August 13th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
The Ryan Pick
Count me pleasantly surprised by Saturday’s announcement that Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan as his running mate. Given the risk-averse nature the Romney campaign had demonstrated up to this point, I was expecting the choice to be bland and uninspiring — my foremost guesses having been Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty (for what it’s worth, multiple reports seem to indicate that Romney’s final choice came down to those two and Ryan). Ryan, who truly has been the intellectual leader of the Republican Party for the past several years, is a vastly superior choice to either of those two.
I have no idea how the politics of this play out. It seems to me that the fears that liberal demagoguery of the Ryan budget could cost Romney Florida are well-founded, given the state’s huge population of seniors. Minus the Sunshine State, it’s hard to envision a scenario where Romney becomes the 45th President of the United States in January. I also remain skeptical that, even with Ryan on the ticket, Wisconsin will elude Obama’s grasp this time (I hope I’m wrong about this, but it seems to me that the conservative commentariat has been excessively enthusiastic about prospects for flipping the Badger State ever since the Scott Walker recall).
These are not causes for despair necessarily, but cautionary notes as we begin the campaign in earnest after Labor Day. The Romney campaign — not known heretofore for its exceptional messaging skills — has just given itself perhaps the most daunting communications task in the history of modern American presidential elections. This election will no longer be a backwards-looking discussion about Barack Obama’s stewardship of the American economy over the past four years; instead it will be a 90-day symposium about what the “social contract” (a phrase I loathe, but one that will carry the day) will look like in 21st Century America.
The advantage that Romney and Ryan have is that their vision — reining in spending, empowering individuals, reducing the debt, and reasserting individual responsibility — is the only one that is viable in the long-term. The advantage that Obama and Biden have is that their vision — an unsustainable status quo that cossets Americans from responsibility and hides the calamitous costs of the welfare state — is much less psychologically disruptive, a trait that (sadly) goes a long way in winning over a substantial portion of the electorate.
The stakes of this election have just become enormous. This is no longer about whether Mitt Romney will become president or not. It’s now about whether the conservative vision for arresting America’s decline will receive popular ratification. And there are only 12 weeks to make the case. With the smartest, most articulate defender of the conservative alternative now on the ticket, we’re about to run out of excuses. If we can’t win this time, the resultant chaos will make the aftermath of the 2008 election look like a garden party.
July 17th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Conservative Senators Kill Law of the Sea Treaty
This is a big win for those who don’t want to see the United Nations’ grow in both power and resources. From the Daily Caller:
With 34 Republican senators now opposing a United Nations effort to regulate international waters, the Law of the Sea treaty effectively has no way forward in the U.S. Senate.
Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Johnny Isakson of Georgia joined 30 other GOP members in agreeing to vote against the U.N. treaty.
For guidance as to why this was the right decision, one need look no further than an op-ed penned by former Attorney General Edwin Meese earlier this year in the Los Angeles Times:
President Reagan so strongly opposed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that he didn’t just not sign the treaty. He very publicly refused to sign it. He also dismissed the State Department staff that helped negotiate it. And in case anyone didn’t get the message, he sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld on a globe-trotting mission to explain his opposition and urge other nations to follow suit.
…
In a 1978 radio address titled “Ocean Mining,” he asserted that “no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” He added: “No one has ruled out the idea of a [Law of the Sea] treaty — one which makes sense — but after long years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations who now control the General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense, again.”
This was exactly what was at stake here. Passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have given United Nations bureaucrats a veto over American deep-sea mining efforts, redistributed royalties from American energy development to other nations, and even created the potential for back-door international carbon regulation through the treaty’s requirements for mandatory dispute resolution.
Senate Republicans did the responsible thing — they won one for the Gipper.
Tags: Cap and Trade, Donald Rumsfeld, Ed Meese, energy, Johnny Isakson, Kelly Ayotte, Law of the Sea Treaty, Mike Johanns, Rob Portman, Ronald Reagan, United Nations
July 12th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Entering the VP Scrum
One thought on Quin and Ashton‘s back and forth on possible VP choices for the Romney campaign (a conversation I join with football pads):
I remain a firm backer of Jon Kyl (a position that seems to have attracted only Quin and Ben Domenech — it may not even carry a majority in the Kyl household), for the simple reason that I think he would make the best Vice President (see here and here for why).
That being said, Ashton is probably right that Christie is the best candidate. As you’ve probably heard ad nauseam by now (because there’s no pundit in America who has any original analysis on the mechanics of picking a number two), it often falls to the running mate to be the attack dog on the stump. And, frankly, there’s no one else in the GOP whose bite packs as many pounds per square inch as Christie’s.
He also has an unusual asset for a gadfly — he’ll change some minds. There’s a certain kind of American voter — blue-collar, broad-shouldered, bearing a five o’clock shadow and calloused hands — who has a visceral hatred for the effete liberalism of Obama but won’t be much more smitten with a corporate titan like Romney. Christie will resonate with those folks. They know Chris Christie. They go to work with Chris Christies. They sit next to Chris Christies at little league games. And the Chris Christies of the world are the people they’d call to watch the kids if there was an emergency.
As for his actual usefulness in the office of the vice presidency? I don’t see it. Christie is far too strong a personality for the number two job, is doing too much useful work in New Jersey to be employed as an understudy, and — if in fact he has presidential ambitions — is probably better served by remaining a free agent than tying himself to the Romney brand.
My actual prediction? Rob Portman. And if not him, someone else who will probably make us all shrug and go on with our lives as if nothing much has happened. The Romney campaign doesn’t do excitement.
April 19th, 2012 at 11:40 am
V-P Analysis Begins
Michael Barone has a very wise piece today on why Mitt Romney may go the “white bread” route — or, as he puts it, “double vanilla” — in choosing a vice president. He focuses on Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Rob Portman, and Bob McDonnell, and I agree that all four of them would each be a solid choice.
On the extreme other side of the VP-strategery spectrum is my column today at The American Spectator online about a “Crazy Eight” of potential long-shot choices, which include a mix of ethnicities, genders, ages, and even political parties. I’ll ask you to read it for yourselves… but PLEASE note what I went to great pains to repeat, but which some readers apparently overlooked, which is that this is the first of a multi-part series I am writing on the subject, and thus amounts to a creative list of long-shot outliers, not the likely picks or the ones I think would be best. It is an illustrative list, to show the sorts of creativity Romney should use in analyzing every angle. These are not me recommendations as to who the choice should be, but they are suggestions for the sorts of people who should be on the original, very long, list under preliminary consideration. Subsequent columns will move into more likely, and probably more wise or desirable, territory (although I do think one or two of the Crazy Eight should move up the ranks at least somewhat).
For the record, I think Barone’s list is a mighty fine one.
August 10th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Savvy McConnell Names Terrific Trio to Super Committee
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) earned his position today by naming three conservative workhorses to represent the Senate GOP in the new “Super Congress” charged with eliminating more than $1 trillion in federal spending.
Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) is getting the lion’s share of attention because of his former leadership of the conservative Club for Growth, and his opposition to the debt deal that created the committee he’ll serve on. But McConnell deserves some serious thanks from the Tea Party for also naming Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rob Portman (R-OH).
Both Kyl and Portman own reputations as serious policy wonks who know how to get substantial conservative victories in government negotiations. (Kyl is an expert on foreign affairs, defense, and tax issues, while Portman served as President George W. Bush’s OMB Director and Free Trade Representative.)
For his part, Toomey is no slouch when it comes to putting skins on the wall. (Under Toomey, Club for Growth helped illuminate the economic records of several Republican candidates, helping to identify which were in line with less government.)
All told, the Tea Party should be very pleased that Leader McConnell has named a terrific trio to grow the federal government down in a smart and lasting way.
Tags: budget, Club for Growth, conservative, Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey, Rob Portman, Senate, super congress, taxes, tea party
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube