# Veep announcement \[Romney picks Paul Ryan\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 11, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157 "2012-08-11T03:40:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/421 "2012-08-13T22:10:29Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > A fair point, so let’s look at where that 500 billion went in the 2010 budget (numbers from here: [2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending)) > > Relative to the 2009 budget, 2010 saw the following changes: > > Mandatory: > $34 billion - SS > $334 billion - Unemployment, Welfare, other mandatory spending > $30 billion - Medicare > $34.8 billion - Medicaid > $29 billion - Interest > > Discretionary: > $84 billion - DoD > $5 billion - VA > $20 billion - State and Foreign Affairs > $8.8 - HUD > $6 billion - Education > $7 billion - Commerce > $5 billion - National Infrastructure Bank > > All other deltas appear to be below $1 billion. Total increase in outlays for these big hitters: ~$600 billion. > > On the other side, TARP was about $500 billion off the books by itself. There was more for other “financial stabilization efforts”. So the net effect, like you said, is no decrease from 2009 to 2010. > > So, which should come out? Obvious the big line is the extension of Unemployment benefits, coupled with the recession, and other Welfare program expenditures. Defense spending is the second-largest bump. > > Seems pretty clear to me that we claw back that $500 billion through reduced spending as the economy grows and cuts to the rate of growth in DoD spending. I’d also look at what State is doing with their extra $20 billion. > > Then once we get spending back down to the historical norm (something like 18-20% of GDP) we get revenues back up to match (they are currently at 16% or so). I’d look at every single one of those discretionary items. Those are all big increases relative to the size of the respective departments. The Dept of Education, for example, has seen major funding increases all through the Bush years as well as the Obama years. I think a National Infrastructure Bank is just a slush fund for political favoritism and crony capitalism, and does more harm than good. State has also seen large previous budget increases, as has HUD. I’d CUT their budgets, not increase them. The DoD increases need to be seriously evaluated, as DoD is already operating well above its historical funding levels, and the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs are declining. And while you didn’t list the other departments who got increases of less than 1 billion, how much cumulative money is that? Also, you’re comparing this against 2009, which again had some large increases baked into it. How about we compare the funding levels of the various government agencies against the 2008 budget instead? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/422 "2012-08-13T22:39:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’d look at every single one of those discretionary items. Those are all big increases relative to the size of the respective departments. The Dept of Education, for example, has seen major funding increases all through the Bush years as well as the Obama years. I think a National Infrastructure Bank is just a slush fund for political favoritism and crony capitalism, and does more harm than good. State has also seen large previous budget increases, as has HUD. I’d CUT their budgets, not increase them. I’d think I agree, with a caveat for the infrastructure bank = slush fund claim - I’d have to research that more. I wouldn’t be shocked if it was. > [@](#): > > The DoD increases need to be seriously evaluated, as DoD is already operating well above its historical funding levels, and the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs are declining. Obvious to everybody except the GOP candidate for President, who actually wants to increase it to 4% of GDP (as a hard floor on the DoD budget). > [@](#): > > And while you didn’t list the other departments who got increases of less than 1 billion, how much cumulative money is that? Well, it depends on how far into the weeds you want to go - the ones I listed capture most of it, to be honest. A few departments (Justice, GSA, HHS) actually had spending cuts. > [@](#): > > Also, you’re comparing this against 2009, which again had some large increases baked into it. How about we compare the funding levels of the various government agencies against the 2008 budget instead? I did 2009 because the claim was that there should have been a drop after TARP and the other bailout programs dropped off. That didn’t happen, of course, because of more stimulative efforts (primarily shown under the Welfare/Unemployment line and on the receipts side - big tax cuts). Comparing to 2008 would be helpful, but I just don’t have time to go into those details right now. Obviously since the 2010 budget the basic levels have only been changed by various debt-reduction and tax-cut-extension deals. A comprehensive budget has not been passed since then. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/423 "2012-08-14T00:23:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Shayna, does the progressive movement want to empower “the people”, or “the person”? I think that’s why “the people” never buy what you’re selling. The community is everything, the individual relatively unimportant, unless that individual’s plight is a group problem representing a progressive concern, like discrimination. But if you’re in the wrong group, you’re just a whiner standing in the way of social justice. Exactly. If you’re with the social good, that’s good. If you’re against it, you’re the enemy. Are you really here to argue that the wishes of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Or that being anti-social is “good”? > [@adaher](#): > > Republicans want a plan to reduce the deficit, and extracted it from Democrats. If there’s no plan to ever reduce the deficit, then what does it matter whether we default now or 10 years from now? :rolleyes: The Republican plan to reduce the deficit has for years been as follows: 1. Grow the economy to such a degree that the debt, _while never paid down,_ is a smaller part of the economy; and the deficit is also smaller relative to the economy. This is what we did with the WWII debt. 2. Sunset tax cuts so that they rise again when Democrats are in power. The deficit shrinks, but the Democrats can be blamed for raising taxes. In practice, we can add three steps: 3) Forget (1). Just cut taxes to the rich. Blame your own poor employees for being underpaid; blame the self-employed for being unable to find customers in a demand crisis. Shrink the economy, grow the deficit, and pretend it’s somebody else’s fault. 4) Forget (2). Never raise taxes, pretend that (1) is still working. 5) Vote for a Democratic president and a GOP congress so Congress can run the country into the ground and blame the poor sucker in the White House, because destructive politics is more fun than responsible statesmanship. > [@ibid.](#): > > Democrats’ ONLY firm offer is to raise taxes on the wealthy, solving a mere 10% of the deficit over the next ten years. Note the weaselly use of “firm.” Let me clarify your post: “Democrats’ only FIRM offer is to raise taxes on the wealthy, solving a mere 10% of the deficit over the next ten years.” Suddenly that changes everything, doesn’t it? We could rather easily tax an additional 11% of GDP and run surpluses, while redistributing wealth to the depressed sectors of the country. And honestly, it wouldn’t hurt the pocketbooks of the 1% all that much. For some reason, Democratic pols don’t say this. I don’t really know why. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > …The problem here is that Democrats don’t want to pay their fair share, or anything at all, of Federal income taxes… Hey, maybe we’ll start paying the same amount in tax when we share the same amount of profits! Good grief, man, do you actually believe in this flat tax jive? > [@adaher](#): > > No, I want to know what’s in the offer and how they got their numbers. The Bush tax cuts, we know exactly what they want and how much money it will raise. On the $3 trillion in spending cuts, there have been conflicting reports on what was offered and no indication of how they arrived at a $3 trillion estimate, since the plan was never scored by the CBO. > > But right now I’ll just settle for knowing the basic outlines of the plan, from the mouths of those offering it, or a written document, not just ‘sources’. Have you read Krugman’s indictment of the Ryan budget? Because that’s pretty much Ryan’s problem. He won’t specify cuts. At all. It’s just cut taxes and…nothing, really. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/424 "2012-08-14T00:33:53Z")
> **[Opinion | Understanding the Ryan plan](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-talented-mr-ryan/2012/08/12/1afaaaa2-e4ad-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html)** > > The fraud of Paul Ryan’s proposals. Matt Miller has a good analysis of it as well. That was the source of my numbers about how much the Ryan proposal increases the debt. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/425 "2012-08-14T03:05:56Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The problem here is that Democrats don’t want to pay their fair share, or anything at all, of Federal income taxes, but then complain when the guy who is paying both his share and the Democrat’s share of taxes gets a break or complains about having to pay more while someone else pays little to nothing. You want to take money away from someone else while you, yourself, don’t want to give up any of your money to “solve the problem”. That’s wrong. This is just ditto-head nonsense. Before the Great Bush Recession when I had a nice corporate job and was making good money, I was in fact happy to pay my share in taxes…and since I was single with few deductions, that share was quite healthy. Nonetheless, I not only did not complain but I actually was against the policies of showering tax cuts on people like myself because I didn’t feel like I need them. However, now I find that I was paying federal taxes at a considerably higher rate than the standard-bearer for the Republican Party (especially when you consider ALL federal taxes, including payroll taxes) and that said standard-bearer is so morally-challenged that he has no plans to reform the tax system to make people like himself pay more but instead wants to give himself and his friends more tax breaks (although perhaps not quite as many as Paul Ryan wants to give them). You have a lot of God-damn nerve telling us what Democrats do when you have nominated someone as morally corrupt as that!!! > [@Mekhazzio](#): > > The problem is that the rate of change of those two proportions isn’t even remotely similar. In the same time period that your cite lists the tax share of the top 1% increasing by 82%, the **after-tax** income share of the top 1% has increased by [125%](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf) (Warning: PDF link. See Figure 3) > > You’re apparently attempting to show how put-upon the top earners are by an increasingly progressive tax system, but the reality is the completely opposite. Taxes have been becoming more regressive, at the same time as the income distribution becomes more lopsided. Yeah…People like **Omg a Black Conservative** are easy prey for people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity since they seem unable to comprehend how income tax share convolves both income tax rate AND income share, and that their “proof” that the tax system is getting more progressive is just proof that income inequality is drastically increasing! Such is the intellectual state of the conservative movement that relies on mathematical ignorance to sell people lies. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/426 "2012-08-14T03:33:46Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > It’s my understanding that that’s not up to Ryan now. It’s too late by Wisconsin law to withdraw his name from the ballot. It’s not like he’s going to be able to campaign for THAT seat in addition to the vice-presidency. > > And it has been done before, most recently by Joe Lieberman in 2000. How safe is Ryan’s seat? It would probally kill his political career if he lost both elections (& it’ be a bizarre historical footnote if he lost his seat while Romney won). > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I am _really_ hoping a reporter asks Romney about Ryan and this amendment, and then he makes some quip in response like, “I was talking about the President, not the Vice President”, and then the press can go nuts for a few weeks about how Romney’s picked a guy that he personally doesn’t consider qualified to be president. Don’t be silly, how would a reporter even be able to get in a situtation to ask such a question in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/427 "2012-08-14T04:45:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Holy cow. I said that Romney was ‘almost’ within the margin of error. And that’s true. Oh really? And what was the MOE for that particular average of several polls? What formula did you use to calculate it? IOW, when you say, “And that’s true,” exactly how do you know this, or are you just making it up? Is it something you’re saying IS true because you think it SHOULD be true? > [@](#): > > The nit-picking and sophistry you guys engage in to win an argument at any cost is a wonder to behold. I say something that’s absolutely true, in support of a point that is eminently defensible. Again, awaiting proof that this is “absolutely true,” for at least only moderately elastic values of ‘almost.’ My guess is that you have no idea what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Instead of debating the point I made (which wasn’t even partisan, for pete’s sake) I disagree: it absolutely WAS partisan. The Village Broderists notwithstanding, when two sides are behaving quite differently and you do your best to equate them anyway, that’s a partisan argument. And that’s why I think it’s important that this sort of bullshit be confronted. And you can’t even claim to be some sort of Broderist evenhanded centrist. [QUOTE] > [@](#): > > **Fiddle Peghead** tried the same trick: On a board that constantly disparages ‘conservatives’ as a group, I refer to ‘liberals’, and suddenly I’m taken to task for not precisely carving them into smaller sub-groups, and as a result everything I have to say is rendered invalid. Quite aptly. You’ve never noticed the way the conservative movement maintains GOP groupthink? There’s nothing like that on the liberal side; we don’t have anywhere near that much power on the far left, and if we did, I hope we’d not use it like the right wing uses theirs. So there’s quite a spread of opinions within the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, and a much, much narrower range of opinions within the conservative movement and the GOP. I hate to go over first-grade stuff here, but apparently it’s necessary. > [@](#): > > For the record, here’s a summary of all the recent polls: [RealClearPolitics Poll Summaries](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls). Yes, the last few polls had a bunch showing Obama up by 7 points or more - not surprising considering the barrage of nasty attack ads he’s launched **that have gone unanswered.** Bolding mine. You’re joking, right? 😕 > [@](#): > > But if you go back a month, the polls are much closer. Obama clearly has a small lead, but it’s ‘almost’ within the margin of error. Considering that the election is still 3 months away, and most undecideds aren’t even paying attention yet, my point still stands - an election this close is still up in the air, although Obama clearly has the advantage. Do you disagree with that, or do you want to nit-pick some more? I don’t disagree with it. It’s just not what you said. You didn’t say “A month ago, this race was almost within the margin of error. It’s changed since, but it’s a temporary blip IMHO.” You only changed now because you were called on it. But hell, if you want to fool yourself about the race being closer than it really is, be my guest. Maybe you can successfully spread the word, and be this season’s Arthur Fremantle. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/429 "2012-08-14T07:20:49Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > …Don’t be silly, how would a reporter even be able to get in a situtation to ask such a question in the first place. If a reporter gets to ask a question at all, the reporter can ask that question. Why would it take some kind of miracle? The real miracle would be Romney answering in the way I want him to. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/430 "2012-08-14T14:03:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > It’s my understanding that that’s not up to Ryan now. It’s too late by Wisconsin law to withdraw his name from the ballot. It’s not like he’s going to be able to campaign for THAT seat in addition to the vice-presidency. > > And it has been done before, most recently by Joe Lieberman in 2000. Oh okay, I had gotten the idea he was staying on the ballot by choice, which would make think that would bother his supporters, but that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/431 "2012-08-14T14:12:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So there’s quite a spread of opinions within the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, and a much, much narrower range of opinions within the conservative movement and the GOP. Absolutely. There are many, many ways to improve our society, a lot of things that need to be worked on to make progress, and the problem for the progressives is setting priorities. But there is no narrower range of opinion possible than No, or No and Go Back, which is all the regressives who control the GOP and enforce their wishes on its members stand for. > [@](#): > > I hate to go over first-grade stuff here, but apparently it’s necessary. Remember, you’re addressing someone who thinks he can lecture the people of a foreign country about what they should \*and do \*think based on reading a few blogs. Maybe actually visiting the place and actually talking with a range of people would do him some good. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/432 "2012-08-14T14:43:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **Fiddle Peghead** tried the same trick: On a board that constantly disparages ‘conservatives’ as a group, I refer to ‘liberals’, and suddenly I’m taken to task for not precisely carving them into smaller sub-groups, and as a result everything I have to say is rendered invalid. First off, what the rest of the board does is irrelevant to me. I never disparage anyone as a group, or individually, unless I have evidence to back it up. How do I disprove what “they” do, when you won’t say precisely who “they” are? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/433 "2012-08-14T14:52:31Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Given that conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals, I don’t think so. And since this is the line that started off everything, can you tell me how you know this to be true? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/434 "2012-08-14T15:34:23Z")
[GOP works on damage control from the Ryan nomination!](http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/14/13277815-a-quiet-panic-behind-the-scenes) I’m liking this pick better all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/435 "2012-08-14T15:52:51Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [GOP works on damage control from the Ryan nomination!](http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/14/13277815-a-quiet-panic-behind-the-scenes) > > I’m liking this pick better all the time. Between Palin and Ryan, you’d think the GOP politicians would start realizing they’ve hitched their wagon to a certifiably insane demographic. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/436 "2012-08-14T16:12:45Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > And since this is the line that started off everything, can you tell me how you know this to be true? Note that libertarians always say that everything will be solved by the free market and private charity. So if you believe what **Sam Stone** says, does that mean that if/when private charity fails to pick up the slack left behind by gutting government services, they can just blame liberals for “not contributing enough”? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/437 "2012-08-14T16:17:14Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Aww, [Mittens cancels Orlando stop due to “exhaustion” after two days of promoting Paul Ryan pick.](http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/romney-camp-cancels-orlando-stop-scheduled-in-florida-tour-due-to-exhaustion) Seriously, he’s tired? The guy who used to be able to lay off a factory and pillage their pensions all before breakfast is all tuckered out after one lousy weekend of campaigning? What’s he gonna do when that 3 am call comes in- hit the snooze button? [Any inconvenient phone calls can be delegated to the kids:](http://jjocarolata.newsvine.com/_news/2012/08/14/13274959-mitt-romney-tagg-tell-that-guy-whats-his-name-and-the-other-guy-no-vp-for-you) > [@](#): > > Mitt Romney’s son Tagg Romney has reportedly informed former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Senator Rob Portman that they will not be Romney’s pick for Vice President. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. ---
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/438 "2012-08-14T16:23:08Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > [Any inconvenient phone calls can be delegated to the kids:](http://jjocarolata.newsvine.com/_news/2012/08/14/13274959-mitt-romney-tagg-tell-that-guy-whats-his-name-and-the-other-guy-no-vp-for-you) Romney’s training the kids for their future top-level cabinet positions. Nepotism - 16th century Catholic Church style. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/439 "2012-08-14T16:23:39Z")
More inside-baseball from Politico: > [@](#): > > [GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html) > > …Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren’t being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right — and a huge chance of going horribly wrong. > > In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election. > > It is not that the public professions of excitement about the Ryan selection are totally insincere. It is that many of the most optimistic Republican operatives will privately acknowledge that their views are being shaped more by fingers-crossed hope than by a hard-headed appraisal of what’s most likely to happen. > > And the more pessimistic strategists don’t even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don’t care that much about Romney — they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory — but are worried that Ryan’s vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races… ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/440 "2012-08-14T16:31:52Z")
My goodness! This pick could actually affect the outcome of the ongoing House and Senate races? I thought Ms. Palin was the nadir of choices. Is Mr. Ryan actually a worse candidate for VP? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157/441 "2012-08-14T16:35:04Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > My goodness! > This pick could actually affect the outcome of the ongoing House and Senate races? > I thought Ms. Palin was the nadir of choices. Is Mr. Ryan actually a worse candidate for VP? Yes. Palin didn’t really have any kind of record for the Obama campaign to drag out of the closet and wave around in front of the cameras, other than just being goofy and corrupt. Ryan has that _in spades_, in the form of his legislative record. His sponsored bills, his votes, seven congressional campaigns to sift through for stuff…it’s not going to be pretty. And every single House Republican (with the exception of FOUR) and NO House Democrats, are tied by vote to the granny-starving Ryan budget. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veep-announcement-romney-picks-paul-ryan/631157.md?page=23)