August 8, 2012

Do you think Romney needs to pick Paul Ryan?

There's no reason to think Politico wants to help Romney, but they've got an article purporting to describe the split within the GOP, and the second sentence over there is:
Ryan advocates, including some of his colleagues and high-profile conservative elites, believe Romney will lose if he doesn’t make a more assertive case for his candidacy and that selecting the 42-year-old wonky golden boy would sound a clarion call to the electorate about the sort of reforms the presumptive GOP nominee wants to bring to Washington.
Wonky golden boy would sound a clarion call... Hmmm. Okay, here's the other side of the split:
Their opposites, pragmatic-minded Republican strategists and elected officials, believe that to select Ryan is to hand President Barack Obama’s campaign a twin-edged blade, letting the incumbent slash Romney on the Wisconsin congressman’s Medicare proposal and carve in the challenger a scarlet “C” for the unpopular Congress.
A clarion is a "shrill-sounding trumpet with a narrow tube, formerly much used as a signal in war." So Ryan is either a shrill war trumpet or a double-edged sword, but if he's a sword, the sword is handed to Obama who then slashes plans to... uh... slash spending and he carves letters into Ryan's body. The hell?! Whatever happened to civility? And not just civility, but attention to metaphor and parallelism in writing? Ryan is a trumpet or the act of handing a sword to Obama. How do we know Obama wouldn't grab the trumpet, and maybe Romney could use the sword?

I think Ryan would be a great VP choice who would clearly help Romney. (I saw the 2 of them campaigning together here in Wisconsin.) But I'm thinking that if Romney becomes President, Ryan will be more of a help in the House than as VP. Here's my post from April 1st. It was titled: "Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan." I said:
[T]he team of Romney and Ryan was excellent. They answered questions from people as equal partners — some deference to Romney, but basically equals. Ryan is a terrific speaker, and he got more applause than Romney a couple times. Hearing them answer the same question, one after the other, I kept thinking Ryan is the stronger of the 2. And that's not to say Romney was unappealing, just less intense.

Surely, Romney will pick Ryan as his VP. Right?

I had the feeling there were 2 future Presidents in the room.

72 comments:

Paddy O said...

Ryan needs to avoid doing what Palin did. He's young. He's influential where he is. People on both sides want him to be VP, of course, because he can convey a message for conservatives and liberals would like for him to lose power.

Ryan is a good pick for a dozen years from now. VP for the Rubio administration maybe?

sydney said...

It would be better for the country if Paul Ryan stayed in Congress and fought the budget battles. He won't be able to contribute as much as Vice President.

Carol said...

Yeah...I can see the split on the local level for sure. Volunteerism is down, people are apathetic, the Paultards are exploiting the situation at the central committees.

Romney needs a Palin-type boost at the convention, but hopefully without all the downsides.

And it's appalling, the way the Dems use Medicare and SS to scare seniors.

Hagar said...

I would back a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting sitting Congress-critters - especially Senators - to run for President.

Lyle said...

No, he should pick Jindal.

AprilApple said...

Ryan is presidential material now.

AJ Lynch said...

My two criteria are must be a veritable Beltway outsider and non-baby boomer. I feel Rubio fits that bill.

Lyssa said...

I wish Ryan had some executive experience. I just don't know who he should pick.

AprilApple said...

Imagine Ryan v. Biden in a debate. oho.

(Mainstream unprofessional pro-democrat media will do what they can to only offer one debate)

Thorley Winston said...

I think that Mitt Romney should pick Paul Ryan . . . to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Triangle Man said...

Is the clarion call a reference to Mormonism?

Thorley Winston said...

My two criteria are must be a veritable Beltway outsider and non-baby boomer. I feel Rubio fits that bill.

My preference is that the VP should be somebody who has executive experience and doesn’t waste their time on silly distractions like creating a new tax break for Olympic athletes.

FWBuff said...

"Surely, Romney will pick Ryan as his VP. Right?"

From your lips to Mitt's ears!

Shanna said...

But I'm thinking that if Romney becomes President, Ryan will be more of a help in the House than as VP.

Definately agree. I love Paul Ryan, but I think he's better off where he is for now.

I also think Paddy is right about not wanting to take that VP slot when you are still green.

edutcher said...

Most of the people on the list(s) have too little time in grade (about 2 years), so Ryan is on my very short list, but I do appreciate the sentiments of those who say the country would be better off if he stayed in the House, fighting the good fight there.

The one person I don't think should be picked is T-Paw, given his terrible debate performance.

Amexpat said...

Romney right now is on track to narrowly lose the election. To win, he doesn't need to do something very bold, like McCain's taking on Palin, but he does need to change the dynamics of the race a bit.

I think choosing Ryan would fit that need. It gives him something more than just criticizing Obama's handling of the economy and a good chance of tipping Wisconsin in his favor.

AJ Lynch said...

Thorley: I agree with you on that. Rubio's tax idea for Olympians was a poorly concieved stunt and would just make the tax code even more inefficient.

garage mahal said...

Ryan needs to stay in the House and continue to draft budgets that will never see the light of day as law.

Meade said...

Portman.

deborah said...

Grabbing the center is more important, and he'll have to trust that Republicans are so sick of Obama they'll fall in line.

Colonel Angus said...

And it's appalling, the way the Dems use Medicare and SS to scare seniors.

Well yes but consider that Democrats see winning elections as more important than repairing a failing entitlement system or reversing our unsustainable deficit.

AprilApple said...

The democrats need to draft a budget. oh riiiight.... The left's war on math and complete economic ineptitude prevent them from silly things like budgets. There's always the Obama/Greece budget that garners zero votes from either party.

bgates said...

Ryan is a trumpet or the act of handing a sword to Obama.

No, either Ryan is a trumpet or the act of selecting Ryan is the act of handing a sword to Obama, who can then use it to carve a bloody letter into Romney (the challenger).

Thanks to garage for the implicit contrast between the budgets Ryan can't get passed into law in the current environment, the Obama budgets which win literally zero votes in Congress, and the Senate budgets which simply don't exist, possibly because 99 Senators want to keep their distance from the Majority Leader as he struggles to deal with serious and widespread allegations of child rape.

wv 'linedpit 16' - Hey, Harry, sounds like Google knows where the bodies are buried, and how many.

Joe Schmoe said...

It's time to abandon the youth enthrallment that this country has been under for the last decade or so. Despite being the same age as Congressman Ryan, I say let's go for someone a little longer in the tooth.

Ryan has some good ideas, but he's short on accomplishments. If he sees some of his ideas through, then he'll be in a better position to take on an executive-level job. Even if he takes a beating over them. Especially if he takes a beating over them.

I'd dare say Scott Walker has more appeal to me right now as a veep, based on his recent accomplishments.

Who would I recommend for Mitt? I don't know. I have a hard time opining on a veep pick when I can't see the internal vetting info. No more senators, please. They are the most ineffectual bunch of fops I've ever seen.

Alex said...

Honestly Mittens is going to lose anyways, so why spoil Ryan's career?

MadisonMan said...

Ryan is a bad idea if he is going to outshine Romney, like Palin did to McCain. I'm not certain that Ryan would make Romney look bad in comparison however. I don't think he would, but you never know.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Ryan needs to stay in the House and continue to draft budgets that will never see the light of day as law.


Isn't that Obama and Reid's job? Reid at least will be there though the next presidential cycle, so I have to score this as a low need area.

Colonel Angus said...

Ryan is a bad idea if he is going to outshine Romney, like Palin did to McCain. I'm not certain that Ryan would make Romney look bad in comparison however.

Picking a dynamic VP is always a bad idea. Obama picking Biden was a brilliant choice since Biden makes Obama look like a genius in comparison.

Joe Schmoe said...

How about setting up Ryan to be the next WI guv after Walker's second term is over?

That's the kind of seasoning I'd like to see. Then if Ryan is still feeling his oats in his mid-50s, he can run for prez. No more of these 40-something wunderkinds with no accomplishments other than winning an election.

Freeman Hunt said...

I would love it if he picked Ryan. I refuse to get excited about it so as to avoid disappointment.

Bender said...

Paul Ryan -- proof of the power of positive spin and the utter blindness of political partisanship, so desparate are people that they refuse to see the truth as it really is.

Aside from the fact that he is a career politician, who has never really held a job out in the real world, as with the community organizer, his purported conservativism in fiscal matters is belied by the actual plans that he has advocated, which show him to be, again, only a pale version of said community organizer.

What is Ryan's radical plan? To spend $3.6 trillion next year and $40 trillion over the next ten years. 40 trillion dollars. And not getting around to balancing the budget for 28 years.

And like the fraud that he is, Ryan fraudulently goes around promoting this fraud of a budget plan as "cutting" spending, continuing the deceitful practice of claiming as a "cut" when you merely do not spend as much as you could have spent.

Scott said...

Ryan would be wasted as VP. But if he picked Marco Rubio, it would deliver Florida's electoral votes and secure the election for Romney.

Scott said...

If you compare Paul Ryan's budget to the Democrats' budget plan ... oh, snap, the Democrats don't have one! My bad.

Bender said...

And just as he advocated increasing the debt limit over $2 trillion last year to over $16 trillion total, you can be sure that Paul Ryan will advocate and vote for yet another increase in the debt limit when the government runs out of money again in a couple of months.

Jack said...

Paul Ryan is the perfect pick for the GOP, and he should really get Republican juices flowing.

He has, after all, with his Ryan Plan, figured out the perfect way to "bend the health care cost curve," based on simple supply and demand economics: Massively reduce demand, and costs will follow (or, at least, the rate of increase will slow considerably).

The plan to replace Medicare with a $15,000 voucher for health insurance is about the cleverest way a Republican could find to kick millions of people off the "government dole." After all, if you're 72 with diabetes or heart disease, your $15,000 voucher will buy you exactly nothing. You'll have the same "health care" as the average Mexican peasant, which is exactly the amount of health care Republicans feel the indigent and elderly are entitled to.

The results are obvious: Deny medical care to tens of millions of people, and millions of people will die years earlier than they would otherwise. The savings will be monumental.

Plus, none of those dead old poor people will be able to vote. It's an all around win for conservatives.

Granted, it's totally barbaric and inhumane -- but I already said conservatives would love it, didn't I?

If you're a moral degenerate and a monster, vote Republican!

I Callahan said...

VP for the Rubio administration maybe?

This assumes Rubio has more experience than Ryan. Which isn't the case. Rubio is just as untested as Palin was.

Bender said...

oh, snap, the Democrats don't have [a budget]

Oh, boo hoo. And what has Ryan's response been to that?

Has his response been to actually check the Dems' hardball tactics? No. His response has been to cave and to vote for continuing spending at the levels of the last budget that was passed by the Dems.

The Dems may be completely unethical despotic thugs, but at least they will fight for what they believe in rather than simply whine and cry about how unfair the other side is.

Marshal said...

Scott said...
Ryan would be wasted as VP. But if he picked Marco Rubio, it would deliver Florida's electoral votes and secure the election for Romney.


Florida by itself isn't enough, Romney also has to win Ohio and Virginia along with either Colorado or Iowa. Rasmussen has Obama up by 2 in Ohio and Romney up 1 in Florida. Other polls show larger leads by Obama, but almost all show Ohio a point or two more to Obama than Florida, suggesting Ohio will be more difficult to win. Romney's needs are in addition to winning NC and Indiana which Obama won in 2008.

I Callahan said...

Bender,

I agree with you 100% in principle. But there is no way on earth, in this political environment, that actually CUTTING spending will EVER get passed, until we have an absolute crash. There is no way we will balance the budget in a couple of years what took 80 years to screw up. 28 years may be a long ways off, but it's at least an attempt to go in the right direction. And look at the squealing lefties' reaction over that plan!

Romney is the nominee; anyone he picks is going to be someone who at least somewhat aligns with him. Ryan is popular, well-spoken, and has a real plan. If he picks a squishy moderate, Repubs stay home; if he picks someone who wants to cut the budget some large amount right away, the media and the left will skewer him mercilessly.

Ryan can respond well; I think he'd make a great pick for our current times.

Patrick said...

There goes compassionate Jack, spending other people's money, so he can feel good about himself. Huzzah!

Methadras said...

I have always been an advocate of Ryan as a VP and eventual president. I think Romney would overthrow Urkel into apoplexy if he chose Ryan. It also does something you don't get to often, an alliterative meme that rolls of the tongue fairly well, Romney/Ryan.

Ryan set himself up as a bold congressman who took Urkel to the woodshed in that famous televised conference where he pretty much gave him the giant fuck you of how fucked up Urkelcare is and how it was going to fuck the American public. Romney should play that over and over and over again. Ryan would use Biden as a human mop in a debate.

I Callahan said...

The results are obvious: Deny medical care to tens of millions of people, and millions of people will die years earlier than they would otherwise. The savings will be monumental.

Right, because the government would NEVER do that (Great Britain, the Netherlands, etc.)

Talk about being completely devoid of logic.

Paddy O said...

"This assumes Rubio has more experience than Ryan."

Now, yes, but that wasn't what I was assuming when I made that comment.

It assumes that Rubio would be the VP pick, and thus the VP for 4-8 years, putting him in place for a viable Presidential run after that.

But even better would be a rising star governor yet unnamed.

The Farmer said...

Ryan is one of two or three VP picks that would cost Romney my vote.

I Callahan said...

Ryan is one of two or three VP picks that would cost Romney my vote.

Just curious - why?

cold pizza said...

Ryan in the house to write budget bills. Get a solid Republican majority in the Senate and kick Pederast Harry back to the gutter where he belongs. Shoot for a veto-proof majority in both houses and then it won't matter who's in the WH.

Pick a governer for veep--Jan Brewer. You read it here first. -CP

Shanna said...

The reason I like Ryan is because he is one of the few congresscritters who I feel can actually do math.

Sad to say that is a pathetically low bar to set, but so be it.

Revenant said...

I think Romney needs to NOT pick Paul Ryan. Ryan is one of the few people in Congress who is actually trying to fix things. He should stay there and keep at it.

Balfegor said...

Rubio is fine, but his appeal is basically biographical at this point rather than because he has any particular accomplishments or stands for something in particular. He's essentially just an Obama. Which is in-keeping with the spirit of the age, I suppose.

I would prefer Ryan because despite the fact that his entire adult life has been spent either as a Congressional aide or a Congressman, he's almost like a throwback to the 19th century, before the rise of professional politicians. He's a legislator who actually had a hand in developing the policies he advocates rather than just an attractive face and voice to plaster over some legislation that came out of a lobbyist or some hack policy shop somewhere.

Jindal would be a good choice too, but Jindal's background is in health care policy, and while health care policy is a debate Romney can win, it's less favourable grounds than the economy overall, where Obama's inattention and failure are manifest to all.

The Farmer said...

I Callahan said...
Ryan is one of two or three VP picks that would cost Romney my vote.

Just curious - why?


He promotes himself as a Catholic politician but ignores or at best offers strange interpretations of the Church's teachings on issues of social and economic justice - interpretations that unfailingly fall into line with the GOP. I don't like seeing politicians flaunt their Catholicism while publicly defying the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium.

Also, he referred to last year's overwhelmingly peaceful protests at the capitol as "riots." That bothered me. The protesters were annoying and silly but they weren't rioting.

And he's a fan of Ayn Rand. I find that embarrassing.

Balfegor said...

Re: Farmer:

I don't like seeing politicians flaunt their Catholicism while publicly defying the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium.

I don't think there's a single Catholic politician today that doesn't disagree with the Magisterium in some respects. But there are degrees. Catholic teaching is absolutely unequivocal on some topics, and a failure to uphold teachings can fairly be characterised as outright defiance. On others, it's a lot less specific about what it requires and what it prohibits, and it is a lot harder to make a charge of defiance stick.

Balfegor said...

Here's a more concrete list of policy recommendations out of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. And here is the authoritative statement for many of those principles.

The Farmer said...

Balfegor said...

I don't think there's a single Catholic politician today that doesn't disagree with the Magisterium in some respects. But there are degrees. Catholic teaching is absolutely unequivocal on some topics, and a failure to uphold teachings can fairly be characterised as outright defiance. On others, it's a lot less specific about what it requires and what it prohibits, and it is a lot harder to make a charge of defiance stick.


That's exactly right. And yet I've been hearing right-leaning Catholics make that argument for years, but only in defense of eschewing certain Church teachings in favor of supporting right-wing policies. Usually the person making the argument will quote some right-wing bishop as though he's suddenly the sole authority.

If the people making this argument ever actually supported Church teachings that went against their politics, I'd take them seriously. But they don't. It's a dishonest argument when it's used to justify one's politics. And it leaves me convinced that their politics are informing their faith rather than the other way around. You don't find it awfully convenient that all the stances on which it's supposedly okay to dissent happen to dovetail with GOP policies?

I wouldn't care about it if guys like Paul Ryan weren't running around claiming to be "a good Catholic." I wish the bishops had the guts to stand up to politicians like him the way they do to pro-choice Catholics.

Joe Schmoe said...

And he's a fan of Ayn Rand. I find that embarrassing.

What's so embarassing about that? Rand had a lot to say about a lot of things, many things you would probably find yourself in agreement with if you actually read any of her books now. And that's leaving aside her writings that are open to different interpretations.

Can I chalk you up as a progressive who wishes everyone would read more, as long as they read the 'right' kind of books?

Would you be proud if he said he was a fan of Karl Marx? Because both of them are writing about the same thing in different ways.

Mick said...

Balfegor said...

"Rubio is fine, but his appeal is basically biographical at this point rather than because he has any particular accomplishments or stands for something in particular. He's essentially just an Obama. Which is in-keeping with the spirit of the age, I suppose.

I would prefer Ryan because despite the fact that his entire adult life has been spent either as a Congressional aide or a Congressman, he's almost like a throwback to the 19th century, before the rise of professional politicians. He's a legislator who actually had a hand in developing the policies he advocates rather than just an attractive face and voice to plaster over some legislation that came out of a lobbyist or some hack policy shop somewhere.

Jindal would be a good choice too,"


Neither Rubio or Jindal are eligible natural born Citizens since they were born to alien parents. Obama is even less eligible, since his nfather was never even a resident alien, nor US Citizen.

Mick said...

Scott said...

"Ryan would be wasted as VP. But if he picked Marco Rubio, it would deliver Florida's electoral votes and secure the election for Romney".


Rubio is not an eligible natural born Citizen--- he was born of resident alien parents. The requirement is natural born Citizen (see 12th Amenddment), i.e born in the US of US Citizen parents.

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." 88 US 162, 167 (1874)

The Farmer said...

Joe Schmoe said...
And he's a fan of Ayn Rand. I find that embarrassing.

What's so embarassing about that?


She was a crappy novelist and her acolytes defend her with a nigh-religious, cringe-inducing fervor. Also, I've yet to meet an Objectivist who wasn't an annoying dick.

Can I chalk you up as a progressive who wishes everyone would read more, as long as they read the 'right' kind of books?

Sure, I guess. I'm not a progressive though, and outside of my kids, I don't care who reads what or if they read at all. I just reserve the right to point and laugh at people who worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand.

Would you be proud if he said he was a fan of Karl Marx? Because both of them are writing about the same thing in different ways.

God, no. At least Ayn Rand's philosophy hasn't killed anybody; it's just helped young white men feel good about acting like selfish dicks.

Mick said...

Lyle said...

"No, he should pick Jindal".


Jindal is not eligible--- Born of Indian resident alien parents. See 88 US 162, 167 (1874), or Federalist 68. An "improper ascendant" is an improper ancestor, i.e a non US Citizen parent.

Bender said...

It's a dishonest argument when it's used to justify one's politics.

Yes, absolutely, Farmer.

And it leaves me convinced that their politics are informing their faith rather than the other way around.

Once again, your self-description is spot on.

(By the way, if you are going to accuse someone of having a politicized faith, you ought not to include such dead giveaways to your own partisanship in your comments, e.g. "right-wing bishop".)

Bender said...

Mick -- you've hijacked a couple of discussions now with your "he's not a citizen" crap, filling the comboxes with repetitive noise.

We heard you the first time. And the second. And the one thousandth time.

We get it. Give it a rest.

roesch/voltaire said...

The ticket will be Ryan and Rubio in four years--my prediction.

The Farmer said...

Bender said...

Once again, your self-description is spot on.


Do tell.

(By the way, if you are going to accuse someone of having a politicized faith, you ought not to include such dead giveaways to your own partisanship in your comments, e.g. "right-wing bishop".)

Dead giveaway? Again: do tell.

yashu said...

And he's a fan of Ayn Rand. I find that embarrassing.

I think that's an exaggeration.

IIRC the article where that came up, Ryan said he read Rand when he was younger and that was a significant influence in his ideological journey-- as Rand is for many young people who come to espouse right-of-center views, end up becoming conservatives, libertarians, Republicans.

Doesn't mean those people are (or ever were) Randians or objectivists. I certainly didn't get the sense that Ryan is a "Randian" or "objectivist." That's what liberal readers of the New Yorker might be meant to take away; but that's a distortion.

I think Rand serves as a salutary shock to the ideological system for many young people, who've been raised on nothing but liberal bromides. She challenges all sorts of liberal assumptions, and depicts (through admittedly clumsy, tendentious fiction) a world-view that strikes those young minds as bracing, unconventional, thought-provoking.

That serves a purpose, but you also move on from it. Rand's not an ideological endpoint so much as as a good catalyst or spark. You don't have to accept Rand's answers to think she raises a lot of good questions-- especially for young people who are questioning things, early in their political Bildung.

It's perfectly fine to express appreciation for a writer that influenced you as a youth, even though as an adult you've outgrown his/her work or deviate from his/her conclusions in many ways. That's not "embarrassing."

Are the political and ideological influences that marked Obama's political self-formation, which he talks about in his memoirs, similarly "embarrassing"?

The Farmer said...

It's perfectly fine to express appreciation for a writer that influenced you as a youth, even though as an adult you've outgrown his/her work or deviate from his/her conclusions in many ways. That's not "embarrassing."

Yeah, he did back away from his Rand-appreciation after Catholics gave him shit for it. Like I said, I find it embarrassing. Not necessarily disqualifying on its own. That's why I listed it third. I can't imagine voting for somebody who's a fan of Ayn Rand but I'd consider it if they were right about other important things. So maybe I should've put it like this:

1. He calls himself a "good Catholic" but ignores the Church's teachings whenever they clash with the GOP party line.

2. He's a liar. Granted, all politicians are, but it was such a brazen, obviously false statement that I had to replay the video to make sure I heard it right. Again, I thought most of the Capitol protesters were morons, but to call the protests "riots" wasn't just a lie - it was incendiary in a way I normally only associate with the far Left. That statement makes me think he's a loose cannon.

3. In addition to 1 & 2, he thinks Ayn Rand is really neat. What a dingus.

Are the political and ideological influences that marked Obama's political self-formation, which he talks about in his memoirs, similarly "embarrassing"?

Remarkably so, yes.

but I am a robot said...

"Mick -- you've hijacked a couple of discussions now with your "he's not a citizen" crap, filling the comboxes with repetitive noise."

Right?

There are lawyers and judges that handle these issues, and I think the rest of us can assume Rubio and Jindal are still in the discussion until a more powerful authority than 19th century dicta tells us otherwise.

Save it for the courts, and don't complain to us when those courts "illegally" deny you standing again.

If not, then you have a perfect opportunity to say "I told you so."

Joe Schmoe said...

Farmer, do you think people can read Rand and not become an 'Objectivist'? Do you think Paul Ryan is a true-blue objectivist? I don't. I've met a lot of people who appreciate Rand, yet aren't the self-styled selfish dicks that you describe. She accurately riffs on the dangers of collective groups and advocates that individual excellence is something to be admired in a society.

Mick said...

but I am a robot said...

""Mick -- you've hijacked a couple of discussions now with your "he's not a citizen" crap, filling the comboxes with repetitive noise."

Right?

There are lawyers and judges that handle these issues, and I think the rest of us can assume Rubio and Jindal are still in the discussion until a more powerful authority than 19th century dicta tells us otherwise.

Save it for the courts, and don't complain to us when those courts "illegally" deny you standing again.

If not, then you have a perfect opportunity to say "I told you so.""


The courts are playing Pontious Pilot, washing their grimy hands of the issue by not allowing standing. There are no judges, and no law when the President is illegal. It will take the actions of we the people to yank the Usurper out of office. In my case they went as far as saying Obama was not "nominated or elected" at the Florida Primary, in order to deny standing. Florida statutes say he was, and I pointed that out (Fl ss. 101.252(1)):

"101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office."

The judge said "it doesn't apply to Presidential selections", which is nonsense. It says "who has qualified as prescribed by law". Which means HOWEVER they qualify, and I am entitled to challenge the "nomination of ANY PERSON to office". I am not wrong.

Mick said...

roesch/voltaire said...

"The ticket will be Ryan and Rubio in four years--my prediction".


Rubio is not eligible.

Mick said...

Bender said...

"Mick -- you've hijacked a couple of discussions now with your "he's not a citizen" crap, filling the comboxes with repetitive noise.

We heard you the first time. And the second. And the one thousandth time.

We get it. Give it a rest."


No you didn't, because the nonsense that he is a candidate keeps getting repeated.

The Farmer said...

Joe Schmoe said...
Farmer, do you think people can read Rand and not become an 'Objectivist'?


Of course! I did!

Do you think Paul Ryan is a true-blue objectivist? I don't.

I have no idea, and that's not the point. People who admire Ayn Rand seem to me to be very silly. It's the sort of phase certain people go through in high school or college before they grow up. It's the right wing version of being really into Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. I'm sure most of their fans aren't true-blue anarchists but that's irrelevant. For alleged adults to express admiration for that stuff strikes me as embarrassing.

Synova said...

I can't imagine any way in which Ryan could be considered an Objectivist.

How did that even come up?

Synova said...

"She was a crappy novelist and her acolytes defend her with a nigh-religious, cringe-inducing fervor."

As opposed to those who howl at the notion someone might have acquired Ayn Rand cooties?

(The only Objectivist I "know" (in the sense that if I ever met him in real life and introduced myself, he might know who *I* am, too) is Milton Freidman's son, David. And he's not a jerk, but is an incredibly patient and intelligent man.)