Report: Romney campaign officially vetting Ryan for VP

posted at 6:41 pm on June 22, 2012 by Tina Korbe

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has submitted paperwork to the Romney campaign, according to National Review’s Robert Costa. You know what that means: The campaign is officially vetting the mild-mannered-but-consistently-controversial rock star from Wisconsin for the VP slot.

(Let’s hope Costa’s report is more reliable than the ABC report that came out earlier this week suggesting the Romney campaign isn’t vetting Marco Rubio — another favorite potential veep. I’m betting it is — especially because it comes as no surprise that Ryan is on Romney’s shortlist.)

Gotta say: I’m so glad I dipped back into the turbulent waters of blogging on this particular afternoon. I’ve been rooting for the alliterative Romney/Ryan ticket for months now.

The president’s languid summer attempts to revive pride in him among the gay-marriage-friendly community and to woo those sympathetic to illegal immigrants stuck in the shadows haven’t changed the essential nature of the impending election. It will, for better or worse, decide the fiscal future of the country. It’s impossible to talk about jobs and the economy — especially in the shadow of the European crisis — without turning at least tangentially to entitlement programs. If we really want a healthy economy that supports work for all of us, then we have to reform the programs that are bankrupting the country. Paul Ryan has a plan to do that — which is more than I can say for President Obama. No better way to expose the president’s lack of leadership in that area than to put Ryan on the ticket.

Sure, a reliable Republican governor would make a decent running mate for Romney — and wouldn’t take any dearly-needed man or woman out of the House or Senate — but, on this particular presidential ticket, we need more than another reliable Republican governor. Romney can still sell the “extreme competence” angle with Ryan, but,  by selecting the Budget Chairman, he’d also inject supreme meaning into his campaign — the meaning it’s been conspicuously lacking lately, at least according to Peggy Noonan.

By picking Ryan as his VP, Romney would send this message to all of us: “I’m prepared not just to execute as a businessman, but to lead as your president.”

Self-improvement gurus insist that individual weaknesses and strengths are often two sides of the same coin. I suggest the same is true for political movements. If it’s supposedly a political weakness that conservatives are willing to touch entitlement programs, it’s also a strength. Entitlement programs will end as we know them if we do nothing. Relentlessly, Romney/Ryan should ask the president: Will you let that happen, sir? No? Then, where’s your plan?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

OMGZ!!! Romney wants to push grannzy off da cliffs!!!11!

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Of course. Why not get a TARP-supporting Veep to go with a TARP-supporting empty suit president? Then we can have more bailouts. Eventually, money will start falling from the sky from all this government spending.

MadisonConservative on June 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Please see 10:36PM /2 for the historical insignificance you desire for the very capable PD Ryan.

FlaMurph on June 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM

LOL

I read your post beforehand and that was a good point.

I’ve heard Ryan talking on the news…talking a hell of a lot…haven’t seen any results, though.

I guess if these guys and gals say the right things, we’ll keep on supporting them because they do indeed say the right things. But, we’ll never see any results.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 23, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Hi Tina!!

KCB on June 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Instead, Romney should pick a transgendered hispanic Muslim woman, preferably one with some type of trendy illness or handicap.

IBS , COPD or Plantar Fasciitis ?

I’d prefer the condition be IBS. The dem’s would just shhiiittt.

socalcon on June 23, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Of course. Why not get a TARP-supporting Veep to go with a TARP-supporting empty suit president? Then we can have more bailouts. Eventually, money will start falling from the sky from all this government spending.

MadisonConservative on June 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Hey, let’s not learn from 1932 and just usher in another 40 years of liberalism based solely on scare tactics, hope and change rhetoric, and good intentions because we don’t want to see the forest for the trees.

Or we can make sure the economy doesn’t collapse in the short term and let liberalism prove itself to be a failure in the longer term, then once it does start reforming the system. Sometimes you have to go a step back to make sure you go two or three forward.

Not passing TARP grants Obama an FDR-style majority that literally allows him to do anything he wants if the economy collapses. Was it a 100% chance that it would collapse? No. Was it 50%? Eh, maybe. Probably more like a 25% chance, maybe a little lower, maybe a little higher. What’s the chance you’re willing to risk giving Obama an FDR-like mandate? Mine’s below 10%, maybe 20% if I’m feeling lucky. Sometimes you have to play the long game. Ask Abe Lincoln in 1848 or Reagan in the 80s with his “compromises.” You really want to criticize the one politician willing to reform entitlements because he wanted to make sure he had the chance to?

cpaulus on June 23, 2012 at 3:22 AM

GHWB aside,
Humphrey
Agnew
Ford
Rockefeller
Mondale
Quayle
Gore
Cheney
Biden

Question: what do these names have in common?

People, think.. The VP job has only one function of any relevance – Breaking a tie vote in the Senate. The VP job is a Siberia where politicians go to end their careers.
Why, in the name of common sense, should Super Mitt take a Ryan , or a Rubio or even a Portmant off the playing field ? They are much more needed in their current roles than to be ceremonial back up QB. Any VP choice that weakens the R side of the table ain’t a very smart one with Pelosi and Reid hanging around.

Look at the above list again. History does not lie (except in oliar’s case it will)
The next VP should be one with extensive Foreign Relations experience so Mitt can fight battles on 2 fronts. The world is burning down and will need lots of attention. And it wouldn’t hurt to have a WOMAN VP For a change.

FlaMurph on June 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Half of the people in that list won their party nominations. You listed two presidents and three people who won the popular vote. If you take the two that didn’t run for office afterwards you’re looking at a roughly 50-50 chance of winning the most votes in the popular vote down the line. Also, I hope it doesn’t happen, but sometimes the VP becomes president. In fact some of the nation’s most crucial events involved a president who rose from the vice presidency.

cpaulus on June 23, 2012 at 3:29 AM

Nope. I think that Medicare needs to be reformed and that Ryan’s plan is actually too timid.

I’d try to explain to you the difference between policy views and horse-race analysis, but been there done that. You’re simply too limited to understand it.

joana on June 22, 2012 at 7:53 PM

PS: no one likes you, go back to the Huff Post!

LevinFan on June 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM

LevinFan, the truth is that Joana’s posts are always ten times more worthwhile than any of your dull Mark Levin parroting. At least Joana can think for herself and always has interesting points of view and can defend herself well. She’s definitely one of the better commenters on here. Many of us appreciate Joana’s posts, and you speak for no one but yourself when you say she’s not appreciated.

LevinFan, it’s kind of sad that you can’t handle opposing points of view.

bluegill on June 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM

bluegill on June 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM

two peas in pod, joana+bluegill. mitts boot lickers. bilge filled posts tinged with unrequited teenage angst.

hate to break it to you. joana’s not “smart”.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 5:35 AM

1. With Ryan as VP, he’d still be available for budgetary advice to the House and he’d be in the perfect position to talk to the nation on fiscal issues. Fix the economy and you fix the country.

2. Holding Rubio’s Senate seat is far more important than holding a seat the the House.

3. Ryan would put Wisc. and Gov. Walker back in the spotlight. Wisc. blue/swing state status would definitely be pulled to the right.

4. In a close race, the youth vote can make a big difference and the dems proved that in 08. Ryan would help capture that vote as Obama has long lost his rock star status.

Romney/Ryan 2012
Ryan/Rubio 2020

JetBlast on June 23, 2012 at 6:11 AM

JetBlast on June 23, 2012 at 6:11 AM

Great points! My faves for the spot are Ryan and Christie.

Mitt and Ryan are extremely sympatico in terms of their plans for budget, tax and entitlement reform. The Donks are going to be running against Ryan’s plan no matter what. This is the fight we want and the fight that we need to win. We know that Ryan will stay on message and show the same campaign discipline that Mitt has shown. He is an eloquent proponent of their shared vision.

What’s more, Ryan will not be a funeral Veep. He will continue to be Mitt’s partner in the WH. Clearly the mutual respect between these two men is strong and will permit Mitt to delegate real authority to Ryan to help craft laws and budgets for submission to Congress. In short, Ryan will be a great asset both on the campaign trail and in the WH!

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:26 AM

Great points! My faves for the spot are Ryan and Christie.

Mitt and Ryan are extremely sympatico in terms of their plans for budget, tax and entitlement reform. The Donks are going to be running against Ryan’s plan no matter what. This is the fight we want and the fight that we need to win. We know that Ryan will stay on message and show the same campaign discipline that Mitt has shown. He is an eloquent proponent of their shared vision.

What’s more, Ryan will not be a funeral Veep. He will continue to be Mitt’s partner in the WH. Clearly the mutual respect between these two men is strong and will permit Mitt to delegate real authority to Ryan to help craft laws and budgets for submission to Congress. In short, Ryan will be a great asset both on the campaign trail and in the WH!

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:26 AM

I agree. Yet, I still lean toward the argument for not removing him from the Senate. We can take back both Senate and the White House. I’m fairly certain about the White House. We need the Senate to get the most Conservative judges possible appointed to the SCOTUS. I hate taking any ammo away from that.

98ZJUSMC on June 23, 2012 at 6:39 AM

I can see the slogan now:

“After four years of Obama, we need some R&R!”

JeffWeimer on June 23, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Christie and Mitt – two RINO’s for the price of one. I’ll gladly live with Ryan–he is what he pretends to be.

Mitt–he is what he’s been an opportunist–and that scares me, but not as much as Obama and those incompetent voters that put him in office.

Don L on June 23, 2012 at 6:49 AM

Don L on June 23, 2012 at 6:49 AM

Here is what I find so bizarre about your remarks. Mitt’s agenda is perfectly in sync with Ryan’s. To say you’re OK with Ryan and not with Mitt is like saying you like beef but now when it comes from a cow!

Mitt and Ryan have worked on parts of their agendas in collaboration and where they haven’t outright collaborated their thinking has been along the very same lines. Their solutions differ in details, but both of them are taking the same approach in terms of rolling back the regs and laws that holding back business, reforming taxes in not very different ways and reforming entitlements in similar ways.

I feel to see how anyone could find Ryan acceptable and not find Mitt just as acceptable, aside from judging people on superficialities or perhaps irrelevancies like their religions.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 7:16 AM

I fail (sic) to see how anyone could find Ryan acceptable and not find Mitt just as acceptable, aside from judging people on superficialities or perhaps irrelevancies like their religions.

Correction.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I think anyone who is focused on the ‘only ceremonial VP’ meme is missing the point on a Romney presidency. Romney is not a typical presidential candidate. He has actually run businesses and organizations. I think what he is looking for in a VP is a right-hand man who will organizationally assist him in running his agenda. Paul Ryan would be PERFECT for this kind of role. He would be a perfect point man with congress, and I am sure that if Romney picked him he would use him for just that purpose. Ryan can do great work in the House, but with the full backing of the bully pulpit he could get even more done. And I think that could be invaluable to a Romney administration.

PSConservative on June 23, 2012 at 7:42 AM

What is it with picking folks with limited to no executive experience for either the first or second highest office in the land? (Ryan, Bachmann, Paul). Ryan’s been a congressman since he was 28 years old, and a good one at that mind you, but God bless his heart – he hasn’t run anything outside of a lemonade stand.

I luv me some Ryan but be for real here – we already tried our little 4 year experiment with the ‘no executive experience’ option. I’m not willing to try another should the VP have to be elevated to be President for some unknown reason.

He wants to be President or VP, good for him. Move onto the Senate, then move onto the Governor’s mansion of Wisconsin, be a General or be a CEO of a significant enterprise and then come talk to me.

rgrovr on June 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I fail (sic) to see how anyone could find Ryan acceptable and not find Mitt just as acceptable, aside from judging people on superficialities or perhaps irrelevancies like their religions.

Correction.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I’ll try to explain – My comment, which you bizzarely call bizzare, was about the difference in character(which apparently doesn’t bother you) I used the word “opportunist” which clearly points out my criticism. Contrary to the left and far too many on the right -I believe that character matters dearly -it must be the first consideration for any leader.

Ryan has never been known as Mr.Etch-a-sketch for good reason.

Mitt is certainly more than qualified to run the economy -but my concerns for America are about the clear destruction of our freedom by the left,and by RINOs. Unfortunately–those two can be do the same damage to our nation.

Don L on June 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Unless Romney changes the position of VP to one that actually rolls up their sleeves and also contributes directly to the future of the nation, Ryan is wasted in that slot.

But, if it were me, I would change the responsibilities of the VP position – the economy needs all the help it can get, and internationally parading around trying to appease, or deflect arrows at the POTUS is such a waste of space.

so-notbuyingit on June 23, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Ryan is clearly a rock star in the party, was one before anything cheesehead clicked nationally with the Walker happenings. But he will stay in the House and lead the reforms necessary when mittens is elected. Mittens would be a fool to not vet him for VP as he would be with Rubio, but neither is to be VP as their roles in the legislature are too vital. I would say expect a NH/SC/NM woman to be nominated but (the risk adverse with his own money mittens) won’t take that chance, same with the abortion linked Gov of VA. Portman was odds on fav until enough people linked him with Bush and that became toxic. Best bet is to nominate Rand Paul, wins enough of Ron’s wacky types, calms the tea party types who rightfully think mittens is a moderate and says to the middle independents that he is willing and able to choose the person for the job.
Of course I could be wrong and just drunk.

smitty41 on June 23, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Gosh, if Romney/Ryan were to win it would be like having adults in our WH again instead of a bunch of knuckleheads!

scalleywag on June 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Im also torn between Jindal and Ryan. Im hoping Mitt would use Ryan and put him to work much like Bush did with Cheney. Mitt has pleasantly surprised me during the campaigns. I dont see it a two boring white guys I see it as the two adults in the room armed with facts and a plan that stay on point vs a Chicago punk and a juvenile idiot who thinks its cool to say man all the time.

ldbgcoleman on June 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I like Ryan.

TXMomof3 on June 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Recent history proves both you and butterflydragon to be wrong.

Palin had McLame winning in the polls and would’ve dragged McLame’s sorry a$$ across the finish had he not suspended his campaign like a complete idiot.

Again McLame was the worst possible RINO, was trailing the entire time, had all the anti-Bush backlash, and suddenly he was winning due to a conservative VP.

Ryan would be a great pick. So would West and Jindal.

LevinFan on June 22, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Wow, you’re off you’re rocker.

Hate to tell you this, but Palin lost. So “history” would prove me correct. McCain enjoyed the “maverick” bump for selecting a conservative woman. (And remember, the woman part was just as important, if not more important than the conservative part)

He was winning because he wrapped up the nomination and Obama was going through his tough times about then due to the Hillary backlash. (You know, a woman that just lost the nomination)

If you notice a few weeks after Palin was old news… Obama kept the lead over McCain.

So history proves YOU wrong. McCain lost and we have dealt with a miserable 3 1/2 years of some amateur playing king while living in the White House.

So your advice has been tried before and it sucks. It doesn’t work. That’s HISTORY talking. Real history, not the make-believe stuff in your head.

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I hope it doesn’t happen, but sometimes the VP becomes president. In fact some of the nation’s most crucial events involved a president who rose from the vice presidency.

cpaulus on June 23, 2012 at 3:29 AM

.
Your zombie ABR emotions are clouding your thinking. Look at the list. The modern day VP slot has proven to be a career ending position. Those who think Super Mitt is looking for some kind ” Co-President” do not understand the admin structure. At most the VP is just another mouth of advice- often over shadowed by a Chief of Staff or Cabinet sec. And in Cheney’s case, created division, confusion.

Your strong mavericky need to mess up a Senate ratio is deep down just away to soothe the “squishy” head ache pain you can’t get past.

Look at the last 40 years of VPs. Whom ever Romney chooses will pretty much have their political fate sealed. Give the MSM 8 years of beating up on Romney and his VP is toast for a 2020 run.

8 years is a very presumptuous best case scenario. If its only 4, same fate – only quicker.

Make history, select Condi Rice , and show these liberal aholes who War on Women is over.

FlaMurph on June 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM

still trying to blame Sarah, and not the idiot mccain. nice try bozo. but thats history. old news. romneys now the guy. he’s going to pick a boring white guy. should be no problem. measure the drapes. mission accomplished. obama one and done.

please try and get a life. ragging on Sarah isn’t becoming to you. i’m going to have an ice cold cerveza and watch the romney coronation. what times it on, anywho? oh, i’ve been told i have to wait till november. nevermind.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Don L on June 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Oooh, his character. You don’t think Mitt is good enough for you. You didn’t bring that up before. Calling him a RINO, which is a cliched way that most folks take to mean you don’t like his politics.

Mitt’s character is outstanding. He has never had anything approaching a scandal in his entire life. He’s married to his HS sweetheart with 5 children they raised who are all exemplary citizens themselves. Ah, but they’re Mormons and that’s a deal breaker, isn’t it?

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

98ZJUSMC on June 23, 2012 at 6:39 AM

Paul Ryan is certainly a valuable asset in Congress. However, you’ve forgotten that he’s not a Senator.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Ah, but they’re Mormons and that’s a deal breaker, isn’t it?

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

the parrallels between you and the obama supporters continues to amaze and astonish. they pull the race card and you guys pull the religion card.

shameless!

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

still trying to blame Sarah, and not the idiot mccain. nice try bozo. but thats history. old news. romneys now the guy. he’s going to pick a boring white guy. should be no problem. measure the drapes. mission accomplished. obama one and done.

please try and get a life. ragging on Sarah isn’t becoming to you. i’m going to have an ice cold cerveza and watch the romney coronation. what times it on, anywho? oh, i’ve been told i have to wait till november. nevermind.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM

It would seem you’re the one that needs to get a life and quit riding Sarah Palin’s jock. No one”blamed” Palin for a thing. Nor has anyone “ragged on” her.

The fact of the matter is McCain was going to lose no matter who he selected because of the media adoration of Obama. The media has been carrying Obama’s water since the night he spoke at the DNC in 2004. That night the media was gushing over themselves and asking if he could be president one day. Just because he can speak in a halting, booming voice while reading a speech. Very Hitleresque of them.

For anyone to try to rationalize what would have (or have not) occurred with a different running mate is no better than Obama claiming jobs “saved or created”. The make-believe realities people create to envision the other path not taken is ludicrous.

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Obviously you don’t have a clue.

McLame lost BECAUSE of himself, not due to Palin.

She almost dragged his sorry RINO a$$ across the finish line which is saying something.

The truth is that McLame never led in the polls until he picked Sarah. She did everything she was supposed to do in attacking Maobama. Of course McLame wouldn’t let her mention Rev. Wright, she was lucky she was even allowed to bring up Ayers!

It was the economic collapse and McLame’s response to it that did him in. The only thing that got conservatives excited about the ticket was Palin.

Properly articulated conservatism is what wins. That’s reality.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

‘Hate to tell you this, but Palin lost.
ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM’
hey smarty pants mccain lost not Sarah. its all in romneys hands now. who he wants to take to the slaughter matters a hill of beans to me. the die is cast.

cap and tax mitt 2012

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It was the economic collapse and McLame’s response to it that did him in. The only thing that got conservatives excited about the ticket was Palin.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

And then they got “unexcited”?

Why did Obama overtake McCain a few weeks after the announcement and never ever did McCain overtake him?

Folks decided they weren’t excited any more over Palin?

Correlation does not equal causation.

And to answer your sockpuppet… Palin did lose. Are you trying to say she didn’t? She hitched her star to the McCain wagon all on her own. She wasn’t forced to do so. She knew if McCain lost, she’d lose. That’s the way it works.

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

And to answer your sockpuppet… Palin did lose. Are you trying to say she didn’t? She hitched her star to the McCain wagon all on her own. She wasn’t forced to do so. She knew if McCain lost, she’d lose. That’s the way it works.

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

whoa. such underlying anger and frustration. dude, take a chill pill. she’s irrelevant remember. even though you can’t keep posting about her. LOL. i see a Palinista in the making. LOL

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

What I’m saying is that the only reason McLame ever had a chance is b/c of Palin.

That if you want to win and fix things consevatism is the answer. YOu need to motivate the base.

McLame saying that everyone deserves a home and basically just being his RINO self is what did him in. Combine that and the economic collapse (many stupidly blaming capitalism saying we need more regulation b/c they didn’t understand that gov’t was the root cause of the mess) was the reason Maobama won.

Palin was a great VP pick. And I don’t agree with ritalin boy who thinks the answer this time around is to sit at home and pout b/c he’s not happy with Romney.

I didn’t want Romney either but he’s much better than the socialist we have now. It would help though to have a conservative who can motivate the base. Picking Ryan would excite people and make the campaign about the economy and getting people serious about reforming entitlements.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

the parrallels between you and the obama supporters continues to amaze and astonish. they pull the race card and you guys pull the religion card.

shameless!

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Nice try, but it only flies when one ignores the facts. Don has made it clear that he bases his vote on religion (see the, “Would You Vote for an Atheist?” thread). What’s more, he concedes that his differences with Romney are not based on policy, but rather on calling to question the man’s character. A man who has a squeaky clean record in both personal and private life, in both business and in government.

Stuff your Obama comparisons. The shoe fits.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I didn’t want Romney either but he’s much better than the socialist we have now. It would help though to have a conservative who can motivate the base. Picking Ryan would excite people and make the campaign about the economy and getting people serious about reforming entitlements.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

On the only matters that count this election, Mitt is every bit the conservative that Ryan is. I just don’t get it the way some of you are able to find daylight between them on tax policy, entitlement reform, energy production, regulatory policy, fiscal policy and just about anything else that touches on the economy. If you like Ryan, you ought to love Mitt!

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

On the only matters that count this election, Mitt is every bit the conservative that Ryan is. I just don’t get it the way some of you are able to find daylight between them on tax policy, entitlement reform, energy production, regulatory policy, fiscal policy and just about anything else that touches on the economy. If you like Ryan, you ought to love Mitt!

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Because while Romney may say some good things now, his record (which he continues to defend as objectively good policy, not subjectively as good policy for MA) is awful, showing a major inclination toward statist “solutions.” (The government is the problem, not the solution.) Based on that, it is difficult to believe the stuff that he says that I agree with, and all too easy to believe the stuff that he says that I don’t agree with (like him thinking that the poor’s plight is improved by fixing the safety net, and that the rich are “doing fine,” which based on his tax proposals appears to mean people making $200K or more – rather reminiscent of the “private sector” doing fine).

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

And you claim you listen to the man?

Of course you don’t. You just make up Romney’s positions in order to attack them. You couldn’t care less about what Romney is actually saying or proposing. You’ll just invent as much as you need to criticize him.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 12:02 AM

What did I invent? I asked if he supported the EO? I never claimed that he did. Yet, you’re the one claiming that others invent facts? Your absurd hypocrisy is unparalleled.

In any event, I’m not up to the minute with every single thing that Romney says, sorry. I don’t work for his campaign and get the daily download from him, like you probably do.

And, finally, he said, “build my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure.” That doesn’t really mean that he opposes the EO, merely that he thinks that it is a temporary measure that needs to be resolved in favor of a long term solution. Whatever that solution may be is anyone’s guess. But, hey, go ahead and invent something in that statement to say something that it doesn’t.

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:16 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Keep telling yourself those comforting lies. The $200k limit, for example, is a brilliant and needed idea. The middle class has been getting our asses kicked over the housing debacle, unemployment, taxation and every other angle. Mitt is targeting the middle because we are make the country work and because we are the ones who need to look out for futures. His plan is to make fewer of us imagine that we can and should plan on having government take care of our every need when we grow old. His plan is one that enables us to take back the ground we lost and prepare for our own future. What’s more, his plan recognizes that capital gains are taxed at a rate much lower than income and that those who doing well enough to earn $200k on investments are paying MUCH less in taxes than those who earn $200k in wages. His plan does not punish those high earners, it empowers the rest of us to make it on our own.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:16 PM

He said that the solution is a matter for Congress to legislate and not a POTUS to dictate. Naturally you have a problem with that.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM

He said that the solution is a matter for Congress to legislate and not a POTUS to dictate. Naturally you have a problem with that.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I do have a problem with a president who doesn’t have a plan. What the hell is the point of electing a man with no-plan? Obviously congress passes a bill first and then the president signs it. You want a president that has no plan, but leaves everything to congress? Great. Vote for Obama. That’s what he does.

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Ryan v. Biden VP debate could actually be a turning point in the campaign in favor of Romney. Ryan’s younger, handsome, articulate and even tempered in his explanations of corporatist principles. Biden’s wacky grandad routine worked great against Palin who was being a bit wacky herself (those winks were the absolute most). But Biden can’t do shtick with Ryan. If its an overwhelming blow out the media could run with the story for quite a while. The only way it backfires is if Ryan seems more competent and engaged than Romney. Still, Ryan really is the smartest choice for VP.

libfreeordie on June 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I like his plan just fine. However, I have serious doubts about his sincerity in the plan. And, hey, why does he have a plan? Isn’t congress supposed to be the one with the plan? POTUS isn’t supposed to dictate!!11!!1!!!!

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Oh goodie, bringing up the, “He’s lying” canard. Sure, he doesn’t mean a thing he’s been saying. He has published economic plans and campaigned on them just so he get elected and then he’ll be a new Obama. It isn’t as though he’s explained the reasons for what he has proposed and it isn’t as though he has made himself extraordinarily accountable by publishing and campaigning on his plan (with a great many very specific items and some that he has elaborated on since) last June and not varying from it.

On immigration, his has embraced Rubio’s version of a DREAM act. He has told us that he would support Congress taking action along those lines. He has told us that PBHO has acted against the Constitution by dictating his policy and that he would respect the law.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Oh goodie, bringing up the, “He’s lying” canard. Sure, he doesn’t mean a thing he’s been saying.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Because while Romney may say some good things now, his record (which he continues to defend as objectively good policy, not subjectively as good policy for MA) is awful, showing a major inclination toward statist “solutions.” (The government is the problem, not the solution.) Based on that, it is difficult to believe the stuff that he says that I agree with, and all too easy to believe the stuff that he says that I don’t agree with (like him thinking that the poor’s plight is improved by fixing the safety net, and that the rich are “doing fine,” which based on his tax proposals appears to mean people making $200K or more – rather reminiscent of the “private sector” doing fine).

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

On immigration, his has embraced Rubio’s version of a DREAM act. He has told us that he would support Congress taking action along those lines.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Not very consistent with his campaign’s assault on Perry, is it?

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

On immigration, his has embraced Rubio’s version of a DREAM act. He has told us that he would support Congress taking action along those lines.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Not very consistent with his campaign’s assault on Perry, is it?

And maybe you have a link providing evidence of this “embrace?”

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:47 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Agreed. He played hard ball with Perry and I think he went too far. That’s politics. Refer to his remarks at NALEO for details of his stance.

That said, immigration is well down on my list of what matters. For me, it’s all about the economy to include tax reform, fiscal reform, regulatory reform and entitlement reform.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Properly articulated conservatism is what wins. That’s reality.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

No it’s not reality, it’s a talking point from Rush and your hero Mark Levin.

Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush weren’t Conservatives by the standards of those two consistetly WRONG talk radio hosts and all those guys won.

McCain lost because the economy tanked, he was a terrible campaigner and America wanted to assuage their white guilt.

Stop taking your political cues from people who get it wrong, all the time.

AYNBLAND on June 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM

A Romney/Ryan ticket has such a GOOD sound to it!!!!!!

DixT on June 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Careful. Keep disagreeing with joana and eventually she will lump you into one of the following categories:

1. Crazy.
2. Racist.
3. Under the age of 18, therefore not eligible to vote, and therefore somehow making your opinion invalid.
4. “The type of person that would shoot a president or senator”. Verbatim.

She will do all of this, and never for one second concede any error on her part in her judgment of you as a person.

MadisonConservative on June 23, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I wouldn’t mind seeing a little R&R myself! There is a hidden pun in there for those that know me. :o)

g2825m on June 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM

What did I invent? I asked if he supported the EO? I never claimed that he did. Yet, you’re the one claiming that others invent facts? Your absurd hypocrisy is unparalleled.

In any event, I’m not up to the minute with every single thing that Romney says, sorry. I don’t work for his campaign and get the daily download from him, like you probably do.

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:16 PM

A representative example of Romney’s critics: when called out on misrepresenting Romney’s positions, they claim they can’t be aware of what he says – when the issue at hand is the hottest political issue of the weekend and Romney talked extensively about it in an interview on the most watched Sunday-morning political interview show and in an widely publicized speech.

Honest question: you don’t even have time to be aware of basic facts like this, how exactly do you think you’re qualified to argue about these issues? Have you ever read his site or something? Watched an interview?

It’s surreal that you had the chutzpah to write dozens of posts about Romney’s immigration positions just to end up with a ” I’m not up to the minute with every single thing that Romney says, sorry. I don’t work for his campaign”.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Not very consistent with his campaign’s assault on Perry, is it?

besser tot als rot on June 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Why not? Where’s exactly that inconsistency? Also, how would you know if you don’t have time to be aware of Romney’s positions?

Also, can you please provide links that support your claims for a change?

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I like Ryan-but I’d rather he pick a governor…like Bobby Jindal.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I can see the slogan now:

“After four years of Obama, we need some R&R!”

JeffWeimer on June 23, 2012 at 6:47 AM

+100; LOVE IT!!!

Sir Rants-A-Lot on June 24, 2012 at 1:43 AM

I can see the slogan now:

“After four years of Obama, we need some R&R!”

JeffWeimer on June 23, 2012 at 6:47 AM

This is clever!

theaddora on June 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Romney/Ryan
whitebread/whitebread
(no thanks)!

NOMITTOBAMA 2012!

Pragmatic on June 24, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Great, financial wizard of twisting numbers to look rosy while running companies deep into the red is vetting wizard of making red ink running well into three generations from now look good. I can see a Romney presidency working out just splendid for the country.

astonerii on June 24, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3