "unstated premise" you have completely missed the point, to wit:
Voting third party is a meaningless gesture and will accomplish nothing positive. Without access to the mega millions of dollars that flood the major party candidates' war chests, a third party candidate has no chance of winning. Voting for Goode/Clymer is effectively the same as staying home.
Regards,
GtG
But they'll call it freedom, wave some American flags and half the dolts out there won't know the difference as long as they can still pretend to revolve their lives around meaningless sex.
Regards,
GtG
“You have to be at the table to play the game and a smug, morally superior attitude don’t mean dodelly squat unless it’s coupled with a win at the polls.”
That’s the point. I see a willard win as a pyrhic victory for conservatives. Obviously we differ on this. Smugness or moral superiority doesn’t enter into it. If I’m going to lose anyway, I might as well vote for someone who reflects my views.
Frankly, I’d love to compromise my views a bit to get a somewhat acceptable candidate that had a snowball’s chance of winning. The pro-abortion, anti-gun willard simply doesn’t fit the bill.
Either way, looking at the 'front runners' this election is asking people to hold their noses while they pick the least worse candidate. It's is indeed a sad day when exercising your sacred franchise is reduced to watching buffoons wrestling in a hog wallow and making promises that none but an imbecile can expect them to keep.
Having said all that I believe a win by Romney/Ryan is far from a 'pyrrhic victory' which would be a victory at the expense of overwhelming losses (rather like burning down the house to get rid of a mouse nest). Both are politicians and I believe that neither will attempt to 'jump start the economy' and give us single payer health care at the same time. The name of their game will be diminished expectations for the immediate future with achievable goals of real economic growth for all citizens to follow. That should keep them busy for their first term. After that we'll see...
Regards,
GtG
PS I don't think we are that far apart...
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.