As the news began to spread on Satuday morning that Mitt Romney had selected Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan to be his running mate, the media reaction was nearly unanimous: The conservative budget wonk would “elevate the debate” and “make the election about big issues,” not small things like tax returns and offshore bank accounts. That prediction soon looked ridiculous. By Tuesday, President Obama was talking about Romney’s poor, mistreated mutt and Romney was accusing the president of fomenting “anger and hate.” So much for elevated.
Still, the choice of Ryan guarantees the election will be about bigger things than it otherwise would have been, even if the Romney campaign has begun to shrink from some of what that implies. It won’t happen before November, but Ryan’s presence on the ticket could eventually usher in a politics that isn’t limited to trivialities and dysfunction and clears the way for progress on major challenges like tax and entitlement reform. The attacks that everyone bemoans will play an important role in bringing this change about. In fact, change might not come without them.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Well Joshua, your right, it is up to the american people what kind of country they want. If you want a large controlling government, Obama is your man.
You gotta love this stuff. Neither Obama nor Ryan "cut" a thing for beneficiaries. So we will have a debate over a false point. Will the media correct the error in this debate, of course not. Both Ryan and Obama reduced the expenditures to providers. What they do with the savings is two separate things,that you can debate. One uses it to help finance ACA the other a tax cut for the rich. Both are policy choices you could debate. But no we'll debate "cuts" to beneficiaries that didn't happen. I'm going to try and leave it to the kids to throw out the nasty adjectives, they're closer to school age and have more recent experience than I.
To the extent that this column elicited irrational mud-slinging it is a sign of the times, and a sign of the medium of public commentary. The tenor of the commentary is a harbinger of any debate, in congress or out of it, which will come about these topics. That is to say that the debate will not be based in actual content, and will likely be decided by who throws the most mud.
A candy-colored clown they call the sandman Tiptoes to my room every night Just to sprinkle stardust and to whisper: "Go to sleep, everything is alright" I close my eyes Then I drift away Into the magic night I softly sway Oh smile and pray Like dreamers do Then I fall asleep To dream my dreams of you
It's not "large, controlling government" that's the problem; it's conservatives and their failed policies who - under Bush - started a bogus war in Iraq, doubled the national debt, and nearly destroyed the economy that's the problem. If we want more government failure, vote for Romney. But arguing against a strong central government is an argument against the foundational document of this country. Centralized government is the product of federalism, which is the key idea behind the Constitution. The founders were not small-government advocates or anti-government radicals. They realized that regulation of interstate commerce and the need to tax were among the keys to the success of the new nation, especially given how weak and inefficient the states had been at organizing themselves without a federal government.
Unfortunately, elections do not move on substance. They move on sound bites. "He cuts Medicare!!!!" is a sound bite usually used by democrats, and is now being used against democrats. The truth is that most voters do not understand the intricate details of budget issues, and are swayed by emotion, which are created by sound bites. Paul Ryan knows budget economics better than anyone on either ticket. But his strength is his calm, respectful demeanor. That will make more people feel better about his approach, and the mud slung by Obama and Biden will only make them look small and peevish.
What about when his "approach" is to lie? Ryan already has been caught telling the first of what will undoubtedly be many whoppers: "Paul Ryan got busted lying about requesting stimulus money in 2009 for two Wisconsin businesses while at the same time campaigning against stimulus spending in Congress, and now that the truth is out there Ryan says he never should have asked for the money in the first place." See "Except That One Time, Paul Ryan Never Asked for Stimulus Money" [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/08/paul-ryan-never-asked-stimulus-money-except-one-time/55878/ ].
You use labels like welfare state and entitlements. Why not use more accurate descriptions? Try protecting octogenarians from being thrown out on the street and feeding babies?
But gosh golly, Mecn, that's not what the always truthful and oh-so-objective Weekly Standard says! http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-his-element_649905.html
"It's regrettable {Fox News}'s ugly and vile message is resonating with so many - what does it say about the many?" Substitute the President in that sentence with two words describing the #1 rated Cable 'news' network, and for the first time you lift yourself beyond a one-note partisan troll to take your first step towards intellectual honesty. (And Honestman, you do great work here on the boards!)
@MM - Thank you kind sir. It's a labor of love.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.