- Solid Choice
- Focuses on the Economy
- Popular With Base
- Geographic Balance
- Contrasts Philosophical Differences
Faithful readers know that I have recommended Kay Bailey Hutchison and, among the short list names discussed by the media, Bobby Jindal. So probably the question is: if I think Paul Ryan is a good choice, why didn't I choose him earlier?
A fair question, and here's my response:
- I've seen polls suggesting a gender gap in Romney support, and I thought Kay would have been a great choice with the suburban Mom vote; I don't think Ryan connects as well, but I do think that the Congressman's telegenic, more middle-class family and roots has considerable appeal and nicely complements Romney's own solid marriage and family.
- I've made no secret of my preference for executive experience. Ryan has limited managerial experience in either the public or private sector. I will say, however, that of any politician of either party over the past decade, Paul Ryan has provided intellectual and political leadership; he is the only person whom has outlined a concrete, comprehensive roadmap and provided a baseline of discussion.
- I've criticized Barack Obama and Joe Biden for being professional politicians. At 42, Ryan is subject to the same criticism: he has spent most of his adult life in Congress or as a legislative staffer.
- I think that Paul Ryan has exhibited leadership in Congress, and I liked the idea of Ryan from his current role heading the House Budget Committee working with the Romney Administration. Is he as useful to the Romney Administration in the largely ceremonial role of being VP (a point Ryan has raised)? This depends on how a President Romney defines Paul Ryan's role, but Ryan has considerable influence in the Senate GOP caucus, I think, unlike other legislator VP's like Biden and Gore, Ryan could bridge the Romney Administration to a GOP-controlled Congress in an unprecedented manner: the Ryan selection vests Congressional Republicans with the new Administration.
- Paul Ryan brings some baggage to the campaign, most prominently the Democrats' nasty ad hominem "throw grandma over the cliff" campaign. Democrats have been demonizing Ryan over the past few years, and this will now be redirected at the Romney campaign. Now I think Romney has preempted this in a sense by already endorsing the Ryan plan. I also believe that Ryan's refusal to support the Bowles-Simpson plan (because it glossed over ObamaCare) raises a concern about the Romney Administration's commitment to bipartisanship. There is no doubt that the Democrats, who have done nothing over the past 4 years to shore up senior entitlements, even during the 111th Congress, will seize on the Ryan selection to engage in fear-mongering among senior citizens (as if they haven't already been doing that!)
I think the contrast between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan is especially telling, Both started their Congressional career around the age of 29, but Biden's age reflects his party's dated, unsustainable policies. The youthful Ryan provides a stark contrast with the only comprehensive proposal on the table that explicitly and honestly deals with entitlements (including ObamaCare which siphons off Medicare reform funding) Ryan butted heads and more than held his own with Obama head-on during Obama's gimmick "health care summit"; Ryan is used to the give and take on Capitol Hill from the likes of Joe Biden, and personally I like Paul Ryan's chances in the VP debate this fall.
Romney, unlike McCain, made a solid, credible decision for Veep; given the fact that Romney still isn't well known and has been defined by the Obama campaign as unprincipled and opportunistic, Romney has answered those criticisms with a bold decision. Romney has picked one of the strongest principled, respected conservatives in the Congress, a passionate opponent of ObamaCare and one of the Federal Reserve's most notable critics after Ron Paul. (As an aside, I also note and approve that Romney has made it clear that he doesn't want the Fed engaging in money printing before the election.)
I wouldn't say that the selection of Paul Ryan puts a battleground state in Romney's column (recall that Gore failed to carry his home state in 2000, and Romney's chances in Massachusetts seem bleak at present). However, I note recent GOP successes in the state, most notably Scott Walker's ability to withstand the recall election and Feingold's Senate seat in 2010. Romney has a good shot at Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin; Minnesota and Illinois are still uphill battles. The fact that Romney picked someone from the purple state upper Midwest is symbolically important.
The choice of Ryan also frames the election in terms of the Democratic "don't worry, be happy" strategy of ballooning the nation's debt with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, pretending nobody has to sacrifice beyond the top 1% versus the GOP alternative of being the grownup in the room, confronting the unfunded liability problems head-on, putting our national house in order and enacting pro-economic growth policies. America will have a chance, perhaps a last chance, to steer the US clear of a Greek-style iceberg, a day of reckoning. America will have a chance to restore individual responsibility, traditional values and liberties versus following the fatal Obama/Biden march down the road of serfdom.
Finally, Romney has picked probably the most popular Republican in Congress from the standpoint of the party base, someone many had been encouraging to seek the Presidency for himself. I was worried about names surfacing like Condi Rice and Gen. Petraeus, addressing military/foreign policy; I wanted Romney to focus like a laser beam on the economy ("it's the economy, stupid!"), and Romney's choice of Ryan, whose predominant focus has been on domestic policy and particularly fiscal conservatism, has reassured me of Romney's priorities and political strategy.
[Note to regular readers: This is the third post I've published, including second one-off, over the past 18 hours. If you haven't read the earlier posts, they are available here and here.]
