When two of the nation’s leading dailies publish major articles on the same sidebar topic on the same day it’s more than a coincidence. The fact that both the New York Times and the Washington Post are both running features about conservative dissatisfaction about the way Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is being utilized in the campaign can be interpreted as just another mainstream media attempt to find fault with the GOP, and perhaps to produce some juicy signs of distrust between supporters of Romney and Ryan in the manner of the John McCain-Sarah Palin “Game Change” fiasco. But while that aspect of the story must have appealed to editors at both papers, there’s no question that it is primarily a function of the dismay in some precincts of the right about Romney.
Despite the attempts by both papers to entice the two members of the Republican ticket and their staffs to backstab each other, neither the Romney nor the Ryan entourages were willing to play that game. That means there’s no “Game Change” shtick to unravel, which makes both stories less interesting than their headlines promised. The two candidates like and admire each other and Ryan has had no problem playing the traditional veep role of attack dog and surrogate while tempering his own positions on the issues to put forward a united front with the boss. Nor is it fair to say that Ryan has not been properly deployed. He’s been beating the bushes in swing states as he should. What’s really going on here is that a lot of people who like Ryan and his intellectual and ideological strengths are starting to worry that the interests of their man as well as his issues are not necessarily going to be advanced if Romney loses.
That there were enough conservatives willing to go on the record about this and to second-guess Romney in this manner tells us a lot about the continuing lack of love he gets from some of his party’s leading lights. The grousing about Ryan’s place in the campaign ought to be a matter of some concern for Romney and his top strategists since it is sign that some Republicans are already preparing for the aftermath of his defeat in November.
Those like Governor Scott Walker and the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol are not wrong when they advocate for a bolder stance from the GOP campaign on entitlement reform and other issues. But while the addition of the Wisconsin congressman to the ticket was a telling statement about Romney’s love of ideas and his willingness to embrace the reformist wing of the party, it didn’t mean that Ryan was going to be become the centerpiece of the campaign. Nor should he be. Each party gets only one candidate for president and no matter how much the running mate may add to that, the focus must be on the name on the top, not the bottom, of the bumper sticker.
If Romney is being perceived as being not as much of a reformer as Ryan or having, as Jonah Goldberg put it, “retreated into an ideological and even intellectual crouch,” it is not because he is ignoring the Ryan magic or his ideas. It’s because the Republican effort must center on Mitt Romney, and for all of his many strengths and flaws, he is not Paul Ryan and never will be.
As for Paul Ryan’s future, those who worry that his association with what could turn out to be a losing presidential campaign will harm his long-term prospects need to calm down. Accepting the nomination was always something of a gamble. If Romney wins, Ryan will not only be vice president but will be put in position to succeed him. But being on a losing ticket is only a long-term liability if the candidate is perceived as having helped ruin its chances. No matter what happens in the final weeks of the campaign, it isn’t likely that anyone will blame Ryan for Romney losing.
Running with Romney has exposed Ryan to the brickbats of the liberal media attack machine but that isn’t likely to stop him from running for president in 2016 if he is so inclined. It may be that some will think that a future Ryan effort to run on an entitlement reform platform will be compromised by Romney’s somewhat half-hearted embrace of some of his ideas. But if Romney does lose, the odds are that the debt and fiscal crisis will be just as urgent then as it is today.
Win or lose, Paul Ryan is probably going to be a major player in national politics for the foreseeable future. All the griping about the campaign tells us is that more than a few Republicans are scared that Romney is losing. If so, they should spend the next few weeks trying to help him. If their fears are justified, there will be plenty of time to start handicapping 2016 after November.
When we read about this type of infighting among fraternity brothers and sisters, we can only conclude they know this election is over, no matter how one parses the methodologies of the polls. Go look at today's RealClearPolitics. Not only does Obama lead consistently almost everywhere, but he's hitting the "magical" fifty percent. We must focus upon House and Senate races in order to salvage something in what might be the biggest blown presidential election of the twentieth century—more than Dewey/Truman.
There you go again…..I know that, in another post, you absolutely,positively, exclusively asserted that you are a deep -dyed conservative…yet, every time one turns around ,you are there, bringing your jeremiads to the dance…..I must repeat my suspicion that you are very far from being a conservative and most likely a Trojan horse on this website who knows will be dismissed if you sounded like rexford and others…by sounding reasonable and wringing your hands…you think you can be accepted. Not in my book anymore. BTW -rasmussen's daily tracking poll: even at 48 % ,when leaners are included, 47-46 Obama without leaners. In other words, a tossup.
Michael, I really believe you're a nice person and, if I were in a difficult cause, I'd want you with me. But why should my pessimism cause you to accuse me of lying? I'm not looking to be accepted, as you oddly phrase it. I'm just looking not to be used, snowed and conned! And that's exactly what many conservative/Republican leaders and pundits(including some Commentary folks)have been doing for over a year to us and, in spite of clear evidence, they are continuing. It angers me to no end! Why? Because I really am what I say I am: a very committed conservative who has fought many battles with the left and their allies and fear four more years of Obama!!
OK I'll accept your absolute assertion that you are a conservative. If that's the case, stop wringing your hands. There are six weeks to go- an eternity in politics- the debates are coming up and who knows what we will find out about Lybia-gate. Let's even assume that you are right and the Obama is ahead in some battleground states. So what? you utop fighting? The election is over???I looked over some of real clear politics results. First of all, at worst, Romney is three points behind nationally. At best, they are even (as per gallup and Rasmussen). The polls in the batleground states are -to me- notoriously unreliable- all of these polls poll very few people (one has 800 people polled) and, regardless of the weighing of the polls, I just don't trust any poll that is so limited. Gallup polls over three thousand people daily, Rasmussen fiteen hundred and they have the race tied. So, banish the thoughts of a landslide (even a dedicated Democrat like Bob beckel said tonight he expects a 50.5-49.5 election with Obama winning) -so, banish the defeatsim and think positive !
Mike, I'm also very suspicious of these defeatists. My entire attitude is based on results. If the result of an article or post helps Obama, I get suspicious. These guys are trying to spread defeatism. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses.
Uh, so what do we do, give up 6 weeks before the election because Obama holds a 2 pt lead?
OK- I have gone over some other real clear politics polls- Take an outfit called ARG and a poll in Florida- Democrats are 40%- republicans are 34% of the poll. Is that realistic? NO ! Note that the independents are split evenly 47-48! That tells you something about this poll. Same with a Politico poll- oversampling of Democrats by six percent. i did not have the figures for Gallup and Rasmussen but i know that Rasmussen gives a three percent larger number to Democrats. nBasically, many of these polls are skewed- either because they are of registered voters- not likely voters, making this poll worthlless, or because they oversample Democrats. nI think that, for now ,this is the major problem with these polls-whether you think it is deliberate or not is up to you. I do not believe that that there will be a large difference between the two parties as far as actual voters and this makes most of these polls very suspect. nSo, stop wringing your hands and comapre this to Dewy/Truman or if you want, do comapre it to that election but make Dewey Obama and Truman Romney.
First of all, in spite of my extreme pessimism, I am not giving up. Today, there is a meeting at my house with five volunteers who will either canvass neighborhoods or make calls. Now, what are you folks doing? So, allow me to have it both ways: helping and complaining. n nYes, there are problems with polls. No one has ever claimed they are perfect. And yes, some are more accurate than others. And yes, the state polling is, in general, probably the weakest because many inexperienced firms have become involved. But please, stop accusing many of them of stacking the deck! These firms go public with results and methodologies. Their reputations are on the line. They have public websites and spokesmen who, often, are interviewed by the conservative media. My point in interpreting them is to look at the trends and direction. If almost all are pointing in one direction, even with different margins between the candidates, this is telling us something.
But not all are pointing in one direction…Gallup and Rasmussen and AP have the race esentially tied. I give you that the movement in the last two weeks has been towards Obama (He went from three down to one up on the Rasmussen national poll) but to assert that Romney is eight down in Florida, substantially down in Virginia and Ohio just flies in the face of reality. Look- if these polls are right, then we have an Obama landslide and this just does not seem to be realistic at all.
So, who said what? I read an entire article about theoretical infighting but nobody said anything. I don't get it. n nIs this where I'm supposed to comment on something that doesn't exist?