Paul Ryan for Veep?
Bookworm on Aug 07 2012 at 6:48 pm | Filed under: Presidential elections
I am a huge Paul Ryan fan. I think he’s brave, principled, intelligent, articulate, and genuinely cares about America’s economic well-being. He also has the prettiest blue eyes in politics. He appears to be an ever-more serious contender for the VP slot. I think that’s great news, although I understand that (sadly) presidential candidates have to consider not just their Veep pick’s virtues, but whether he’ll actually play well on the ticket.
It seems to me, though, that America has less of a geographic divide than it used to (you know, the old Southern states strategy stuff) and much more of an ideological divide — blue cities (some of which dominate whole states) versus everyone else. If I’m correct in this belief, than having Paul Ryan should transcend geography and simply appeal to those who care deeply about ensuring that America has a healthy economic future.
What do you think (and yes, I really want to know).
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Paul Ryan for Veep?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Perhaps I don’t understand Washington but Ryan seems to be the only one on Capitol Hill trying to find real solutions. My first thought was it would be a shame to move him to a mostly ceremonial position. But perhaps he could remain a driving force for budget reformation as VP
There are three major disadvantages with the VP choice:
1. The VP is constitutionally powerless and plays a (very) subservient role to the president.
2. It locks the party into an apparent heir – 8 years is a long time for the opposition to fire on a defenseless target.
3. It is a career ender for the losing VP candidate. See Quayle and Palin.
I think 43′s choice of Cheney was spot on. My suggestion? Jon Kyl – the most effective politician nobody has ever heard of. He is enormously respected by both parties in both the House and the Senate. There’s a lot to be done and the communication between executive and legislative branches is very important. In this respect LBJ was probably the most effective VP of the last 100 years.
The previous two commenters are spot on. Paul Ryan can do far more good in the House especially if there is another big crop of Tea party freshman. Paul also has some baggage. Other than a brief stint in the family business, constuction, he has no experience outside of government. That point will be made by the dems over and over. The family construction business realy took off buliding the inter state highways in Wisconson. Much will be made over how they benifited from govenment programs.
I like him the best in the suspected field but I also agree with the previous comments that he’s more effective where he is. But–he does bring a young face to the ticket and perhaps would make sense for that reason? Also, does the vp position have to be ceremonial or could he be more involved than others have been? roylofquist, i like your analysis of Cheney and Kyl.
Old Buckeye,
The VP has no official constitutional power except to preside over the Senate and break tie votes. John Nance Garner (VP to FDR) described the office as “not worth a bucket of warm piss”. The President controls.
Cheney was perhaps a more active VP than many, though his actual assigned tasks are unclear – secret. I expect that Romney, a seasoned executive, will make more use of the VP than normal. He will look for qualities and experience other than political appeal.
Roy
The VP has little to do, true enough. It is, however, largely seen as – and has been largely experienced as – “on-the-job training” of a sort for the presidency. I say “largely experienced” in the sense of: by those who’ve held the job. A big piece of choosing a VP ought to be how he relates to the top job – and how he makes people think he could do it if it came up.
Jugears is the 44th president. Of the 44 to this point, 14 of them have been VPs. We like VPs moving into the top job. The only thing we like more than VPs is governors: there have been 19 of them. 21 if you include Jackson and Taft, both of whom were territorial governors. 6 guys were both VP and a governor of somewhere. (Name them without looking it up and win a can of peanut brittle!) “Locking” a party into an heir apparent evidently gives us a pleasing sense of continuity. I’ll have to delve into how many people have run as VP and lost, but I’ll bet it isn’t many. Gore and Humphrey occur immediately; I won’t count Nixon because he won in 1960, as most historians now freely admit; and I can’t think who ran from the VP slot before that and lost.
So while the constitutional actuality of VP may be a job of little genuine merit, there’s not much question it’s seen as being training, or gaining experience. Which is why, to my mind, Cheney was a disaster. Bush left the party with nobody in charge when his term was done, no putative leader, no plan for post-himself; nothing shaping up to anything but chaos. Which chaos spawned the ass*** McCain, which led in turn straight to what we got: Jugears. (Thanks, Bush! Another brilliant maneuver, securing the future! I’m beginning to believe he was damned nearly as dumb as the democraps always said.)
However, that’s off the point and by the way. Yes, VP, while not an important or even useful job in itself, is nonetheless a pointer to the future more often than not. A VP is our second favorite person to put into the presidency. It should be someone who can grow into the future, someone with a future – unlike Cheney and, for that matter, Biden. I think Ryan’s probably the wrong guy for the job right now, but that’s a function (largely, anyway) of him being both more useful and more important right where he is. He’s a new face in congress, he has time. Admittedly, the country may not, but he’ll be in a better position to address that where he is than he would be at the Naval Observatory.
But it has to be someone the people can at least visualize as president. I don’t know if that’s Kyle. We may end up with Ryan more or less by acclamation, unless he pulls the plug as firmly as Rubio apparently has. (And I do think both Rubio and Ryan would work in the white house.) So what we need is someone to get us across the gap, to the point where Ryan and Rubio have a little experience, and both are ready for a further step. (We have a first-term nothing in the white house right now. Other first-termers need not apply for a while, I suspect. Jugears has poisoned that well.) A Coolidge, a place-holder who would be acceptable for the big job, as Coolidge was when Harding died, and would be as willing to step aside as Coolidge was to make room for the up-and-comers. Maybe that’s Kyle. Thompson, Ji9ndal – had to say. People see Jindal as a future star, I’m not so sure. But if he was a good VP, and made a success of it and moved into the top slot, there’d still be time for Ryan or Rubio to run with him as VP, and get to the white house on their own sometime in the 2020s.
I think it’s too early for Ryan.