The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack does a pretty good job addressing some of the arguments against a Ryan candidacy and it’s worth reading his whole post. I’ll let his points speak for themselves. Instead, I’d like to address a few more recent objections from the NYT’s Ross Douthat and The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison. First to Douthat. He attempts to distinguish between Christie (who he thinks would make a plausible entrant) and Ryan (who wouldn’t) drawing 3 contrasts.
I’ll only take a look at the first today.
1) Christie is a governor; Ryan is a congressman. Douthat’s makes essentially two argument under this heading, one of which is interesting and on point, the other less so. I’ll take on the latter first. Douthat writes:
No member of the House has won a presidential election in 131 years.
This sounds quite persuasive on its face. House members routinely mount Presidential campaigns (Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter last time, Paul and Bachmann this time) so it seems this statistic bears some looking into. Perhaps the electorate has an active bias against House candidacies? Let’s take a closer look. What would we need in order to verify such a bias? Well, we’d need to be able to control for variables which are only incidental to most House candidacies. In other words, we’d want to know if voters were rejecting Representatives for being Representatives, or if other factors came into play.
I decided to look at one particular factor which seemed relevant- fundraising. I’m no statistician and I would love to see someone like Nate Silver run regression analysis on this (he, no doubt, has a full database) but I can present the data. In 2008, 10 Republican candidates sought the nomination. Three were House members, 7 were not. How did they fare in fundraising? Well, in the first quarter of ’07, the three House members raised an average of 811k, with Tom Tancredo raising the most (1.25 million) and Duncan Hunter the least (538k). The 7 non-House members averaged 8.13 milion, with Mitt Romney raising the most (21.08 million) and Jim Gilmore raising the least (203k). Tommy Thompson also came in under Hunter with 392k, but Mike Huckabee just edged him (544k). So the House members were outraised 10 to 1.
Nor did subsequent quarters significantly close the gap. In the second quarter, the non-House average went up: to 8.53 million. This is because the lowest performer, Jim Gilmore, dropped out of the race. But the House average went up to: to 1.55 million, as Ron Paul’s numbers took off. So now we’re nearly to 5 to 1. In the 3rd quarter it’s 7.91 million vs. 2.17 million (Paul contributing 85% of the total, as Tancredo and Hunter had collapsed).
The point is, our House candidates were vastly outspent. Nor is there, on first blush, an obvious distinction between poor House fundraisers and poor non-House fundraisers. Former Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore was the poorest fundraiser and also the first candidate to exit the race, bowing out on July 14th 2007 . Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, another financial laggard, followed suit on August 12th. US Senator Sam Brownback was the next victim, leaving on October 18th.
It’s difficult to use these drop-out dates as a proxy for success, since House members are probably more likely to run “vanity” campaigns, and stay in after they’ve clearly ceased to be viable. But at the very least, these numbers and dates are suggestive. Something else that’s suggestive: the ’07 Ames straw poll. Here were the results:
1. Mitt Romney 31.6%
2. Mike Huckabee 18.1%
3. Sam Brownback 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo 13.7%
5. Ron Paul 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson 7.3%
Duncan Hunter was on the ballot but didn’t seriously compete at Ames. Looking at the rest of the list, it seems to track pretty well with our fundraising numbers. Sam Brownback was a slightly better fundraiser than Tancredo (4.2 million versus 3.5 through 3 quarters) and did slightly better in the straw poll. Tommy Thompson, though a Governor, was a far worse fundraiser than either man, and did much worse in the straw poll.
The two aberrations are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee- Paul raised a lot- 8.3 million- and did comparatively poorly. Huckabee raised comparatively little- 2.3 million- and significantly overperformed. But there are good reasons to suspect these discrepancies reflected more fit (Huckabee was an evangelical in evangelical Iowa, Paul was an anti-war activist in a time of Republican hawkishness) than some kind of statement about experience (witness Paul’s much improved performance, in the less hawkish GOP during this year’s straw poll).
Again, it’d be nice to comb through more data, run regression analyses and all the rest, and hopefully somebody with the know-how will eventually do so, but at a glance, it seems that House members perform poorly in primaries, at least in part, because they’re poor fundraisers.
The big question is, WHY are House members poor fundraisers, and is Ryan as susceptible to this phenomenon as an ordinary congressman? I’d argue that House members are poor fundraisers in large part because House members have A.) A limited fundraising base, usually confined to members of their district and B.) A low national profile, which limits their ability to receive small donations. Now, in the House, outside of Pelosi and Boehner, only Paul and Bachmann (both of whom are doing quite well, considering) have a higher national profile than Ryan. The media and Democrats are bound to take a Ryan candidacy seriously, if only to demonize him, and he’d have 70% name recognition two weeks after he’d declared. That takes care of grassroots support. It is also indisputably true that Ryan, more than any other congressman who’s contemplated a run since at least Jack Kemp, is loved by the GOP moneymen. If he has half of Bachmann’s appeal to small donors and half of Romney’s appeal to large donors, he’ll be able to run a credible campaign at least through the first few caucuses and primaries.
Next Douthat makes his interesting point. He writes:
Ryan’s district is purple rather than reliably red (President Obama carried it in 2008), but his campaigning chops have never been tested in a statewide campaign.
This is worth talking about. Bachmann’s district is much redder than Ryan’s (Obama won 45% in the former and 51% in the latter) but she’s actually had 3 competitive races while Ryan’s had, at best, 1 (his first race in ’98, when he carried the district by 14%). Ryan’s very good at townhalls, at interviews, but how is he at a rally? How will he handle attacks? I’d address this with two points. First, I’ll quote (and then rebut) a point Daniel Larison makes about Ryan’s seemingly impressive electoral success. He writes:
Wisconsin’s First District has a PVI of R+2, and it gave Bush more than 50% of the vote both times. It would be fair to call it a presidential swing district, but in terms of House voting it has been solidly Republican since 1994. Like all safe House incumbents, Ryan racks up gaudy double-digit re-election victories.
This is somewhere between misleading and untrue. As I’ve written before, Paul Ryan has not merely “racked up” the typically “gaudy” re-election victories of “safe incumbents”. For one thing, Ryan is not a safe incumbent. Ryan’s predecesor in WI-1 was indeed a Republican. A Republican who won his ’96 race by 1 point and his ’94 race by less than one point (this is “solidly Republican” to Larison?). That same Republican was apparently ideologically reasonable enough to come within 2 points of beating Russ Feingold in ’98, the same year that Ryan was winning his district by 14%. If WI-1 is “safe” it’s not because of any intrinsic feature of the district but, rather, because Paul Ryan made it safe.
Nor is it fair to lump Ryan’s “gaudy” re-election numbers in with the rest of the House’s. His are particularly gaudy. He has consistently run well ahead of Republicans in comparable districts and well, well, ahead of Republicans with comparable ideologies. Looking simply at his re-election percentages, you could be forgiven for assuming Ryan was somewhere in Castle territory ideologically. Only two explanations suggest themselves: either Ryan is a particularly formidable campaigner (albeit on a small scale) or Ryan has drawn particularly weak challengers. Either one is a feather in his cap and a decent argument for his candidacy. If he’s a good campaigner, then he can presumably scale up (though no doubt he’ll make some rookie mistakes). If he hasn’t drawn serious challengers it’s because, despite his very conservative record in his very purple district, he didn’t look vulnerable. This is a different sort of advantage- the ability to seem less threatening than you are- and it has real value in a race where the opposition’s case will rest mainly on demonization. Jonathan Chait, who seems to despise Ryan, has repeatedly noted this phenomenon.
Finally, we won’t know how Ryan will hold up on the campaign trail until he actually campaigns for something other than a House seat. Scott Walker’s in the Governor’s mansion and Ryan won’t get a shot until, at the earliest, 2018 (when he’ll have been in the House for 20 years). Ron Johnson’s Senate seat won’t be open to a Republican challenger until, at least, 2022, and Ryan has already declined to run for Herb Kohl’s senate seat. Those who use this argument are effectively arguing that Ryan shouldn’t run for President until he’s run for President. Because that’s really his only option for the forseeable future. If Ryan’s a bad campaigner no doubt that, not his budget plan, will get the blame for his failure. If he’s a good campaigner, he’ll either win the nomination or perform credibly and advance the cause. Either result is a win for Republicans.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Neither of these guys have been vetted over a long campaign. Romney has. Why are you still looking?
Obama is in the White House doing his best to take this economy down. You have the next in line guy with strong favorability in the party, and proven in polls to appeal to moderates and independents. Is he as likeable as Chris Christie? Perhaps not. Is he as strong on entitlements as Paul Ryan. Perhaps not, too. But he’s still the most conservative electable Republican in the race. And he’s a proven commodity.
I don’t understand why anyone needs to keep looking for another candidate. This seems like exhibit A of why the Republican party is a permanent minority party. They do not understand how to win elections. Why is Rove pushing this? You’ve got to be Obama-rock star popular to win the first time around, especially as a Republican.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
The number one reason of all is Ryan and Christie would hurt Romney’s chances significantly, and you KNOW we can’t ever have that happen again.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
1.
If we wanted the next in line guy, Huck would have to get in.
Then Palin.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
“Now, in the House, outside of Pelosi and Boehner, only Paul and Bachmann (both of whom are doing quite well, considering) have a higher national profile than Ryan.”
Another reason why the talented charismatic Bachmann has the tools to win IA. She can raise money like no other congresswoman outside of Pelosi.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Here’s a clue as to why Paul Ryan should ignore cries for him to enter the race: The total lack of grassroots types making the appeal. The entire fan base consists of conservative policy wonks and pundits.
The last candidate welcomed to the race to blaring Beltway press corpse fanfare was Jon “Fred Rogers” Huntsman. Anyone seen him lately? Last I heard, he was seen strolling aimlessly through some media Neighborhood of Make Believe.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
asparagus,
The Republican Party, which has held the Presidency for 28 out of the last 50 years and 20 out of the last 30, is a permanent minority party? The Republican Party which has controlled the House for, what, 12 out of the last 16 years? The Republican Party which owns 30 something legislatures and like 30 Governorships? That Republican Party? The Republican Party, this Obama blip aside, has ruled the last half century. Even Clinton muttered about having to Govern as an Eisenhower Republican. Conservatives are resisting Romney because, while the Republican Party is quite good at winning elections, the Republican Party is rarely controlled by conservatives. Romney looks, fairly or unfairly, like the same sort of Republican we’ve been electing, to offices large and small, for 30 years. And it hasn’t been good enough. That’s why the base is leery of Romney and that’s why Rove and co, who are mainly concerned about uniting the party and winning elections, are looking for alternatives.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
2 not if we actually want to win. Here’s an idea. Let’s foist a complete unknown candidate on the American people and see how they react. Romney has not been foolish enough to let himself get Palinized and he hasn’t followed the siren call of $$$ like Huck, so he’s in the race to win. Polls show he can win. He can win swing states. Now the candidates just aren’t good enough. We need more! We need a babyfaced congressman or a less than one term governor to run. How much confidence do you think the American people are going to have in these people that they do not know. Daniels or Huck could have run but they chose not to. Now get on board with Mitt and lets focus on beating Obama, not stroking our ego for whatever corner of the party we get off on.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Pelosi pouring tons of money into Bachmann’s district trying desperately to oust her “Tea Bagger” nemesis on the other side distorts Michele’s margins of victory somewhat.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
MarqueG,
That’s simply not true. Huntsman, for one, was never touted by any conservatives, beltway or otherwise- he was a creation of people at places Salon and Vanity Fair. Secondly, how does the grassroots call for someone, precisely? What is the code? How are we to know when it’s happening, given that the grassroots don’t (presumably) write columns and the like? Because it seems to me that, when a candidate comes second only to Palin, in favorability numbers at a place like HotAir (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/13/hot-air-approval-survey-august-results/) they have a significant following within the grassroots. 75% of Hotair’s readers highly disapprove of Jon Huntsman. 70% highly approve of Ryan. So yeah, basically they’re the same man. Perry, by the way, who I presume you think was “called” by the grassroots, scores just 45% highly favorable.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
If Christie and/or Ryan don’t pan out, the Texas jobs guy has an idea..
August 19th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
There’s a glaring flaw in your fund-raising-as-explanation-for-house-candidate-failure idea. Up until relatively recently, elections have in no way been as expensive as they are now. The idea of a candidate as essentially fund-raiser-in-chief is, electorally, relatively new. In addition, James Garfield, the last housey to be president, was a Union General, with considerable “executive experience” commanding men in brutal combat. Ryan has no executive experience, that I’m aware of.
Now, there’s another way for Ryan to rise, aside from politics within his state; Vice-President. His cerebral, wonkish personality and outlook would mesh rather well with, for example, a fire-breathing populist like Rick Perry. And, were he to be picked as VP, he’d be next in line if he and his ticket-mate won. If you want Ryan to be President, the best path is probably for him to get picked as somebody’s VP, and I’m not sure a campaign is the best path for him to get there. But honestly, we’re going to need someone with extreme legislative competence in the house in the eventual entitlement reform debate (when it becomes inescapably necessary). I don’t see anyone on the house side who is Ryan’s equal in that respect.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Craig for MB in IOWA Says:
August 19th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
1.
If we wanted the next in line guy, Huck would have to get in.
===========================================================
Sorry, but when Romney dropped out, he was way ahead of Huck. Huck only stayed in to rack up delegates for bragging rights, that does not make you next in line.
Although, had Huck decided to run, it would have quickly become a two man race and we would not be discussing Perry or Bachmann.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Americans like divided government. Conservatives make up 30-35% of the country but you want to govern as if conservatives make up 100% of the country. Your not being realistic.
We are winning the war at the congressional level. If we recognize that Americans like divided government, the smart move is to put up the most conservative electable candidate, especially one that has been around the block already and is known by the voters and continue to grow the conservative majority in Congress.
Now if you had a Reagan that would be a different story. But we don’t.
Once again, next in line applies.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Craig,
Michele Bachmann has outraised everyone in the House for two cycles running. Last time, she spent 8.5 million (outspending her opponent more than 2 to 1) to win by 26 points less than Ryan won by.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
R42012 editors:
Team Barbour moving over to Team Perry in FL….soon to follow elsewhere?
http://www.rollcall.com/news/rick_perry_builds_florida_team_hears_from_haley_barbour-208227-1.html
August 19th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Conservatives are resisting Romney because, while the Republican Party is quite good at winning elections, the Republican Party is rarely controlled by conservatives. Romney looks, fairly or unfairly, like the same sort of Republican we’ve been electing, to offices large and small, for 30 years. And it hasn’t been good enough.”
THAT ^
August 19th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
..except for Reagan and I knew Reagan and Romney’s no Reagan.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Perhaps in rejecting Romney, conservatives are doing what they always do: nominate the wrong thing. Therefore, they ought to pull a Costanza, and do the opposite of what they were going to do. They are drawn to Perry, but he will probably turn out to be a fraud just like the rest of them.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
14.
Because she’s hated target #1 in the crosshairs of the Pelosi mob.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Racking up delegate DOES make you next in line if you’ve racked up enough.
Palin has an argument to be next in line, too, being our fully vetted veep candidate.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
AJNolte,
Right, and until relatively recently (1964) party bosses selected our nominees and they didn’t pick House members. What’s your point? There are two distinct questions. One, can someone be a good President with only experience in the House? And two, can someone be elected President with only experience in the House? The two questions could have very different answers. I’m not weighing in (here) on the first one. I’m simply stating that I don’t see much evidence that a sufficiently high profile congressman, with a sufficiently wide national network, couldn’t be elected.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Craig for MB in IOWA Says:
August 19th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Conservatives are resisting Romney because, while the Republican Party is quite good at winning elections, the Republican Party is rarely controlled by conservatives. Romney looks, fairly or unfairly, like the same sort of Republican we’ve been electing, to offices large and small, for 30 years. And it hasn’t been good enough.”
================================================
That all depends on who is defining Conservative, as a Conservative, I find Romney the most conservative of the Group. Its my opinion and I am sticking to it.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
15.R42012 groupie Says:
August 19th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
R42012 editors:
Team Barbour moving over to Team Perry in FL….soon to follow elsewhere?
http://www.rollcall.com/news/rick_perry_builds_florida_team_hears_from_haley_barbour-208227-1.html
====
August 19th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Rick’s in the money. Rick’s in the money … ^
August 19th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Craig,
A.) WHY is she the number 1 target of the Pelosi mob (and doesn’t this tell us something useful about the backlash she’ll face in a general election)? B.) WHY wasn’t she able to post better numbers, despite getting conservative support financially and otherwise, far exceeding the backlash she excited on the left? I mean, she raised 13.4 million. That’s 65% of the money Marco Rubio raised for his entire campaign, primary and general, in a state with 30 times more people than Michele’s congressional district.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Thunder, we like you for your sticktoitiveness. Very wrong about Mitt not being a moderate and a wishy washy one at that with few convictions, but that’s okay, we understand where you’re coming from.
Florida, right?
August 19th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Folks I’m being selfish. Matthew Miller, you have been waiting for Ryan to thrill us and tell us he will run for President. You should enjoy this time. I’m just going to sit back and wait. But remember the last sitting House member to become President was James Garfield. That was like a long time ago. Perry is a failed candidate, worse than Thompson because Perry has a long record of showing his true colors. None of you can pretend anymore that Perry’s record is more conservative than Romney’s, especially after the government mandates and crony deals that we have exposed here the past few days. Enjoy your fun.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
They didn’t just spend cash in her distict, they played Chicago mob politics.
Why do they hate her, you ask?
She’s an outspoken strong conservative mother of 28 (5 & 23 fosters) who is nationally known and loved by other true conservatives. And shehe runs a Christian clinic and farms on the side, OH MY!
See Palin for exhibit B.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
* her district
August 19th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Matthew,
Do you ever watch MSNBC in the evenings. They hate her guts!
Or is it fear?
August 19th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
28 cont. Plus she’s the first woman Republican ever elected out of blue liberal Minnesota ever and his challenging the men to oppose THE ONE.
(I wish we had an edit feature plug in … say, maybe for Christmas, Kavon? What do they cost?)
August 19th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
*one too many *evers, oops.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Matthew, grassroots appeal would include some more broadly based Draft X campaign. Something more than just inside-the-Beltway wonks and pundits. Call us back when the wonks’ efforts have gained grassroots traction and we’ll talk.
And yet even then, let’s not forget that this scenario is how the Fred Thompson campaign got started: Conservative squawkers pushing the idea, and grassroots folks joining the effort. Of course, it still didn’t work because Fred didn’t have the fire in the belly of his fans, but still.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Craig,
They hated Reagan’s guts too; they hated Bush’s. Both of them performed better than they ought to have done, holding other factors constant. Michele performed significantly worse. The “is it fear” argument is the same one Palin supporters use and no more persuasive when applied to Michele. You’re a Huckabee supporter for goodness sake. Huckabee who ran, like, a gazillion points of ahead of an average Republican in his Democratic state. The guy won a Lt. Governor office that, 3 years earlier, Jim Guy Tucker had carried by 47 points. And you’re unable to understand the importance or usefulness of electoral history?
August 19th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
In campaign, communication, and people skills – Thompson makes Pawlenty look like a Huckabee.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
..or a Reagan
August 19th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Matthew,
But she’s a Conservative Christian Pro-Life Member of Congress WOMAN which brings it to a whole new level.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Ryan waited too long to get in. So has Christie. So has Palin. Anyone who has indecisiveness at the get-go may be more of what we have in D. C. right now. Good people perhaps, trouble making major decisions. No thanks. Perry just barely made the cut-off – maybe. Maybe not. It depends on his character and the depth of his conservatism. So far it hasn’t been overly compelling.
The American people have places to go, things to do, businesses to save. It’s not a game, political class. It’s not stroke your ego time.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
On a pure hypothetical, let’s say Ryan gains a Draft Ryan following on Facebook in the 100s of thousands and a ground campaign self-organizes (as has apparently happened behind Palin).
How do you suspect everyone else on the R side to attack him and bring him down? Tar him as the ultimate Beltway insider who has been in the halls of Congress for decades. Paint him as the perfect embodiment of the national GOP congressional establishment. Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Palin: All would leverage the anti-Congress, anti-establishment mood in the country to make Ryan into Exhibit A for how the party went astray over the Dubya years, what with his votes for Tarp and the auto bailout and so on.
I feel that Ryan serves us all better if he remains politically intact and an influential member of the congressional GOP hierarchy.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Bachmann, Romney, Paul…here are people that thought about running in a timely fashion, then made their move. This is the 21st century, more or less. Split second decisions. Everyone else is riding the horse and buggy.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
You think it’s easy for a Republican woman to get elected to three terms in Minnesota?
Well, it’s not. And it’s never ever ever ever happened before, not even to one term.
Michele Bachmann did the “impossible” in MN. Now she’s trying to do it again in the White House.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Not only has Michele performed better than any woman in Minnesota congressional history, she did it again in Ames.
Will she win the Iowa caucas? Don’t underestimate her? In other words, don’t be a Smack.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Don’t underestimate her (*period)
August 19th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I know this constant chatter/rumor/wishing for a new candidate irks Romney supporters, who ask why Romney isn’t good enough. And the answer must be Romneycare.
I was thinking back to 2007 and Hillary supporters were similarly irked at Obama for running. They asked what was wrong with Hillary. Well, it was her vote for the Iraq invasion. It was the seminal issue and in the eyes of many democrats she got it wrong. Even though the economy is the #1 issue this year, the issue with the greatest passion in the GOP is gov’t overreach and overspending symbolized by Obamacare.
Before Romney announced he was counseled – even warned – that he needed to repudiate Romneycare, much as democrats wanted Hillary to repudiate her vote. She said she was misled, that Bush lied, but she would not repudiate her vote. Likewise, Romney has distinguished Romneycare, promised to repeal Obamacare and appealed to the 10th Amendment, but has refused to repudiate it.
And so the search continues.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Ryan’s pro vote and Romney/Palin’s vocal support on TARP make beautiful campaign ads for the likes of Bachmann or Perry. Just sayin’, folks. Get ready for hardball.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
This is going to be playing on Fox quite a bit tonight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqaE4sXZWRQ&feature=player_embedded
You might want to check it out.
Call it a precursor…
For something big.
It’s coming.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
It’s pretty clear Ryan’s going to run. He tried to get Pawlenty’s campaign staff and the wife in on board. If he wanted a Senate seat, he had on on a silver platter. Tammy Baldwin will never win in WI and Thompson is way ahead of her in the polls. He’s been playing coy, but it’s clear he wants the big prize. Romney will implode once he gets in. The only thing that’ll really hurt Ryan is if Christie jumps in as well.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Huck, Rove, Krauthammer, and many other conservatives here at Race42012 all begged Romney to say three little words about RomneyCare. Just three words to doom ObamaCare and Obama.
I. Am. Sorry.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Really?? There isn’t anything else that will hurt Ryan? Convince me of his experience and accomplishments that will help solve Washington’s ills and I will jump on board. Until then, please…..
August 19th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
welby–When Ryan gets in, he’ll be endorsed by a large part of the GOP and have money handed to him left and right. You want to know the power of Ryan: When Newt even questioned the Ryan plan on MTP, his campaign imploded. That should tell you how strong Ryan will be as a candidate.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
#50, Viking
That might be true, but I still don’t get the candidacy? What is his experience and accomplishments. The “Ryan” plan? Is that it?
If someone were to ask me why I voted for Ryan in the General it would only be to stop Obama. I don’t have any other reasons.
Maybe that is enough…
August 19th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
And what is the big appeal of Ryan? That he’s young – like Obama? That he talks a big game on the party hardline – like Obama? That he has never had executive experience before running – like Obama?
Any person jumping or being pushed into the GOP race today is doing so for one reason: to hurt Romney…yet the best argument people seem to muster against Mitt is that he isn’t perfect. WELL WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?
In Romney, the GOP is offered an obviously competent, private-sector experienced, politically-experienced, self-made, clearly ethical and responsible choice who is Conservative as any Republican President has been.
Adding more candidates to the mix only drags out the nominating contest, ensuring that we either end up with 1) a less experienced nominee than Romney, or 2) much less time to direct all our efforts against Obama, and a field of former prospects who have been embarrassed in a primary.
Ryan, Perry, Christie – all of these late comers to the race are only going to hurt our chances.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
10.
Regarding Rudy.
What Thompson was to McCain in SC, Rudy can be to Perry in NH.
Do the hatchet job, taking out the knees, and then get out.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“I. Am. Sorry.”
Yes, it would have been all too perfect and pleasing to the libertarian jackasses.
But we should not sign this country over to freeloaders, which is exactly what opposition to the healthcare mandate does.
If we cannot even require people to obtain the ability to pay for services WHICH DOCTORS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE to them, then this country really is going to hell.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“In Romney, the GOP is offered an …choice who is Conservative as any Republican President has been.”
Ummm… No. No. No. RomneyCare. Judges. TARP bank balouts.
August 19th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
*bailouts
August 19th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
…..Look at the insiders behind this move to bring in Cristi or Ryan….they’re Bush people…they’re neocons, and they simply want to continue on where Bush left off…..
August 19th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
54. So you like that part of ObamaCare? What other parts do you like? Mandates are fine with you. Right?
August 19th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“RomneyCare”
So tell me, smart one, what is your grand proposal to ensure universal insurance coverage AND an end to freeloading, without a government takeover, and without requiring people to obtain the ability to pay for services we have to give them?
Either we require people to buy insurance, we allow them to die in the streets, or we are content to allow them to leech off the rest of us by not having medical coverage.
Take your pick…but ifs its anything other than the first, you better have a damn good defense of why we should bend over backwards to the libertarians and stop being the party of personal responsibility.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Craig,
There’s no such thing as “Minnesota” when we’re talking congressional districts. Michele Bachmann is in the most Republican congressional district in the state. It’s a district McCain won by 10 points and Bush by nearly 20. Plenty of women Republicans have been elected in districts that conservative. Minnesota just doesn’t have any of them in part because, again, Minnesota doesn’t have any other districts that conservative. Your argument is a non-sequitur and doesn’t tell us anything about Michele Bachmann’s skills or lack thereof.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Rombots shouldn’t fear Ryan if he does get in. Ryan failed to sell his plan to the general public or to even effectively defend its merits.
Which also goes to probably the main argument against congressman running for president. Unlike senators they have never run statewide. They’ve never had to broaden their appeal beyond a narrow district. And when you consider the recent crops of congressional presidential candidates they have often run as if they were running in a district, often on a single issue. Tancredo on immigration or Hunter on defense, for example.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“54. So you like that part of ObamaCare? What other parts do you like? Mandates are fine with you. Right?”
I don’t think it needs to be dictated directly from the the federal government to individual patients (it would have been just as effective to require states to establish protections for hospitals and doctors against the uninsured)
But yes, I have no problem requiring the vast majority of people who could never afford the kinds of major medical treatment doctors are OBLIGATED to provide them out of pocket to purchase insurance.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
MarqueG,
“How do you suspect everyone else on the R side to attack him and bring him down? Tar him as the ultimate Beltway insider who has been in the halls of Congress for decades. Paint him as the perfect embodiment of the national GOP congressional establishment. Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Palin: All would leverage the anti-Congress, anti-establishment mood in the country to make Ryan into Exhibit A for how the party went astray over the Dubya years, what with his votes for Tarp and the auto bailout and so on.”
This, I suspect, would be more effective if both Perry and Bachmann weren’t living in a fiscal fantasy land, pretending that you can balance the budget NOW without seriously touching entitlement. Peter Weihner has an excellent piece today detailing Bachmann’s fecklessness on entitlement reform, declining to endorse Ryan’s Medicare proposal, while voting against debt ceiling increases. The “you’re a Washington insider” charge will work for about 5 seconds- until Ryan says “if I’m a Washington insider, why is it you’re the ones playing it safe on entitlements”? It just doesn’t pass the laugh test. Put Perry, Bachmann, and Ryan on the stage, and it’ll be abundantly clear that only one is a reformer, and the other two are feckless Carney barkers.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“Rombots shouldn’t fear Ryan if he does get in. Ryan failed to sell his plan to the general public or to even effectively defend its merits.”
While I agree Ryan would probably not derail Romney in the long term (he is a combination of unproven, unsuccessful, and unpopular because of his budget plan), the entry of ANY additional candidate into the race hurts Romney because it delays the point where people need to coalesce him….it prolongs the white knight syndrome our party is suffering from, and allows people to keep up their expectation of a miracle candidate…it pushes further and further back the time when they have to grow up and realize that Romney checks 90% of the boxes on the form.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
PabloZed (54):“Romney supporters … ask why Romney isn’t good enough. And the answer must be Romneycare.
I disagree — I think it’s trust.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
#65 Bob Hovic…
What do you mean by trust?
August 19th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Romneycare is an issue of trust – can Romney, in light of Romneycare and its mandate and abortion services, be trusted to govern as a conservative? So I agree.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“Romneycare”
When Romney implemented his program, most Conservatives had not yet jumped the shark to become so anti-obama that they had to oppose whatever it was he happened to support.
MANY Conservatives – including one of the earliest “white knights” of this election, Mitch Daniels – had previously expressed support for what seemed like common sense: Require people to have a way to pay for services doctors had to provide them with.
=====
“abortion services”
This was the decision of the MASS supreme court, not romney
August 19th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Interesting reprise on PPP recent polling in Colorado, Ohio and No Carolina that shows Perry’s momentary bounce. Go look at Jensen’s numbers again as far as NEW TAXES are concerned in any debt deal.
………………………..All Voters……………….Independents
………………….. FOR………AGAINST ……….FOR……….AGAINST
…..COLORADO……….59 %……….31 %…………55%………….33 %
…..NO.CAROLINA…….53 %……….32 %…………56%………….31 %
…..OHIO…………..54 %……….37 %…………55%………….37 %
Comments? You can truly see how a perceived relatively far right candidate , perhaps endorsed by the Te Party, is going to play even in the South and the Midwest. Get real folks. We are trying to win an election. Write your history books after we win, not before the election, not what you’d like…what the voters want.
CraigS
August 19th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
The trouble with Paul Ryan is that he is too much of a policy wonk. You’ve got to be able to speak to the average person and sell them. In 1979, Jack Kemp was pushing Kemp-Roth with no success. Some people were pushing him to run for president. Instead he sold the idea of a 1/3 across the board tax cut to Reagan. Reagan backed it and was able to explain it in a way that people could understand it. When Newt Gingrich came to power he had ideas of reforming government programs. Yet he could never find a way to explain it that the average person could understand. For example, he used to talk about the HCFA and how people would leave it for something better. The average person had no clue what he was talking about. Democrats were able to demagogue because their argument was more understandable. While the Republican Party retained the House in 1996, the Gingrich Revolution was clearly over.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Christie is not getting in. The incredible magnitude of what would be an enormous, six month old ” Flip-Flop” would challenge even his most devout supporters to explain away his self deprecating denials of the last six months….and he’s smart enough to know it, even if they aren’t.
Now, Ryan is young, full of himself, easily persuaded by the glowing admonitions of his sycophants and probably may be persuaded that he could be ” the one, the Mahdi, the chosen one.” He may run…….against Bachmann, not Romney. His one trick pony has no real world off Broadway try out . No one knows if anything he proposes would work. Indeed, he has no resume to prove HE works anywhere but government. Not only that, but my post # 69 tells me that even in the Midwest, they ( the voters) are not so crazy about his one horse Stick. So, Ryan may run……but he would hurt Bachmann more than Perry or Romney. Plus……..he needs an enormous amount of money and it seemingly goes without notice that it is all being sucked up by Romney and Perry.
So, we’ll see
CraigS
August 19th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Interesting reprise on PPP recent polling in Colorado, Ohio and No Carolina that shows Perry’s momentary bounce. Go look at Jensen’s numbers again as far as NEW TAXES are concerned in any debt deal.
===============================================
PPP is a democrat polling firm. Rasmussen generally shows much different numbers in terms of taxes.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
#68 – You are correct. But mandates were already under attack in the last campaign, so pre-Obamacare. In one of the debates, the much-derided Fred Thompson spoke out against the mandate in MA. But clearly Obamacare made Romneycare more toxic. Just as the failure to find WMD and other failures turned everyone sour on Iraq.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“PPP is a democrat polling firm. Rasmussen generally shows much different numbers in terms of taxes.”
Be that as it may, it is fairly clear that the public – rightly or wrongly – would rather see higher taxes than the gutting of social security or medicare.
The Ryan Plan, whether it would have worked or not, was not sold or defended effectively.
I’m not completely opposed to the idea of Ryan running for President, but as I said….not yet. He is too young and too inexperienced. Let him stay in the house, or run for the Senate, obtain a relatively powerful position, and then we can perhaps look at elevating him to the Vice Presidency in 2016.
=====
“He may run…….against Bachmann, not Romney”
Why though? She isn’t posing any serious threat to Mitt, and is as likely to fizzle out or embarrass herself as anything.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
21: Your argument was, essentially, that Ryan is different from other house-members, because he can fund-raise better than previous house contenders. This rests on the premise that house-members are not elected President because of fund-raising. I contend that a house-member is, by the nature of the office they hold, unprepared to run a national, presidential campaign. It’s a long step from representing a fairly localized batch of constituents to being able to appeal to the whole country. Just by the nature of representing a whole state, with diverse constituencies, governors and senators have an automatically greater appeal.
I think the most relevant comparison for Ryan is Jack Kemp (a house-member but not a hobby-horse candidate). Kemp was a very solid conservative, and a guy I think would have probably done a decent job (for a house-member) if elected. But he got steam-roled by a large-state governor, and I think the same would happen to Ryan this cycle.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
“But mandates were already under attack in the last campaign, so pre-Obamacare.”
By those trying to pander to the libertarian radicals, yes.
Do you really think its a good idea to let those who think society should turn a blind eye to drug use in charge of the country?
Libertarians care far too much about “Freedom”…which for them means nobody requiring anyone else to do anything, even if its simple personal responsiblity.
The opposition to mandates from the GOP has already baffled me, since they pass muster on both Conservative grounds (personal responsibility, paying for what you consume), and libertarian ones (the willful uninsured drive up costs for everyone else).
August 19th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
The funny thing about all this is it really doesn’t matter how many candidates jump in at this point. Romney has the message, the organization, the money, and a history with voters in these early states. Paul Ryan or Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani or Sarah Palin or even Rick Perry isn’t going to change all of that. You could throw all five of those people in the field in New Hampshire and Romney will still win.
Mitt doesn’t have to win George W. Bush’s endorsement. He doesn’t even have to convince your average GOP voter in the midwest or your Joe Sixpack in the South — all he has to do is convince about 30% of the voters in New Hampshire to go with Mitt over the rest of the field. That’s it. When I think about how John McCain was positively loathed by the GOP and STILL ran circles around the field, a field that included America’s mayor Rudy, actor and Senator Fred Thompson, aggressive ambitious Mitt Romney and even God’s candidate in Mike Huckabee. He beat ALL of them and all he had to do was charm some old people by calling them “my friends”. All you people are doing is lowering expectations for Mitt, which is just perfect.
Most of the people who like Rick Perry don’t even know who he is or what his record is. They like him because he’s a governor of a large red state, or they like him because the Wall Street Journal likes him or because they like how he openly embraces faith. But they REALLY don’t know him yet. And it takes TIME for a candidate to get well known, especially in the early states.
People in the early states KNOW Mitt Romney well by now. Some are saying Chris Christie could wait until November to announce and STILL be successful in New Hampshire? I don’t see that at all. It takes a long time to be prepared to be a Presidential candidate. The voters want answers to all their questions. They don’t take “I don’t know” for an answer. And if you goof on a question, they cross you off instantly. You can trust Romney or you don’t trust Mitt Romney. But he has been in New Hampshire meeting and answering questions from voters. Romney is ready to be President on Day 1. And that will be a welcome change.
If Romney doesn’t win the Iowa caucuses, he will come in no further than 3rd. He will win the New Hampshire primary, he will dominate Nevada, and then he will finish a respectable 3rd in South Carolina. He will win a hotly contested race in Florida and then he will have the rest of the Spring to get conservatives used to the idea of having him as President.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
#76 You will not be surprised, then, that I lean heavily toward “libertarian radicalism.”
I have not read the former conservative defense of an insurance mandate, but I suspect it has more to do with economics. Only by compelling all uninsured to participate can the system regulate costs. But a mandate is a liberal idea in the sense of making the determination that everyone should have coverage.
In any event, the origins and even benefits of the mandate are of no concern to the tea party. Nor is how to achieve coverage without one. That is why Romney’s explanations have failed to pacify them.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Libertarians care far too much about “The Constitution” and its limited-government purpose…which for them means nobody requiring anyone else to do anything, even if its simple personal responsibility. FIFY.
Not every bit of personal responsibility excuses hyperactive government intervention to make people buy government-defined products they neither want nor need. Government-mandated health insurance is making our health care even more expensive than it already way. Adding a slow, costly, bureaucratic intermediary between the consumer and the producer tends to do just that.
But Mitt, with the infinite wisdom of a determined central planner, cut through all that common sense claptrap that made western civilization tick for millennia, and technocratically fixed a government-made problem with more onerous and unaffordable government solutions. Great work! Give that man an Ivy degree!
August 19th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
We pay the salary of these clowns. Time to start drinking.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/?test=faces
August 19th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Doctors are required to treat people – not simply by law, but by ethics.
When the people they treat don’t pay their own bills, everyone else has higher costs.
If you honestly don’t believe we should require people to have insurance, then you need to start calling for everyone who decides not to have health coverage to sign a waiver and carry a card that rejects and and all medical treatment.
Because otherwise, the freeloading problem is inescapable.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
INTRADE ACTION TODAY
August 19th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
The Republican party has gone insane….to many insiders trying to micromanage the outcome, and hellbent on upsetting the natural forces of the voters…..I don’t know how long I can take it.
August 19th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
George Pataki? lol, where did that come from?
August 19th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Matthew,
It is beyond silly for you to imply Bachmann does not have amazing political and campaigning skills.
And her being the first R woman elected in MN is easy or a fluke.
You moderates are amazing when it comes to dissing Republican conservatives..you echo the exact liberal attacks against her while true conservatives readily flock to her side and fill her campaign coffers.
Btw, Minnesota is wacky moderate/liberal central.
Bachmann sticks out like a sore thumb relying on every last conservative vote in her district to keep her three term winning streak alive. Before she won that seat, I’m sure a wishy washy Minnesota moderate had it. Times, they are a changin’, my friend.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The free-rider problem amounts to at most three cents on the dollar:
Not paying for a good or service that you consume is theft. Enforce the laws against theft–enforce contracts! That will convince folks that they should protect their current and future assets by buying insurance against unforeseen high-cost future care, because they won’t be able easily to escape payment.
That would be the traditional way of enforcing correct market behavior, rather than the current popular fashion where folks think it’s okay to consume more than they can afford and get away with it — as in the fixes to the housing mess where people bought more real estate than they could afford, and the proglodytes have said that those who acted responsibly will have to pay for those who gambled.
Years ago, “major medical” was an insurance category that people bought and didn’t overuse. But then the government pushed ever-expanding Medicare and Medicaid to take away that responsible behavior. And now nearly everyone thinks it’s best if someone else pays for everything they want.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
84.
Intrade.com
Better go get rich and bet the house on Christie at 8 then. Easy money. Easy come. Easy go.
But remember, someone from Ryan, Rudy, or Pataki’s inner circle may bet against you.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Andrew,
Go over to Google news and this pops up..
August 19th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Be that as it may, it is fairly clear that the public – rightly or wrongly – would rather see higher taxes than the gutting of social security or medicare.
==============================================
The trouble is that the unfunded liabilities run into hundreds of trillions. If you took every dollar of GDP from the economy you could not pay for it and that is fact.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Are we still on this silliness? Ryan isn’t running, and he is smart not to.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I think the most relevant comparison for Ryan is Jack Kemp (a house-member but not a hobby-horse candidate). Kemp was a very solid conservative, and a guy I think would have probably done a decent job (for a house-member) if elected. But he got steam-roled by a large-state governor, and I think the same would happen to Ryan this cycle.
============================================
Kemp was a policy wonk much like Ryan. The trouble with Kemp was he always talked over the ordinary person much like Ryan does. He lasted 3 contests.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Craig,
A.) I am not a moderate. I, unlike Bachmann, am willing to support major cuts in entitlement spending. But I suppose I don’t pretend that the budget can be balanced, this year, without eradicating all of discretionary spending and slashing entitlements, so that may make me look like a moderate. I’m also pro-life and would cheerily vote to eliminate no-fault divorce. My favorite politicians are, in order, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Tom Coburn.
B.) Michele Bachman has amazing skills of self-promotion. Political skills are generally measured a politician’s electoral results, accomplishments, or influence- hers are, in order, abysmal, non-existent, and imaginary.
C.) Again, nobody runs for Congress in Minnesota- they run in one district. Michele’s is a wealthy, conservative, district. All this stuff about the horrors of conservatives in Minnesota is nonsense. If I was inclined to be equally irrational I’d point out that Wisconsin is the birthplace of progressivism and 6 points more liberal than Minnesota to boot- but since Paul Ryan has never run in Wisconsin, only in his one district which is not as liberal as the rest of Wisconsin, this would be at least a little disingenuous (though Ryan’s district is a lot closer to Wisconsin as a whole than Michele’s is to Minnesota as a whole). Poll after poll has shown that Michele Bachmann, wonderful, strong conservative woman though she is, would get slaughtered if she actually tried to run in Minnesota, instead of that cozy, really conservative district she’s apparently bored of.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I like Ryan a lot, I think he would be a good president, but he should probably run for senate first.
I’ve looked into what people have done before becoming president, and they have previously been a vice president, governor, senator, , or general. There is only one exception (to the best of my memory), and that’s Abraham Lincoln. So if you ask me, the one way somebody can get into the presidency w/o passing through one of those channels is to have an issue as motivating and divisive as slavery was. We have no such issue currently.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Stop looking for a magic bullet that doesn’t exist MEM! I love you but your search for an anti Mitt is SO frustrating. If you really hate Perry then it’s Mittens or no-one my friend.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Heath – The funny thing is, this search for a contender against Mitt only shows how poorly each of them match up. We’ve got people who don’t want to run, people who don’t know how to run, people who don’t have the base to win, people who can’t debate, people who can’t fund-raise…and the search goes on.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
The thought that either Ryan or Christie would jump in at this point is way too ludicrous to merit this many comments.
Ryan is a mere Congressman. If he wanted higher office, he should have run for the Senate. He’s not qualified for the Presidency……not remotely. He has ZERO chief executive experience.
Christie would look like a fool if he got in. His statements have been beyond Shermanesque. Besides, he’s in his first term, and given the very recent downgrade of his state’s creditworthiness, it’s clear that he hasn’t accomplished the things he set out to accomplish in the state.
If Ryan, Christie, Pataki, Giuliani, or any other FOOL gets in the race, Mitt will annihilate him in New Hampshire and Nevada. None of these guys have a prayer of playing well in Iowa, and will be out by South Carolina, where they would get crucified.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
My money says Perry will win Iowa.
Bachmann is fading; she can’t campaign effectively.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Another Stephen Hayes Ryan story. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/run-or-not-run_590445.html
If this stuff isn’t coming, like, directly from Ryan, it’s very odd indeed. Every story is more personal and detailed than the last.
“But some of the most interesting developments last week took place away from the cameras in the solitude of the Rocky Mountains, where Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan consulted with friends and family about whether he should join the race. Ryan has been quietly looking at a bid for nearly three months, since Indiana governor Mitch Daniels called him to say he wasn’t running. But that consideration took a serious turn over the past two weeks, following a phone call with New Jersey governor Chris Christie in early August.
Ryan and Christie spoke for nearly an hour about the presidential race, according to four sources briefed on the conversation. The two men shared a central concern: The Republican field is not addressing the debt crisis with anything beyond platitudes…Although the two men have not been especially close personally, their conversation about the campaign was blunt, and they agreed on a central point: If these issues are to get the kind of attention they deserve, one of the two men will have to run. One source called it a de facto pact, but another described it as a more informal understanding. Christie told Ryan what he has (usually) told -others: He does not want to run.
The conversation focused Ryan’s thinking—making clear to him that if the big issues were to be raised in the presidential race, he would need to raise them himself…Such things were on Ryan’s mind when he met later that day in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who stopped by to see Ryan before heading to Ames for the straw poll. According to several sources with knowledge of the meeting, Luntz had included in his polling of the Republican presidential race questions about some prominent Republicans not yet running. When Luntz volunteered to share the results, Ryan, who hadn’t done any polling of his own, agreed to see him. Luntz had tested voters’ responses to Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Ryan, among prominent noncandidates. The results, according to a Republican with knowledge of the discussion, were “very positive” for Ryan.
Luntz is not the only campaign veteran who’s been talking to Ryan. He has been speaking regularly with a number of Republican strategists. Among them are Karl Rove, the longtime adviser to George W. Bush. As Ryan has thought through his decision he’s had as a sounding board the only GOP strategist to win a presidential election in the last two decades.”
Again, if this isn’t essentially Ryan himself leaking this stuff to Hayes, it’s all very odd.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:36 am
If Ryan and Christie are most concerned with the deficit, the real underlying theme is that they don’t want Perry to win the nomination, given his record on spending and the deficit in his own state. Even if they don’t run, they can take pot shots at Perry all the way through the nomination process.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Guys, Perry pushed his vaccine mandate while everyone was telling him to drop it. You have to ask why. He had a former cabinet member and best friend go to work for Merck, the maker of the suspect drug that Perry wanted to mandate. He was trying to make money for his friend while abusing his position as governor to do so.
DOES THAT NOT MAKE EVERYONE SICK?
August 20th, 2011 at 1:30 am
Gov “do you need to see my ID?” Perry is great for the entertainment value even if he doesn’t take off (which he will).
August 20th, 2011 at 1:56 am
@6 – That is complete bullshit (excuse the French). Romney is nothing like the previous candidates we have nominated. Bush? McCain? Dole? What do those guys have in common with Romney? The idea that he is another “establishment” candidate that is just like all the others is completely asinine. Get your head out of the clouds and start looking at reality. We need to beat Obama. Romney is the guy to do it. Ryan has accomplished NOTHING. He is not our guy and would not win.
August 20th, 2011 at 1:56 am
If anyone is like the previous guys that we have nominated with poor results it is Ryan, a career politician that has done nothing more than said a lot of encouraging words.
August 20th, 2011 at 2:03 am
House Republicans have the lowest approval ratings of any group of politicians in the country right now. And our solution is to nominate one of the most high profile ones? Come on! This doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
August 20th, 2011 at 2:05 am
@44 – If that is the case, then so be it. Hilary was right not to repudiate her Iraq vote, and Mitt is right not to cave to pressure to repudiate a plan that was hailed as a huge victory for him and conservatives when it was signed. If Republicans are that stupid, then there is nothing Mitt can do about it.
August 20th, 2011 at 2:09 am
65 – Why don’t you trust Romney?
August 20th, 2011 at 2:10 am
@65 (continued) – Was it the fact that he has lived a completely honorable life? Or that he kept every campaign promise he made when he was elected governor? Is that why you don’t trust him?
August 20th, 2011 at 2:18 am
It appears the strategy of the “establishment” (of which Mitt is candidate #1, according to MEM and other geniuses here) is to throw up as many possible candidates as they can to draw as much support away from Romney as they can. For these people, their own personal power is more important than the future of this party. I excuse Craig for his infatuation with Perry. He clearly has a few screws loose, and will be drawn to any candidate that mentions the word God. Anyone else should be able to see straight through the fraud that is Rick Perry. Ask yourself why conservatives in the media and in the establishment are backing Perry? Why are they covering for his multitude of sins in the past? There are only two reasonable options. They know he will lose and thus will not interfere with their stranglehold on the party, or they know that if he wins they can use him as a puppet.
Mitt has been a disturbance to the establishment from Day One, and they have done everything in their power to stop him. It isn’t about “trust”. It isn’t about RomneyCare. It isn’t even about religion (though that plays a role). It is about him not being a member of the club. It is about him having his own trusted people that are not part of the establishment. It is about him not embracing the establishment.
And then people have the audacity to call him the “establishment” candidate? Wake up people! Don’t let these people dictate how this country is going to be run anymore. Don’t let them drive us into the ground anymore. These are the people that drove us to almost $15 trillion dollars in debt, and record deficits. Are we going to sit by and let them dictate who our nominee is going to be? Are we going to sit by well they tell us that life long, career politicians with close connections to Bush and the current Republican establishment are really devout conservative heroes that are pure in their hearts and will not be beholden to the interests that are ruining this country? Wake up people!
August 20th, 2011 at 2:25 am
@98: “The Republican field is not addressing the debt crisis with anything beyond platitudes”
And what did Ryan do to address the debt ceiling? Didn’t he support a plan that ended up being nothing more than a giant platitude? I didn’t here him say much of anything before that either.
August 20th, 2011 at 5:52 am
“Ryan and Christie spoke for nearly an hour about the presidential race . . . The two men shared a central concern: The Republican field is not addressing the debt crisis with anything beyond platitudes.”
This is not a reason to run for president. Sounds more like an excuse to get in the race late.
The debt is inextricably linked to the economy, the number one issue. While I agree that “CCB” is not a fulsome answer, all candidates will have to address it in more detail as the campaign progresses.
August 20th, 2011 at 6:19 am
FYI -
The video of Perry and the shady BofA guy has been explained (sort of):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/great-moments-in-pr-comedy-starring-rick-perry-and-the-b-of-a/243882/
August 20th, 2011 at 9:12 am
The fact that the free rider problem is “only” 3% of the problem is irrelevant. That’s like saying I “only” have poison Ivy over 3% of my body, so I shouldn’t care.
It still itches like hell.
Requiring free riders to purchase insurance should be the lowest hanging fruit in existence on this issue – because it isn’t that they are too poor to afford insurance, or that they are too sick to obtain it…we are talking about healthy, financially stable, generally young individuals who simply refuse to do the responsible thing.
If we aren’t even capable of doing that, then quite frankly I’m stumped as to why we should bother to do anything at all.
====
Back to the issue of Romney and other candidates -
I’m really not all that afraid that any of the names being tossed around could actually beat Mitt – there’s always that risk, but I don’t think its all that big – but every new candidate who jumps into this race three months later than they should have pushes the contest out further and further, it requires more money to be spent, deepens the rifts within the party, and lessens to the amount of time we have to go full force against Obama.
Even with Perry in the race, there’s a good chance Mitt could have this thing wrapped up by Christmas…but if these other candidates start jumping in, it could be a different story.
August 20th, 2011 at 9:48 am
MEM: I certainly hope this is true. There does seem to be substance to it — I doubt that Daniels, Jeb, and others would be publicly saying the things they are if there were no chance of Ryan getting in.
The fact that people of that quality are speaking out is testament that the dissatisfaction with the field (and specifically with the field’s approach to the debt issue) is widespread.
I saw one article that described Ryan as “a poor man’s Mitch Daniels.” While that is unfairly disparaging to Ryan, it’s OK with me — if I can’t have the real thing, I’ll accept the substitute.
August 20th, 2011 at 10:23 am
My saturday morning take after get back from a 10 mile run..
I have no idea why the establishment doesn’t just rally around the “perfect” moderate, Romney. Perhaps, (I’m only guessing) it’s because he’s barely been in political office, one term and out.
So the establishment moderates threw their hope into T-Paw and Huntsman as the two establishment threats to Romney — and they turned out to be as harmless to Mitt as the Orioles are to the Yankees (or Red Sox in Romney’s case).
There’s space for moderates — Rudy, Ryan, Pataki, or Christie, no doubt. Currently, there’s Mitt Romney and a bunch of tea party candidates, two of which I support, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.
Christie or one of the others yet to enter would give Romney an establishment primary contest while the tea party candidates (my two plus the overrated and over-their-heads, Cain and Santorum) wil also have their own tea party primary to battle it out if you know what I mean.
The Republican “finals” primary will then come down to one establishment moderate VERSUS one teaparty/grassroots conservative. My prediction is Romney is finally excepted by the establishment, to battle it out against Bachmann or Perry representing the grassroots conservative hopes for real change — instead of establishment business as usual.
And again, South Carolina and Florida will agree who our nominee will be.
August 20th, 2011 at 10:25 am
*getTING
August 20th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Jax,
You are such a misguided zealous shill for Romney and totally blind to the fact that ObamneyCare (mini ode from old friend, T-Paw) is completely unacceptable to the majority of grassroots conservatives and it’s only the establishment Republicans who might give Mitt a pass on it.
But grassroots conservatives like me are mobilized this time (have been since ’10) and will be picking our nominee thanks to Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida where ObamneyCare is on life support and unwanted.
Folks who might like BIG BROTHER/BIG GOVERNMENT mandates, subsidies, and exchanges like Nevada and New Hampshire can both go take a hike this cycle.
August 20th, 2011 at 10:47 am
“If Ryan, Christie, Pataki, Giuliani, or any other FOOL gets in the race, Mitt will annihilate him in New Hampshire and Nevada. None of these guys have a prayer of playing well in Iowa, and will be out by South Carolina, where they would get crucified.”
That is likely all well and true but Romney will also be CRUCIFIED in SC.
As you know.
Bachmann/Huckabee or Perry/Rudy will be our ticket…with a very slight chance of Romney/Huckabee or Romney/????
August 20th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Craig … you have no credibility here at all. You really should think about what you post before you post it.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Craig, you think a career politician from Texas with close ties to Karl Rove is a non-establishment grass roots candidate? Seriously? Are you in third grade?
August 20th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Anyone that votes for Romney over Perry/Bachmann is by definition a moderate or someone heavily influenced by identity politics.
Matthew,
Btw, Michele defeated the moderate Republicans in her district when she first ran for congress. And they’re still angry and frustrated about it to this day as she’s now in her third term AND has catapulted to the top of the national stage as a leader of grassroots conservatism and as a founder of the tea party movement. And one of only three in the TOP TIER for our republican nomination.
This not only drives moderates nuts, it drives liberals crazy. Good.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:20 am
After my 5 mile run, the latest from the weekly standard about paul ryan/christy 2012 reveals to me how ergonomically pols consider themselves, especially ryan in this case. For those two to think no other repub in the current field will address the big topics is a joke…it goes back to theme perry and romney have elements in the gop that just don’t like them and defiantly don’t want them to be the nominee so they constantly search for person x. I think it comes down to perry vs romney and romney to his supporters dismay probably will need an alliance with huck.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Jax,
Admit you’re a shill for Romney although honesty is not exactly your strong point. Sorry, Romney is not a god. Far from it, he’s a man of no convictions unless he first gets to take a quick peek at the focus group’s consensus or some polling on an issue.
Has there ever been a bigger flip flopper in modern political history than Wilard Romney??? I think not and the voters of Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida will agree with me.
Stay tuned to those three red states, not the liberal blues that Romney has based his campaign hopes on.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Craig,
You should go on more runs. I actually agree with the substance of 114. Of course, 117 is absurd and recidivistic. Mitt will play well in South Carolina, particularly in light of the momentum he will have coming off wins in New Hampshire and Nevada.
We don’t know who Haley, DeMint, and/or Graham will endorse in the contest, but we can guess. Then there’s that stubborn little fact that Mitt is organized in the state and has been polling well in it. None of this adds up to crucifixion.
In any event, Mitt doesn’t need to win South Carolina…..especially if he wins Florida. And our last poll there shows him with a decisive lead over Rick Perry and the others.
BTW, the lack of smiley faces and bold type in your last 4 comments might indicate that you’re growing up. Good to see.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:28 am
121.
Blue,
I’ll buy that.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Dave,
What are you smoking? Wait, are you even allowed or old enough to smoke? Romney will suck in SC.
BOOK IT!
!
August 20th, 2011 at 11:34 am
And Florida will END Romney’s campain for all intents and purposes just as it did the last time.
You know, 1 for 4 in winning elections could be the title of Romney’s next book.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:35 am
*campaign
August 20th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Craig,
You’re not in position to lecture Jax on honesty. Case in point: New Hampshire and Nevada aren’t exactly blue states. New Hampshire’s congressmen are both Republicans, as are 2 of Nevada’s 3 members of congress. The two states also have Republicans in the Senate, and our party controls their legislatures. Nevada even has a Republican governor.
BTW, the flip-flopper meme has been thoroughly discredited. No one’s buying it anymore.
August 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
This is for myy Rombot friends, Dave, Jax, and ??? who have their heads in the sands…
August 20th, 2011 at 11:42 am
128.
See 129
August 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Romney -10!!!
Wake up, R’Bots!
August 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Dave,
IA (H/T to Huck), SC (H/T to McCain, Perry, Bach), and Florida (H/T to SC again), WILL BUY IT!
August 20th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
To call Romney a “moderate” is near libel. Only if being a Conservative is centered fully on refusing to require people to pay for the medical services they incur can you call Romney a moderate. Pragmatist yes, moderate no.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
122 – When have I been dishonest? It is well known that I am a Romney fan. I have absolutely nothing to do with his campaign though.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
120 – That is insane. Your credibility is falling by the minute.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
133 – And then to call Perry a “conservative” is the sign of someone with some severe need of mental and emotional help.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
“To call Romney a “moderate” is near libel.”
LOL — hardly libelous.
How he is labelled depends, as such labels usually do, upon the context and upon the perspective of the person doing the labeling.
Many ‘progressives’ consider Obama a conservative — as he might well appear from their perspective. I usually consider such labels to be more enlightening about the person speaking/writing than about the subject of the label (e.g., Tex and Teledude screaming ‘RINO!’ at everybody in sight).
But context matters as well. Romney is probably objectively a moderate within the context of the Republican party (meaning that the positions he currently pushes most strongly are near the center point of the party). Within the context of the nation as the whole, he is mostly a bit right of center, and thus most would consider him a moderate conservative.
Unlike Craig (and you, apparently), I don’t consider these necessarily bad things.
August 20th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
137 – I don’t think anyone means in the center of the Republican party when they say “moderate”.