Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Headline of the Day, This-Just-Seem… | Housing Authority Opposes measures… »

Thursday, August 9, 2012

2012 The Wall Street Journal Launches a Draft Ryan Campaign

Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Does the Wall Street Journal always suggest vice presidential choices for Republican tickets? This seems unusual:

Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, [Paul Ryan] has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda — before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie. …

Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things — Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the past two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election.

I'm surprised how confident Republicans are in a plan that would gut food stamps and cut other safety-net plans to a barest suggestion of what they are right now. If this becomes a national debate, the Democratic argument basically boils down to "sharing is caring." I don't know how you can argue that. I have yet to hear Paul Ryan make an argument that convincingly cuts through the most basic lessons we all learn when we're three or four years old. (In the meantime, as the press eagerly speculates about the—Christ, I hate this word—"veepstakes," nobody on Twitter cares. Romney would have to do something vastly out-of-character to get anyone who is not a journalist interested in his choice for VP.)

FacebookShare

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

The source is an editorial page so yeah...that would be normal for any partisan paper (conservative or liberal) to push for certian people to be VP.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on August 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I'd like to see the WSJ or any major media outlet actually get up in arms over the corporate welfare handouts. Welfare queens like Exxon Mobil who get billions in tax breaks and cash payments from the government while making billions more in profits. Can we talk about those kind of welfare queens for once?

Posted by SPG on August 9, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Michele Bachmann, anyone? Rick Perry? Rick Santorum? go ahead, Mittens, make my day.

Posted by Bugnroolet on August 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I'm hoping it's Thune, because I feel he would really bring Romney's whole sinister Dick-Jones-Owns-The-Cops vibe together.

Posted by Fistique on August 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Please, please, please, please let this be true. Mr. I-Want-To-Kill-Medicare would be perfect for Romney.

Posted by Mike in Olympia on August 9, 2012 at 2:15 PM

did the words "pentagon" and "budget" appear anywhere in the editorial?

or is it just the poorest americans that get to feel the austerity?

Posted by Max Solomon on August 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Teaching their kids to share with other children is the conservative's most fantastic hypocrisy.

Posted by Westlake, son! on August 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

@2
Excellent question. I'm gonna start posting on the WSJ blogs and demand more attention be made to the welfare queens. Change is going to happen!

Posted by dnt trust me on August 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Glad to see Murdoch owned WSJ keeping those journalistic standards high.

Posted by Large Hardon Colluder on August 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM

What I don't understand is...if Ryan is your man on the budget, why on earth would you want him to be VP (where his input on budgetary policy would be symbolic at best) rather than the job he currently has, i.e., the chair of the House committee that is responsible for the budget?

This makes no sense at all, even (or perhaps especially) if you are sympathetic to the brand of fiscal conservatism for which the WSJ is presumably advocating.

Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on August 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Oh, my, yes. let's do what Wall Street wants because everyone knows they're never wrong to the point of catastrophe. No money for food stamps but banks too big to fail.

Posted by Pope Peabrain on August 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Ryan had plenty to say about cutting all sorts of big government subsidies, which you casually ignore here.

Much in the same way you ignore Romney's call of market rules for insuring fairness based on merit, but supplemented with Romneycare (he invented it).

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on August 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Cheney's VP-ship was not exactly symbolic, @10. Romney's weak; the Republicans (including the WSJ) want someone strong.

Paul, I don't understand your bemusement lately with what the Republicans understand/don't understand. They are sharp cookies; we should be so sharp, and we'd better GET sharp damned soon.

Posted by sarah70 on August 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Ryan = privatization of Social Security. Mitt picks him and he drops another 5 points.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/social-s…

Posted by Sean Kinney

on August 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Ryan and Medicare:

http://mobile.businessweek.com/magazine/…

Posted by Sean Kinney

on August 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I find it interesting that to make this an election about big ideas Mitt will have to bring in someone else; shouldn't the big ideas come from the top of the ticket and the muscle to help implement those ideas come from the VP?

Posted by Looking For a Better Read on August 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I agree that sharing is caring, but voting for representatives that hire goons to take from nice folk's savings accounts IS NOT SHARING.

I'm no Republican. Paul Ryan can eat a dick and Mitt Romney is a gross sociopath. But, it's this willful ignoring of the violent nature of how our society is organized that does unimaginable harm to us all. We can have a real, lasting safety net without having it run by a group of people that also drop bombs on innocent people!

Penn Jillette puts it well: "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

Posted by thinkchip