What does the VP selection really mean?
87 days until the election, Romney announces Chairman of the House
Budget Committee Paul Ryan as his running mate. Yesterday, I said Romney
would choose Tim Pawlenty. I called Ryan a bold yet rather risky
choice. I stand by that assertion. I had intended on explaining why but
John Avoln has beat me to it: “a bold and risky pick for vice president”. I stand more confident in Obama’s reelection chances
today than I have since the circus that was the Republican primaries.
The only question that remains, is this just mere posturing for 2016? –
a defacto concession and decision to push Ryan on the national stage?
I present two scenarios for your consideration. Let’s consider if
Romney loses. Would it not be in the best interests of Republican Party
to have a strong conservative waiting in the wings, likely to avoid the
same mistakes of 2012? Rep. Ryan seems to be that guy. Now let’s
consider if Romney wins. Rep. Ryan would be much more influential and
powerful in the House. He would have arguably the most influential
position in all of Congress. He would have the ability to write the
budget and push for his brain child, the Ryan Plan,
without opposition from either the President or Senate. Who in the
world would give that up for what John Adams, America’s first VP,
called, “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man
contrived or his imagination conceived”?
Barely hours later, the Democratic attack ads have already begun rolling out.
It would appear that Paul Ryan is not about maximizing Romney’s chances
for victory but rather hedging against a 2012 loss. Why else, nominate
one of the Democrats’ favorite punching bags? :
See Votes by State
News & Politics