. . . for picking a VP nominee who might be a “game changer” on the level of ideas. Let’s face it: Romney was tanking. It wasn’t “Hail Mary” time, but he had no offense and he defense was leaky. The cautious approach wasn’t working.
Om the other hand, the media is already calling Ryan a VERY RADICAL choice. And I’ve written before that Americans are actually CONSERVATIVE when it comes to health care, entitlements, and so forth. They like what they have when it comes to employer-based health care, Medicare, and so forth, and they assume all changes will be for the worse. That’s why so many hate ObamaCare because it will runin their employer-based health care and gut Medicare. And that’s why so many are suspicious of Ryan’s alternatives and may hate them when they know more. The movement from DEFINED BENEFITS to DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS is necessary, but it’s not really choiceworthy (most people think) and actually scary. Can Romney/Ryan convince people that there’s no alternative, and they can get the change done in the best way possible? I sure hope so, seeing the Democrats are thrilled to be able to shift the focus of the campaign ever more from Obama’s record to Ryan’s alternative.
On the third hand, Ryan will ignite THE SPIRIT OF 2010 with much of the base. He’s in some ways a smart and wonky version of Palin—a looker, a hunter, a dad, a believer, a courageous maverick, etc. Maybe the libertarian-leaning millennials will embrace him, seeing as they know they’ll never see a dime of Social Security or Medicare anyway. And the campaign will certainly ascend from the spirit of the accountant and the manager to first principles and all that. The ticket will now much more clearly stand for something.
I’ve explained before the benefits of the Mormon/Catholic alliance.