Romney to Reveal VP Choice Tomorrow (Saturday, August 11)

Leaving aside the merits of Ryan's budget and ideology, I find the choice interesting as a tactical matter.

Specifically, Romney has been running on the platform of "referendum on Obama's economy" the whole time and, for the most part, has tried to present himself mostly in terms of general business competence.

The Paul Ryan choice, as many have pointed out, makes it "idea vs. idea" election (see here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...d-choice-but-please-not-a-serious-one/261020/) rather than a simple referendum on the economy (or even Obama's handling of the economy)-- and this is what Democrats have said they wanted the whole time.

I wonder why Romney is making what is, apparently, a change in tactics. Maybe because the polls (internal and public ones both) are showing that his original tactic isn't working? The Paul Ryan pick reminds me of when the Rockets played the Lakers in the 09 playoffs-- once Yao went down, the Rockets started launching a ton of 3 pointers every game. They took the Lakers to 7 games because they won when the 3s fell, but lost badly in games when the 3s didn't fall.

 

This pick is definitely coming from a position of weakness. Had Romney been leading in the polls he would not have made this choice.

 

Religion is about social stratification in absence of wealth, education, official position or hereditary title. Capitalism is the preservation and enforcement of social strata through commercial means. For both systems if you're in the right ethnic group you'll have enough examples and incentive to fit in, or the rules will eventually change on your behalf.

 

The CPC plan balances the budget 5 years faster than the Ryan plan without gutting Medicare.

 

Because the Paul Ryan budget calls for eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and that's where most of Mitt Romney's income comes from, Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of 0.82% in 2010. Maybe Romney hasn't paid zero taxes for 10 years and Harry Reid has been accusing, but he might be trying to turn that allegation into a reality.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...rcent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/#

 

I'm not so sure about that - I agree this would be the case for most people, but Romney doesn't make decisions the same way other politicians do. It's part of the reason he has so many gaffes - he's just not comfortable in the political arena. Romney picked Ryan, but then immediately said he's not running on Ryan's budget - which makes it seem more like a personal pick to him than a policy pick.

And the best justification I saw for it is simply this: If Romney was still CEO and hiring for Bain, Ryan would be exactly the type of person he'd hire. Bright, young, wonky, analytical, etc. Ryan is simply a Romney-type person. So this decision may have been made less as a political calculation and more because Ryan is simply the type of person that appeals to Romney.

 

As I just mentioned to rimrocker in a private "pat on the back" for his earlier post, I'm getting more optimistic about this election by the day. Romney is showing himself to be as politically astute as a turnip. He picks Ryan as his VP, which I think was a mistake in and of itself, but what really grabbed me was the timing of the announcement. If he wanted to assure as little coverage as possible, he would have been hard pressed to have picked a better time slot. How stupid can this guy be? Announce his VP choice on a Saturday?

What an idiot!

 

Not just any Saturday - Saturday on the final weekend of the Olympics, which is all that anyone is talking about. It almost seems like he wanted no coverage of the pick, which is odd in itself. But it's hard to explain any other way.

I actually thought Romney would release his tax returns at the beginning of the Olympics and let all that get drowned out in the news cycle. Instead, he made the biggest announcement of his campaign during it.

 

It's truly incredible, and I'm not just saying that because I like Romney (I don't), or that I think Ryan was a poor choice (I do). My opinion is based on decades of following politics, but a junior political science major would have said the same thing, laughing and shaking his or her head the entire time. And I agree about the tax return timing. Perhaps he really believes that he won't have to release them. What a fool!

 

Another group comes to the same conclusion:

 

What are we talking about, Dwight Howard, or US/Espana?

 

From the link:
[rquoter]Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.[/rquoter]

This vote was on an outdated version of the budget brought to the floor by the GOP.

[rquoter]Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.
The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., to show how few votes the president's budget might get.
House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.
House Democrats floated three of President Reagan's budgets in the 1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.[/rquoter]

Here we have a vote on a budget that is not even an authentic representation of Obama's budget. As the article you linked states, this is a classic bait-and-switch tactic used by both parties to promote demagoguery; a cynical move that plays on a lack of will for discernment within the electorate.

[rquoter]Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.[/rquoter]

Again, not Obama's plan. Unfortunately, the Washington Times spin in this piece is a little too much to bear, so I've taken the liberty of posting an AP article from the same day that does a good job of explaining why your post is misguided (accessed from Lexis Nexis, so no link):

[rquoter]
Senate Democrats reject House GOP budget plan The Associated Press May 16, 2012 Wednesday 09:56 PM GMT


Copyright 2012 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press

May 16, 2012 Wednesday 09:56 PM GMT

SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE

LENGTH: 715 words

HEADLINE: Senate Democrats reject House GOP budget plan

BYLINE: By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:


Democrats controlling the Senate rejected for the second year in a row Wednesday a budget plan passed by House Republicans.

The 58-41 vote against the GOP budget came after a daylong debate in which Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to trillion-dollar deficits, and Republicans in turn attacked Democrats for not offering a budget at all.

Republicans launched the debate, which was aimed less at successfully passing a bill than highlighting the failure of Senate Democrats to deal with a budget deficit expected to top $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year.

The Senate rejected five separate budget plans, including one based on President Barack Obama's February budget and offered by Republicans to embarrass Democrats and the White House. It failed on a 99-0 vote. Three GOP senators elected in 2010 with tea party support also offered plans in a competition to see whose budget could cut government the most.

The end results were preordained: sweeping rejection of Obama's budget and a near party-line vote to block the main alternative, the blueprint of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that passed the House in March. The tallies on the Ryan budget and a tougher version offered by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., defeated on a 57-42 vote, were probably inflated since the votes weren't on the actual budgets themselves but rather on a motion to simply take them up for debate.

Five Republicans voted against the Ryan plan: Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Dean Heller of Nevada and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Heller voted for the measure last year but, in the midst of a competitive race to retain his seat, switched his vote on Wednesday.

Toomey's plan received 42 "aye" votes, one more than the Ryan plan.

At issue is the arcane budget process on Capitol Hill, which involves a nonbinding measure called a budget resolution. Actual changes to the budget are made in follow-up legislation.

Democrats haven't passed a budget since 2009, opting against weeklong floor debates that would have exposed party members to dozens of politically difficult votes or put themselves on record in favor of tax hikes or huge deficits.

In most years, all a congressional budget really does is assign an overall "cap" on the annual appropriations bills that set agency operating budgets. Democrats note that last summer's budget pact already set such a cap for the ongoing round of spending bills, so Wednesday's debate wasn't really necessary.

But Republicans said Democrats were abdicating their responsibility to tell voters their solution to the government's daunting budget problems, which economists of all stripes warn will swamp the economy and spook the markets unless they're dealt with before long.

"It is very hard to overstate how urgent the fiscal crisis that we face really is when you are going the fourth consecutive year with a budget deficit of over $1 trillion," Toomey said. "There is one party that is seriously addressing these problems."

The GOP plans varied in their toughness, with the House-passed measure which fails to produce balance in the 10-year budget window actually being the least stringent. Sen. Rand Paul's measure was the toughest, calling for the elimination of four Cabinet departments: Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy while calling for a 17 percent flat tax on both individuals and corporations.

Paul's budget won 16 votes; a measure by Mike Lee, R-Utah, received 17 votes.

Each GOP measure, though, would sharply cut domestic programs and called for a dramatic transformation of Medicare that would turn it into a voucher-like program in which future beneficiaries, those presently under the age of 55, would have to buy health insurance on the open market rather than have the government pay hospital and doctor bills.

Democrats called for a "balanced" solution blending tax increases on wealthier people with less severe spending cuts.

"We will not allow the debt and deficit to be reduced on the backs of the middle class and most vulnerable Americans without calling on the wealthiest to contribute," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "That is not fair, it's not what the American people want, and it's simply not going to happen."

LOAD-DATE: May 17, 2012[/rquoter]

I honestly believe you're smart enough to recognize the triviality of the facts you have referenced in this post. In the future, maybe you could use your time more constructively.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Can someone explain the vitriol whenever Ayn Rand comes up? "Atlas" is the greatest motivator for the individual that I can imagine.</p>&mdash; Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) <a href="https://twitter.com/RobLowe/status/234354421759369216" data-datetime="2012-08-11T18:23:42+00:00">August 11, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>amen Rob, amen

 

Fantasy novel is not very good as a guiding document for running a modern nation.

 

I am confused by your post Are you just trying to judge the campaign tactical aspect of Ryans budget? Or are you emplying somehow that his numbers are honest and that his policy positions are good for the average American?

 

I give Mr. Lowe points for keeping his looks, sense of humor and the same wife for the last 20 some odd years, but I don't put stock in his political views. I'm also a little confused in that I thought he was a solid Democrat.

 

Actually Biden is as smart or smarter than Ryan. Ryan is very phsysically fit and comes off pretty well. However, Ryan knows nothing about foreign affairs and aside from his plan, which is just warmed over Heritage stuff and plain vanilla libertarian government hating, he hasn't done much aside from being elected in his one small district in Wisconsin. There is I suspect a reason why he has never tried to be elected to state wide office.

 

I'm looking at it entirely from a campaign / strategy standpoint. Reality isn't terribly relevant in a campaign - once you can create a narrative, it tends to hold regardless of reality or accuracy (see Kerry, and flip-flopping). Thus far, HCR and the Ryan budget have mostly been defined by the opposition. Both sides will get a chance to define it themselves once they are on the stage, so they'll get an opportunity to improve the approval of those things. With HCR, I'm pretty sure Obama can make a strong positive case for it that will improve it's favorability. The Romney campaign will have the same opportunity to frame the Ryan budget their own way - I have my doubts it will work as well, but it's certainly possible.

 

He might just be an "american."

They're an interesting people, tend to think for themselves.

You might familiarize youself with their backstory, as i suspect it will come up in the next 90 days.

 

Sadly I have to agree with you. He hurts, but it aids in the long term plan to divest the middle class of their social security and medicare and continue the transfer to the 1% and the dystopia of Atlas Shrugged.