Via Newsbusters, concern-trolling so lazy that it doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. His point, per this morning’s Politico piece on “the Republican Party’s Bedwetter Caucus,” is that Ryan could be poison for the GOP. Okay, then … why cite Quayle? Bush 41 won in a landslide, remember? When push came to shove, for all the jokes made about him, Quayle wasn’t a drag on the ticket. For that matter, why cite Tom Eagleton? How many states would McGovern have lost if the Eagleton thing had never happened? 48 instead of 49? If anything, he and Quayle stand for the proposition that a controversial VP pick just doesn’t matter much to the nominee’s chances.
Beyond that, you can practically see the lightbulb over his head go off as he tries to jumpstart a narrative that choosing Ryan undercuts Romney’s business record specifically. What kind of CEO, after all, would bet his business on such a risky investment? Possible answer: A CEO whose “business” was already struggling and who spotted a chance for a high reward in return for assuming a greater-than-anticipated risk. Ask yourself, how confident would you have felt about Romney’s chances if he had gone the safe route and chosen Pawlenty or Portman? Ryan’s a better retail politician than either of them and he brings a sense of purpose to the ticket that would have been utterly lacking otherwise. Without him, the entire remainder of the campaign would have been an exercise in killing time until election day and then hoping there are enough “anybody but Obama” votes floating around out there to deliver victory. That doesn’t feel like a winning dynamic. Ryan brings huge liabilities but huge assets too, and greatly boosts Romney’s chances of having a meaningful presidency. Why not roll the dice?