The WSJ heads an editorial this morning with “Why Not Paul Ryan?Romney can win a big election over big issues. He’ll lose a small one.”
Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can’t have that.All of which highly recommend him for the job.
I like it. I really like it. “The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline.” Yes, that;s just what my young friends talk about. I’d love to hear someone in the campaign talking about that as well as exemplifying it as Ryan would do.
Let’s talk big. “Above all, Americans are hungry for leadership. They want leaders willing to take on the hard issues . . . .” which is why Obama had appeal four years ago. He was just stupid and wrongheaded about those big issues. That his left-looking vision has made everything worse, there’s something to that makes talking about unseating an incumbent worth talking about. Ryan can discuss the details, too, which is a plus.
I know, Pete has his reasons why not, but everyone possible as VP candidate has some problem and therefore, why not Paul Ryan?
