Vice President Paul Ryan?


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Vice President Paul Ryan?

I say “Please!” and I say it loudly. Picking Ryan for number two would reverse Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, picking moderate George Bush Sr. as his VP. The result of that bad choice was 12 years of Bush rule in the late 1980s and in the 2000s, during which there was little effort to rein in the power or size of government. In fact, the Bushes did a lot to increase government’s power and size.

Picking Ryan as VP would place a competent fiscal conservative into the limelight and make such a person a leading contender for the Presidency in future years. It would also help demonstrate again that the 2010 election was a trend, not a fluke.

Share

10 comments

  • Kelly Starks

    Oh sure, take my damn congressman why don’t you.
    ;)

    Ryan would be a great choice, but I think he figures hes more powerfull as budget chairman.

  • Kelly Starks

    Hell, I wish they’ld convinced him to run for pres this time.

  • Rep. Ryan is a good man, but I’m not convinced he does much to enhance the ticket. He might help carry WIsconsin, but that’s about it. I prefer Sen. Rubio as having broader appeal and Florida is a must-have state. Rep. Ryan is a less than dynamic speaker, regardless of content. A Romney-Ryan ticket would be plain vanilla/plain vanilla. Need a VP selection that can inspire. Rubio or Christie would be my choice in this respect, although I would be concerned that the latter might be a bit too frank and provide too many sound bites for attack ads. The Regime would have to be very careful about any attack on Rubio. Well, that’s my two cents’ worth.

  • ooo i would love to see christie vp that would be awesome , but i agree i think rubio would be a better choice to win more votes

  • Kelly Starks

    >..I prefer Sen. Rubio as having broader appeal and Florida is a must-have state..

    That’s been quoted a lot, but oddly in poles Rubio on the ticket doesn’t help Romney much.

    Ironically Gov Scott Walker from Wis as VP did.
    ;/

  • JGL

    Christy as of late is showing himself to be a little too unrefined and bullyish, although in general effective.

    That in your face style can get tedious and its low minded.

    He has been getting on my nerves and I don’t see him stepping up and riseing to the occation, I think he has attained his maximum position,

    Romney will not be able to stand it on an on going basis. This elliminates him.

  • Patrick

    Rep. Ryans best place is right were he is now. For now. His next step is the presidency.

    Rubio is the best choice for VP.

    Walker can bring in Wis without being offered the VP seat. He needs to stay as a governor. We can’t risk a change to Dem.

  • Patrick

    Gov Christie is needed as a Governor. We can’t lose that one either.

    The libs will keep proposing Governors or other important members just to get them out of their powerful positions and give them a better chance at taking the seats. They will also push the ones they have something on, something they can attack.

  • JGL

    Good points, the next gen republican field is strong and has the potential to clean out the party of the rhino’s and move back towards the

    Consitution’s principles. We will see if they undo all of the unconstitutional laws designed to control the people.

    I don’t see much in the way of any strong offerings from the dems, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

    I don’t think so.

    The future looks bleak for the dems from my point of view, with the possible exception of Hillary C., it looks like it will begin in November of

    2012 with the removal of B.O.

  • Dwight Decker

    Reagan picking Bush as VP can be considered a mistake in hindsight, but it made perfect sense at the time. I’ve been reading a bit about the 1980 election lately and of course I was following events back then. Reagan and his people had just come through a near-disaster at the 1980 convention with the approach to Ford about being VP. That bright idea had been a combination of a perceived need to moderate Reagan’s right-wing extremist image by having a moderate on the ticket, not to mention the political boost of a well-regarded former President. Unfortunately, Ford was negotiating to be effectively a co-President instead of just a VP who goes to funerals and breaks ties in the Senate, and it turned into a debacle. After Ford was out of contention, Reagan had to pick somebody fast to quell the media firestorm. Of the several possibilities, Dole was considered too much of a loose cannon, too quick with the mouth, and would be trouble in the general campaign. Kemp was sympatico in many ways but still young and something of a lightweight — a football player on the ticket with an actor would have lacked gravitas. Laxalt was also sympatico and an old friend of Reagan’s, but from a small state (Nevada) Reagan would win anyway. Bush, though, had a solid resume with foreign affairs experience, was a team player, and had been the runner-up in the primary campaign. Putting Bush on the ticket would play well with the moderates and help unite the party. Some swallowing of dignity and burying of hatchets was necessary (Bush’s earlier “voodoo economics” line would haunt them for years), but it made perfect political sense. At the time.
    No one could predict, of course, that it would lead to the next two Republican Presidents being Bushes.
    The way I see it, George H. W. Bush wanted to sit in the front seat of the fire engine and ring the bell because by golly it was his turn. Ronald Reagan wanted to put out fires.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *