Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[chuckd]

I wonder how long it will take the Obama campaign to come up with some lady (?) that will claim Ryan fondled here 15 or 20 years ago and he is actually a sexual predator at night.

Of course the allegation will be unproven but it will be in the public domain by then.

Chicago politics does this sort of thing as a general rule, not an exception.

[Jingthing]

I wonder how long it will take the Obama campaign to come up with some lady (?) that will claim Ryan fondled here 15 or 20 years ago and he is actually a sexual predator at night.

Of course the allegation will be unproven but it will be in the public domain by then.

Chicago politics does this sort of thing as a general rule, not an exception.

Don't worry. It won't happen. This Ryan Weinermobile-boy is too cheesy for that.

[spidermike007]

Not much of a development actually. Romney has little chance of winning the election. He has shown during his recent O/S tour that he is nothing but a bumbling idiot and has little or no understanding of what it is that the everyday American wants and needs. Even choosing Ryan as his running mate won't save him.

Obama by a proverbial mile.

You have mis-calculated. There is very little chance of Obama getting re-elected. Just look at the Rasmussen polls. They are the only ones that are not bought and paid for. They consistently show Romney 5 points up. With Ryan he may add to that. Fortunately, the incompetent empty suit "Blumdering Barry" will not be re-elected. That is the only chance the economy has of recovering, as this fool has sabotaged the recovery so far.

[Jingthing]

Not much of a development actually. Romney has little chance of winning the election. He has shown during his recent O/S tour that he is nothing but a bumbling idiot and has little or no understanding of what it is that the everyday American wants and needs. Even choosing Ryan as his running mate won't save him.

Obama by a proverbial mile.

You have mis-calculated. There is very little chance of Obama getting re-elected. Just look at the Rasmussen polls. They are the only ones that are not bought and paid for. They consistently show Romney 5 points up. With Ryan he may add to that. Fortunately, the incompetent empty suit "Blumdering Barry" will not be re-elected. That is the only chance the economy has of recovering, as this fool has sabotaged the recovery so far.

FOX NEWS poll (the right wing propaganda organ of the republican party) poll most recently had Obama UP by NINE points. Yeah, sure, Fox News is paid for.

I don't think Ryan is good for much of a bump. The convention probably is. I reckon right after the convention it will be about even, and then right after the democratic convention Obama will be back up about FIVE points.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[spidermike007]

Thank you Romney for picking Ryan as it increases the chances he will lose:

They are running against a man who presided over the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth and all achieved at a price of an additional $5 trillion of accumulated debt. Fat chance that the failure-in-chief will be reelected.

Yea, all due to his predasessor.

No. You are flat wrong. Some of it was due to W., but alot of it was just due to a fabulous lack of imagination, creativity, experience, and initiative. Compared to the man he lead us to believe, when many of us were fooled, and voted for him the first time, he is a pale shadow, and an empty suit. He has stunned many of us, by following through with so few of his promises. It is almost as if he completely sold out the first 30 days in office. I could name 100 areas where he dropped the ball. I believe the ONLY possibility of the US economy recovering, is to remove this incompetent man from office.

I see your points.

But do you really think that Romney would be better ?

Also, I am not flat wrong.

A lot of sh*t was left over from George W., Dick and their types.

Give the guy another chance.

Jeez, America gave George W. another chance and his father too.

At least Obama is cooler then the alternative.

With this you must agree (I hope).

Or there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

<p>I did not mean to insinuate that Tiny George did not leave a mess in his wake. He was a disaster, as a president, and terribly irresponsible with his fiscal policies. All I was trying to say, was that Obama is also responsible for losing sight of w

[SouthernMan3]

Thank you Romney for picking Ryan as it increases the chances he will lose:

They are running against a man who presided over the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth and all achieved at a price of an additional $5 trillion of accumulated debt. Fat chance that the failure-in-chief will be reelected.

Yea, all due to his predasessor.

No. You are flat wrong. Some of it was due to W., but alot of it was just due to a fabulous lack of imagination, creativity, experience, and initiative. Compared to the man he lead us to believe, when many of us were fooled, and voted for him the first time, he is a pale shadow, and an empty suit. He has stunned many of us, by following through with so few of his promises. It is almost as if he completely sold out the first 30 days in office. I could name 100 areas where he dropped the ball. I believe the ONLY possibility of the US economy recovering, is to remove this incompetent man from office.

I see your points.

But do you really think that Romney would be better ?

Also, I am not flat wrong.

A lot of sh*t was left over from George W., Dick and their types.

Give the guy another chance.

Jeez, America gave George W. another chance and his father too.

At least Obama is cooler then the alternative.

With this you must agree (I hope).

Or there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

<p>I did not mean to insinuate that Tiny George did not leave a mess in his wake. He was a disaster, as a president, and terribly irresponsible with his fiscal policies. All I was trying to say, was that Obama is also responsible for losing sight of w

Well, we shall see as with any luck (barring the American peoples' ignorance) he will win again this time around.

[Ulysses G.]

You have mis-calculated. There is very little chance of Obama getting re-elected. Just look at the Rasmussen polls. They are the only ones that are not bought and paid for. They consistently show Romney 5 points up. With Ryan he may add to that. Fortunately, the incompetent empty suit "Blumdering Barry" will not be re-elected. That is the only chance the economy has of recovering, as this fool has sabotaged the recovery so far.

Ryan is very good at explaining his positions and Romney really needs help with this. Initially, I was hoping for Chris Christie or Marco Rubio, but I have been reviewing old videos of Ryan talking to congress and Ryan is good!

[coma]

Not much of a development actually. Romney has little chance of winning the election. He has shown during his recent O/S tour that he is nothing but a bumbling idiot and has little or no understanding of what it is that the everyday American wants and needs. Even choosing Ryan as his running mate won't save him.

Obama by a proverbial mile.

You have mis-calculated. There is very little chance of Obama getting re-elected. Just look at the Rasmussen polls. They are the only ones that are not bought and paid for. They consistently show Romney 5 points up. With Ryan he may add to that. Fortunately, the incompetent empty suit "Blumdering Barry" will not be re-elected. That is the only chance the economy has of recovering, as this fool has sabotaged the recovery so far.

FOX NEWS poll (the right wing propaganda organ of the republican party) poll most recently had Obama UP by NINE points. Yeah, sure, Fox News is paid for.

I don't think Ryan is good for much of a bump. The convention probably is. I reckon right after the convention it will be about even, and then right after the democratic convention Obama will be back up about FIVE points.

I personally don't go much on polls. When it comes to politics and elections the proof is in the pudding. And there will be no pudding until November. However Jing is right about fox news. If they are not a pro republican outfit then who or what is ?? If one thinks otherwise then they would be playing with themselves.

[Jingthing]

The bottom line is motivating asses to go to the polls.

The Ryan pick falls right into Obama's strategy of correctly demonizing the Romney ticket as radically right wing. It IS radically right wing.

A vote for Romney Ryan is a vote:

against gay civil rights

against women's rights

for dismantling Medicare

for privatizing social security

for a tax policy massively favoring the elite class

for literally sacrificing millions of American poor and minority lives

for a hawkish military policy

If that doesn't energize Obama's base, nothing will. Trust me, it will. We may even be looking at another Obama landslide now.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[coma]

Obama and Biden -- very strong experience on foreign policy in a time of war.

Romney and Ryan -- NO experience. None. Zilch. Nada.

These republicans are just too risky.

You've got to be joking, Obama has been the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter. Now thanks to his endorsement of the so called Arab spring we have Islamist control over much of the middle east, not to mention it's infiltration of the U.S government. We are effectively negotiating terms of our own surrender to the Taliban whilst leaving Iraq torn by sectarian strife and with a pro-Iranian government.

Ryan could do no worse if he actually tried, which worryingly is what Obama seems to have conciously done.

I have no idea whether Ryan would improve or damage the Republicans chances compared to a more centrist candidate, but such is the devastation Obama has left in his wake that middle of the road policies would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. A rapid and radical reversal of the last 4 years is the only hope for saving the U.S from collapse.

On the contrary. President Obama repaired a great deal of damage done by the previous Bush administration. He has more influence than Bush ever had and he is genjuinely well regarded by other governments. More importantly, he is perceived as the President that is bringing the troops home. The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were two of the major expenditures that pushed the USA to the brink of bankruptcy. The ongoing obligations in Afghanistan are costing the USA billions of $$ it doesn't have. If it wasn't for President Obama, we'd have another war going on in the middle east with Iran firing missiles into the EU and most likely massive destruction in Israel. In fairness to Ryan, he is for restraint as well, although, Romney has a different public stance.

It was President Obama's prudent approach that kept the USA from a political disaster in North Africa and under the Obama administration the likelihood of another international conflict was reduced. Both Obama and Biden understand the complex dynamics of poverty in the USA, while neither Romney nor Ryan do.

The budget crisis could be fixed if the GOP would allow some of the massive defence expenditures to be cut. All they have to do is accept some of the Pentagon's recommendations. Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with GOP contributors that make their living from ongoing market turmoil and the military industrial complex. It's not the regular American that is speculating in the market and that has access to inside trading information or that has access to the stock brokerage trading software. The average American can't take advantage of the tax loopholes that the GOP has rabidly guarded.

My biggest fear now is interference from outsiders. Another terrorist attack or worse, a stupid decision on the part of Netanyahu. In the meantime, the Chinese and Russians will sit back and laugh as Americans spend more time attacking each other than on working together.

WoW !! I find myself in total agreeance with the Kid. The last paragragh particularly. After Mr Romneys remarks whilst touring the Middle East recently, all looking for the big Israeli donations for his campaign, has brought bad, unneccesary attention to the US from those he insulted . He is a diplomatic nightmare waiting to happen.

[Ulysses G.]

It IS radically right wing.

Radical right wing is Timothy Mcveigh. Romney and Ryan are center right like Ronald Reagan and most of America,.

[Gary A]

It seems pretty simple to me. The flaming liberals like the idea of the government taking care of everyone from cradle to grave. In fact I like it too, but I am aware that big government is wasteful as well as inefficient.

The huge problem with big government and the massive welfare schemes is that someone has to pay for them. The problem has been overlooked by several presidents and this one in particular.

Romney and Ryan will be lucky to get elected because if you take all the government employees and the professional welfare clients, the democrats already have about half of the votes. If Romney does get elected, I hope he listens to Ryan, and makes the tough choices to get the country back on the right track.

Forget about raising taxes on the rich, just close the massive loopholes that enable the wealthy people and large companies to pay little or no taxes. Even the liberals have to know that things cannot continue this way. The well is dry and painful sacrifices will have to be made.

[Jingthing]

It IS radically right wing.

Radical right wing is Timothy Mcveigh. Romney and Ryan are center right like Ronald Reagan and most of America,.

You're confused now. Ryan is definitely far right wing. I didn't say he was a TERRORIST! The reason I think you're confused is that America is a right wing country. In reality Obama is objectively a slightly left of center MODERATE. But in the context of a right wing country like the USA he is labeled as a communist/socialist by far right wing people like the entire base of the very right wing republican party. Edited August 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

We may even be looking at another Obama landslide now.

Not with unemployment at 8.3.

[Jingthing]

We may even be looking at another Obama landslide now.

Not with unemployment at 8.3.

You don't get it!

This election isn't about the economy/unemployment now.

It is NOT a referendum on Obama's performance now.

Romney changed that with the Ryan pick because he realized he wasn't winning on that.

Now it is a stark CHOICE election.

Radical right wing, gut the poor vs. the more humanitarian democratic party ideals.

The USA is right wing but not THAT right wing. Obama wins this one.

[coma]

It seems pretty simple to me. The flaming liberals like the idea of the government taking care of everyone from cradle to grave. In fact I like it too, but I am aware that big government is wasteful as well as inefficient.

The huge problem with big government and the massive welfare schemes is that someone has to pay for them. The problem has been overlooked by several presidents and this one in particular.

Romney and Ryan will be lucky to get elected because if you take all the government employees and the professional welfare clients, the democrats already have about half of the votes. If Romney does get elected, I hope he listens to Ryan, and makes the tough choices to get the country back on the right track.

Forget about raising taxes on the rich, just close the massive loopholes that enable the wealthy people and large companies to pay little or no taxes. Even the liberals have to know that things cannot continue this way. The well is dry and painful sacrifices will have to be made.

Add to those numbers the coloured, same sex couples and the greater gay community votes which I think will tend to gravitate toward Obama more so than Romney and Ryan and you may well have a slam dunk election. But as I stated in a previous post. Time will tell.

[coma]

We may even be looking at another Obama landslide now.

Not with unemployment at 8.3.

You don't get it!

This election isn't about the economy/unemployment now.

It is NOT a referendum on Obama's performance now.

Romney changed that with the Ryan pick because he realized he wasn't winning on that.

Now it is a stark CHOICE election.

Radical right wing, gut the poor vs. the more humanitarian democratic party ideals.

The USA is right wing but not THAT right wing. Obama wins this one.

That is it Jing. Keep on

[chuckd]

It seems pretty simple to me. The flaming liberals like the idea of the government taking care of everyone from cradle to grave. In fact I like it too, but I am aware that big government is wasteful as well as inefficient.

The huge problem with big government and the massive welfare schemes is that someone has to pay for them. The problem has been overlooked by several presidents and this one in particular.

Romney and Ryan will be lucky to get elected because if you take all the government employees and the professional welfare clients, the democrats already have about half of the votes. If Romney does get elected, I hope he listens to Ryan, and makes the tough choices to get the country back on the right track.

Forget about raising taxes on the rich, just close the massive loopholes that enable the wealthy people and large companies to pay little or no taxes. Even the liberals have to know that things cannot continue this way. The well is dry and painful sacrifices will have to be made.

Add to those numbers the coloured, same sex couples and the greater gay community votes which I think will tend to gravitate toward Obama more so than Romney and Ryan and you may well have a slam dunk election. But as I stated in a previous post. Time will tell.

What you are all conveniently overlooking is the groups that have been mentioned, (i.e. gays, black voters, same sex couples (gays?), government workers, welfare recipients, etc), have always voted Democrat. They have never supported the republicans in any great numbers.

There is no difference with this election in that regard?

The outcome will be decided by the independent voters.

[Steely Dan]

It IS radically right wing.

Radical right wing is Timothy Mcveigh. Romney and Ryan are center right like Ronald Reagan and most of America,.

Ryan is only radically right wing compared to the current democrat administration, but that is due to it being the radical left with all it's mudslinging and tendency to break the rules whilst trying to cover this up. The MSM have largely been complicit in building this illusion.

[Jingthing]

I'm not at all surprised but just so you know, the American public is extremely underwhelmed with the choice of Ryan as a VP candidate. Not as VP because he will never actually be a VP. VP candidate. Wannabe. Won't-be.

Not sure who he could have picked who would have given Romney a real substantive bump. Well, Condie Rice of course would have thrilled the public including swing voters, but he couldn't pick her because their platform is so radically right wing that someone who is moderate on abortion rights is automatically disqualified.

According to Gallup, the overall evaluation is the worst since Dan Quayle’s selection in 1988, while the number believing Ryan is qualified is lower than all but Quayle and Sarah Palin in 2008 (from polling that goes back only to 1988; via Nate Silver). A Washington Post/ABC News poll found an immediate jump in Ryan’s positive ratings — but only to a lukewarm 38 percent favorable, 33 percent negative plurality. This does not appear to be a pick that’s getting immediate rave reviews from voters.

...

At any rate, the one thing you surely don’t want to be doing after announcing your running mate is having to make the case that he’s more qualified than Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin. And if there are a couple more polls like this one, that might be where Mitt Romney will find himself.

http://www.washingto...fb285_blog.html

Edited August 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Another thing to consider. Pundits are saying the Romney Ryan ticket has the least foreign policy experience of any ticket since 1912. In a time of war when a new war with Iran is quite possible. Romney and Ryan in sum have no foreign policy experience whatsoever Working as a Mormon missionary or an embarrassing trip to the London Olympics doesn't count. Ryan is basically a provincial hayseed when it comes to foreign issues. Now even if you don't like Obama, he has been commander in chief in wartime for a term already and Biden was picked largely for his foreign policy credentials. Supposing, just supposing, there is a new flare up between now and the election? Nobody would wish that, but if it happens it will massively favor the Obama ticket. Also in the VP debate Biden will cream Ryan on foreign policy topics. Compared to Biden, Ryan is a like a junior high school nerdy kid.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not at all surprised but just so you know, the American public is extremely underwhelmed with the choice of Ryan as a VP candidate.

The same old nonsense. Even the left-wing blogger on the link admits that Ryan is not well known yet. As far as comparing him to Quayle and Palin, that is more spin. They were not unpopular when they were nominated as no one knew anything about them yet. The blogger just wanted an excuse to mention their names.

"The Romney campaign told USA Today that the lousy numbers reflect mainly that Ryan isn’t well known, and that’s probably correct".

Actually, some democrats have already come out and said that Ryan is s good man, smart as hell and that there is nothing "scary" about his budget plan. The guy is a wholesome boy scout and these partisan attempts to smear his character will fail in the end.

[Jingthing]

Maybe not scary to YOU. Scary to poor people and minorities. Scary to the people on MEDICAID, the millions of them, that Romney/Ryan seek to cut, and yes, let die. BTW, more on his bizarre Ayn Randism in this link.

How can Ryan justify his Medicaid cuts when, as the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found, they would likely leave 14 million to 19 million poor people without health coverage? How can he justify tax proposals that, as The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis pointed out, would reduce the rate on Mitt Romney’s rather substantial income to less than 1 percent? How can he claim his budgets are anti-deficit measures when, as The Post’s Matt Miller has noted, his tax cuts would add trillions to the debt and we wouldn’t be in balance until somewhere around 2030?

http://www.washingto...40a0_story.html Edited August 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Yet another opinion piece from an admitted liberal. Yes, Ryan liked to read Ayn Rand novels when he was a kid and as an adult he dismisses her views. More attempts to demonize a respected man.

Concerning Medicaid the changes would take place over 10 years. Spending in 2014 would be held roughly to 2012 levels and then allowed to rise from there; the rise, however, would not be as fast as under the current baseline which is the whole point. We are going broke. We have to cut down the spending or lose Medicaid and Medicare all together.

The change in Medicare would not affect current recipients at all. In fact anyone who is 55 or older would not be affected. Something has to be done to cut entitlement costs and Ryan's reforms have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late 1990s. His reforms are far from radical and he is the only one willing to propose reforms that everyone knows are needed and come up with an actual plan .

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Maybe not scary to YOU. Scary to poor people and minorities. Scary to the people on MEDICAID, the millions of them, that Romney/Ryan seek to cut, and yes, let die. BTW, more on his bizarre Ayn Randism in this link.

How can Ryan justify his Medicaid cuts when, as the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found, they would likely leave 14 million to 19 million poor people without health coverage? How can he justify tax proposals that, as The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis pointed out, would reduce the rate on Mitt Romney’s rather substantial income to less than 1 percent? How can he claim his budgets are anti-deficit measures when, as The Post’s Matt Miller has noted, his tax cuts would add trillions to the debt and we wouldn’t be in balance until somewhere around 2030?

http://www.washingto...40a0_story.html

Maybe not scary to YOU. Scary to poor people and minorities. Scary to the people on MEDICAID, the millions of them, that Romney/Ryan seek to cut, and yes, let die. BTW, more on his bizarre Ayn Randism in this link.

How can Ryan justify his Medicaid cuts when, as the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found, they would likely leave 14 million to 19 million poor people without health coverage? How can he justify tax proposals that, as The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis pointed out, would reduce the rate on Mitt Romney’s rather substantial income to less than 1 percent? How can he claim his budgets are anti-deficit measures when, as The Post’s Matt Miller has noted, his tax cuts would add trillions to the debt and we wouldn’t be in balance until somewhere around 2030?

http://www.washingto...40a0_story.html

How did Obama justify his $700 Billion cut to Medicaid contained in Obamacare?

It didn't seem to bother you then, why is it coming up now?

Ryan's plan does not affect anybody aged 55 or over and offers a choice for persons under that age to either stay in the current program or choose another option from his plan.

Like all Democratic talking points the attempt to baffle with BS overwhelms the facts.

PS: Your link's author is in the tank for Obama. His piece is an opinion piece only.

[Gary A]

It's all well and good to talk about socialist schemes, welfare and old people. BUT, there is a massive problem with those programs. Where is the money going to come from to pay for them? It should be quite obvious that getting the budget balanced is going to be painful to a lot of people. Eliminating the loopholes in the tax codes, getting professional welfare leaches off the roles, reducing the size of the bloated government, stopping paying Social Security to dead people and getting the fakers off disability insurance paid for by Social Security will be a big help.

Politicians refuse to talk about having to make painful cuts. They will cheat, lie and tell foolish people want they want to hear to get votes. When the entire bottom drops out, they will blame someone else. Sound familiar?

Isn't it obvious by now that big government is not capable of managing these programs? The bloated government's appointed scoundrels who oversee the programs are incompetent as well as corrupt.

[Suradit69]

Ryan scores lowest poll numbers since Quayle

In a nationwide survey taken Sunday, 39% of registered voters call Republican contender Mitt Romney's selection of Ryan "excellent" or "pretty good" while 45% rate it as "only fair" or "poor." Sixteen percent have no opinion.

That's the most tepid reception for a running mate since 1988, when then-vice president George H.W. Bush picked Quayle, an Indiana senator who immediately ran into questions about his draft history during the Vietnam War and whether he was prepared for the presidency.

In comparison, John McCain's surprise choice of then-Alaska governor Sarah Palin four years ago was rated as excellent or good by 46%, fair or poor by 37%

http://www.usatoday....poll/57038326/1

[chuckd]

Another poll taken when Ryan is relatively unknown.

It didn't take Obama's trained seal very long to get nasty though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden Invokes Paul Ryan's Deceased Father to Question VP Candidate's Values

2:09 PM, AUG 13, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RncLY64wh3c

"My dad used to have another saying, for real," Biden said. "And, by the way, I've been saying this for 30 years. And I'm glad to see that Congressman Ryan likes his dad, too, and quotes his dad. I mean that sincerely. But my dad [had] a lot of wisdom. Every time someone tell you, say, 'Look, let me tell you what's important to me, what I value.' My dad would go, 'No, no. Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.'"

Ryan's father died when the congressman was 15 years old.

http://www.weeklysta...ues_649913.html

Edited August 14, 2012 by chuckd

[koheesti]

However Jing is right about fox news. If they are not a pro republican outfit then who or what is ?? If one thinks otherwise then they would be playing with themselves.

Fox News does support the Republicans and people think this is a bad thing yet at the same time they have no problem with NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and CNN all supporting the Democrats. Score for those paying attention: TV networks favoring Republicans: 1. Favoring Democrats: 6.

The networks supporting the Dems have all ignored the goofs, gaffes and crimes of Obama for years and blow out of proportion those of Republicans. They went over the top going after Palin, sending 60 reporters to Alaska to investigate the Republican's VP candidate but no one to check on the Dems Presidential candidate Obama's background. You can bet with Ryan the 6 networks I mentioned (plus major newspapers) will do all they can to dig up dirt and if they don't find it, they WILL make it up. That's a guarantee.

[Scott]

Many, many years ago I worked in social services where it was known as the 'welfare' office. The bureaucracy has since been trimmed a little, but the massive amount of expenditure on staff etc. was enormous. The amount of money spent on quality control--to make sure no one received one penny more than they were entitled to was unbelievable.

But hey, if you want to spent $10,000 to save $1.00 it's fine with me...it provides a lot of employment.

I notice, however, that the number of people who are audited by the IRS pales in comparison to what recipients of public funds are subjected to.