How Romney and Ryan can win

Now that Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, it’s time for the real election fun to begin.

The intent behind Romney’s choice seems clear enough – he is taking the fight to Obama and will challenge both his methodology for governing and the results of his policies.  Paul Ryan is an intelligent, articulate spokesman for what is wrong, fiscally, with our government.  And he has been one of the Republican party’s best “idea men,” with HR 2520 (Patient’s Choice Act, 2009) and The Path To Prosperity (fiscal 2012 budget plan) including a proposed major overhaul of Medicare, to his credit.

This of course is in stark contrast to President Obama, who boasted heartily about “my plan” for health care and “my plan” for energy during the 2008 election, but so far has failed to submit a single comprehensive plan for anything to Congress, and has instead relied on Democratic special interests, senior party members, and corporate lobbyists to write his Administration’s legislation.

Naturally, the “two evil rich white guys” smears have started on the Left.  (An Instapundit commenter quipped, “How long will it be before the MSM writes a snarky article about Romney and Ryan being like two young Mormon missionaries coming to your door. I mean, can Maureen Dowd even resist?”)  How the Romney/Ryan ticket is richer, whiter, or more establishment than Kerry/Edwards was 8 years ago is beyond me, but then again that’s the nature of politics.

I’m very excited about a Romney/Ryan ticket.  In fact, right now I’m very close to believing that the Republicans might actually put together a bold, successful presidential campaign centered around the ideological failings of big government socialism and collectivism.  After all, “Democrat policy fail” is an extremely target rich environment these days.

Writing in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer argues for a campaign that simply and straightforwardly recaps President Obama’s core ideologies, the policies that resulted from those beliefs, and their subsequent dramatic failure:

Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly in a series of major addresses during the first months of his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it. Hence his signature legislation:

First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to “reinvest” in America and bring unemployment below 6 percent. We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?

Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health-care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

Except that Obamacare adds to spending. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Obamacare will incur $1.68 trillion of new expenditures in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.

The third part of Obama’s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat. Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal.

That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year’s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?

I agree with Krauthammer.  Blaming the President for the failures of the last four years will be ineffective unless Romney and Ryan can simply and directly illustrate the fundamental shortcomings of Obama’s ideologies.  Once you are able to convince a majority of voters that the President’s failures are not due to Republican obstructionism, but instead are the result of a set of ideas that are fatally flawed, then you win the election.  When you convince America that Barack Obama is “stuck on stupid” with respect to failed ideas, and that he has nothing to offer except the same failed ideas over and over again, then he becomes unelectable.

I also think Romney and Ryan should spend a significant amount of time revisiting the “Messiah” myths that swirled around candidate Obama during the 2008 election.  I would encourage them to revisit this eye-rolling puff piece from Cass Sunstein over and over again – “The Obama I Know“:

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years — a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

… He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

… As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn’t even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.

… In short, Obama’s own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between “the left” and “the right”. To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

Then hit voters with a shocking reality check – the number of vacations, the number of rounds of golf, the number of meetings with Democrat special interests vs. the number of meetings with Republican congressional leaders, the amount of Republican-backed legislation blocked and stalled by Democratic Congressional leaders, the amount of government largesse awarded to big campaign contributors and other cronies, and so forth.

Obama supporters like Spike Lee want to make excuses for their Chosen One’s failures by blaming us for setting our expectations of Obama too high.  But we aren’t the ones responsible for his flawed worldview built around big government socialism, collectivism and critical race theory.  Obama, and Obama alone, is responsible for his failed policies.  If Romney and Ryan can likewise convince America, while at the same time offering an easy to understand set of alternative ideas with a proven track record of success, then the election is theirs to win.


Posted by on August 11, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    I hope they quote Timmy Giethner often; “Plan? We don’t have a plan. We just don’t like yours!”

    Kinda goes hand in hand with the budget and Harry Reid. ‘We don’t we have a plan, and we don’t even bother to pass a budget!’

  • StottingNoise5
    • Scribe of Slog (McGehee)


  • Barry Stallings

    I hope they quote the Republican leadership. That their number one goal was, and is, to make Obama a one-term president. To me, that indicates that they really could care less about how that effects the American people.

    • JLawson

      After having seen what Obama’s done in one term, in two years with complete cooperation of the House and Senate…

      Anyone who votes for Obama could care less about how he actually effects the American people.

      A whole lot of people expected Obama to actually be capable and competent – despite nothing in his record indicating it. It’s time to get him out, because he’s a walking disaster.

    • 914

      “That their number one goal was, and is, to make Obama a one-term president.”

      Thank goodness! These 4 years have seemed like 12.. Which is about how long it going to take to realize a quarter of the damage this ass clown has caused.

      Carry on..

      • herddog505

        Exactly. We’ve had three and half years of high unemployment, massive spending, a government that can’t be bothered to pass a budget, and billions – perhaps trillions – wasted on “green energy” and other payoffs to Barry’s political allies.

        If they can do it, getting that son of a b*tch out of office will be the best thing the Republicans have done since Reagan wrecked the USSR.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          You guys keep preaching to the choir! How choosng an Ayn Rand radical such as Ryan, as your running mate, is going to win over the moderate, swing independent voters, key to the election and in the states you must have, in retirement Florida and blue color Ohio, is a little mystifying! I could understand if there was no electoral college.. and your base should already be energized enough in August, if Obama is that bad!

          • jim_m

            If you were less ignorant you would know that Ryan polls well among seniors and independents. For people who actually listen to him rather than the left wing talking points about him, they see that he is serious about achieving an equitable fix to entitlements. They see that he is knowledgeable and is not the evil ideologue that the left portrays him to be.

            If all you listen to is the MSM then you will see him as the man who wants to push grandma off the cliff. If you bother to educate yourself you sill see that he is very well informed and has a long term vision for this country.

            It amazes me that what everyone wants is someone who will take a long term view on entitlement reform and when we get one the left runs like hell away from it. It only serves to confirm that the left is not interested in fixing this nation’s finances. The left wants to extend the free ride as long as they can and then hopes to freeze the state of affairs so that they are left on easy street and everyone else has to pick up the pieces.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Ayn Rand radical?

            Geez, if anyone thought that would stick, wouldn’t they have used it 3 elections ago in Wisconsin?

          • jim_m

            Nah, they knew that the invincible dem machine would crush the GOP.

            I wonder how many communist revolutionaries and domestic terrorists one has to run around with to be considered a radical these days.

        • Commander_Chico

          Reagan didn’t wreck the USSR – they wrecked themselves. As the USA is doing now.

          The United States is in steep decline. Plagued by runaway debt, a shrinking economy, and environmental catastrophes to rival Chernobyl, the United States has been retracing the trajectory of the Soviet Union in the early 1980s toward national bankruptcy and political dissolution. By comparing a collapse that has run its course to one that is now unfolding, Dmitry Orlov holds a unique lens up to America’s present and future.
          As Orlov’s predictions continue to come true, his writing continues to gain mainstream acceptance. This revised and updated edition of Reinventing Collapse examines the circumstances of the demise of the Soviet superpower and offers clear insights into how we might prepare for the events that are unfolding here.

          • Jerzey George

            “You see, predicting that
            something is going to happen is a lot easier than predicting when
            something will happen.”
            The only realistic statement that Orlov makes, He just generalizes everything else He says, superimposing the failure of the USSR
            over His idea of the coming failure of the USA. The main difference He fails to comprehend is the dynamic of the US market and the inflexibility of the old soviet model. The soviets systemic weaknesses hastened its downfall but it was The United States that prevented further expansion of the USSR and that single point was mostly responsible for its demise. It could no longer rely on fresh loot to sustain it. Once it had to solely rely on it own resources the system strangled it and the slide accelerated. Reagan and his team recognized this and applied the pressure to accelerate the process even more to finish them off. Yes Chico there was a Soviet Union and the United States buried it with Capitalism.
            After President Romney is inaugurated You will see how fast We do bounce back. Then you and Orlov can shake your head and wonder how you screwed that one up.

          • Commander_Chico

            You fail to recognize that the “market” in the USA is now characterized by financial manipulation, control fraud, and collecting rents. The bankers control all. The recent decision by DOJ not to prosecute Goldman Sachs over the Abacus fraud is a symbol of all that has gone wrong.

          • Jerzey George

            Maybe you’re onto something as I am still trying to figure out how Jon Corzine is not facing charges as well . As for DOJ please they cannot even prosecute an open and shut case, NBP anyone ?

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, Corzine is another example.

          • jim_m

            Name one US environmental catastrophe that in any way approaches Chernobyl. You are detached from reality.

          • MoReport

            They wrecked themselves trying to counter US actions taken for the purpose of making the soviets overextend themselves.

    • David Robertson

      Whenever a Republican is elected President of the USA, the goal of the Democratic Party is to make that Republican a one-term president, and vice-versa. That is simply a fact of life.

    • retired.military

      IT would vastly improve the lot of the American people if Obama is fired.

  • JLawson

    “I mean, can Maureen Dowd even resist?”

    I don’t know. When was the last time she got laid? If she’s had some recently she might not even be interested…

    • Brucehenry

      Wow. That there’s some enlightened, 21st Century thinking.

      • Rusty Shackleford

        Actually, JLawson is right and I have made the same observation about her. If she wasn’t such a preachy lefty-Harpy, she might get her pluming cleaned-out once in a while.

  • jim_m

    It won’t be hard with former obama supporters like Mort Zuckerman making this kind of argument:

    Under Obama, the New American Dream Is a Job

    Jobs have long been the best social program, the best economic program,
    and the best family program in America. No longer. The jobs are not
    there. Unemployment today is the worst since the Great Depression.

    All the net jobs created during the Obama administration have been
    part-time jobs. An estimated 35 million Americans are trapped in jobs
    they would have left in better times. Fewer Americans are working today
    than in the year 2000, despite the fact that our population has grown by
    31 million and our labor force by 11.4 million since then.

    Anyone who has taken an honest look at the economy knows that obama has failed. The only ones claiming otherwise are either too ignorant to understand the difference or simply willing to lie in order to buy more time for obama’s socialist makeover of America.

    • superdestroyer

      The highest unemployment rates are in states like California and New Jersey. Do you really think those states are doing to vote for Romney because of the economy?

      What everyone should realize is that there are so many automatic Democratic Party voters that the economy is irrelevant during an election.

      • jim_m

        Like I said, many dem voters are too ignorant ( or too dead) to understand the issues.

        • superdestroyer

          I think blacks understand the issues very well. The Democrats promise them set asides and quotas. Do you really think conservatives will ever be able to overcome that pitch?

          • jim_m

            Simple question: Freedom or Free Stuff, Your choice. You only get one.

            The left chooses the free stuff. Funny thing is that eventually the free stuff runs out when you’ve run out of other people’s money to pay for it. When the money does run out (and it surely will), the dems answer will be brutal repression.


          • superdestroyer

            If you look at the standard for behavior in the black community, you have to agree that blacks believe they have both freedom (at least from responsbility) and free stuff. What do you think blacks have given up?

          • jim_m

            Well they sure as hell haven’t given up poverty or living in drug riddled communities. They haven’t given up a failing school system. They have given up any upward mobility or real hope for a better future.

            They wait with their hands out and they remain in a new kind of slavery that the dems have constructed to replace the slavery that the GOP freed them from in the Civil War.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Your hood is showing.

          • MoReport

            Yes, by telling blacks the hard truth; The Dems are out of money with which to buy votes, and soon will be forced to inflate the dollar and leave the poor without enough buying power to purchase the necessities of life.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        The same NJ that voted in Chris Christie? It is possible. Obama ought to be very glad NJ is a winner take all state, or it would definitely be split.

      • retired.military

        That is because NJ and Calif are so full of lefties they feel that the republicans are to blame for everything and to vote for anyone to the right of Obama is heresy. THe would vote for Stalin if he were the only opponent to Romney.
        In any election 40% of the people are going to vote democrat no matter what. NJ and Calif are part of that 40%.

        • jim_m

          When I lived in MA recently I had people seriously telling me that Stalin was a good man. They wouldn’t just vote for Stalin, they sincerely wish that they could.

      • richard40

        Those states will still vote dem, but lots of other states, seeing those examples, and realizing that an Obama reelection means the entire nation will follow their leftist path to bankruptcy, will vote repub.

  • Commander_Chico

    Romney and Ryan have clearly mapped their path. Their goal is dismantling the New Deal/Great Society and beyond. Bye-bye, Medicare, SS and all the rest. No Pell Grants. No post office.

    Now, if they also dismantled the Empire and federal crony boondoggles in ag and other subsidies, that would be OK. An adequate national defense would be a fraction of what is being spent now. With the federal tax savings, individual states could have their own programs and have the space to tax for them. Massachusetts and Mississippi could go their own way.

    The problem is that they will cut the New Deal, but increase the Empire and pour money into crap like missile defense. So the states will still be squeezed, and your ordinary American family will be getting little personal value for their federal tax dollar.

    • Ryan Murphy

      The instant someone uses “empire” in a post about the us, I safely know the rest of what they are saying is most likely not even worth reading.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        I stopped in his earlier post when he went on about the jooooos

        • Micha_Elyi

          If the jooooos will dismantle the New Deal/Great Society and beyond then I’ll be doubly pleased George Washington welcomed the sons of Abraham to America.

    • jim_m

      SO you believe that obama cutting $500,000,000 from Medicare was saving it? More proof that the left does not understand simple math.

      • JLawson

        They can’t be out of money – they can still print checks!

    • Ritchie The Riveter

      The New Deal/Great Society is dismantling itself through its fiscal non-sustainability.

      The question is, are we going to have at least the controlled crash of a thought-out transition to sustainable ways of meeting peoples’ needs … a transition Mr. Ryan has been working to facilitate … or are we going to remain “stuck on stupid”, thinking that if we just tax the “rich” more and more, we can just leave it to the government “experts” to solve our problems FOR us – only to be shocked when these systems totally collapse?

      • herddog505

        I completely agree. Social Security was sustainable when it was first created: FDR and Co. cleverly set the “retirement age” such that most people would die before collecting many (if any) benefits. That isn’t the case any longer; most people live for decades after they start collecting Social Security. The system is not sustainable, and “making the rich pay their fair share” (fair being defined as “whatever democrats want on any given day”) can’t save it.

    • richard40

      The look I had at Ryans proposal said they would not repeal these programs, but redesign them so they are sustainable. Funny how the dems love to talk about sustainability, except for fiscal sustainability, where there they seem to think money grows infinitely on trees. I would rather have cutback senior benefits, than a broke country and no benefits at all, like Greece.

  • Commander_Chico

    The economic debates that Ryan is supposed to spearhead will be forgotten in three months. The world will be a very different place in three months, due to the following:

    1. The Israelis will attack Iran in late September/early October. Bibi and Barak will do it despite the opposition of their security forces, because they believe two windows are closing, the first with the USA if Obama gets reelected, the second with Iran hardening its facilities.

    2. The timing is nakedly linked to the US presidential election. There will be a cycle of the Israeli attack, with a bet on Iranian retaliation, missiles on Tel Aviv, closing the Straits of Hormuz, maybe even attacks on US facilities in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, and ships in the Gulf.

    3. The attack has to be early enough to allow this cycle to take place, and for the US media to fan the flames of outrage (those Iranians have the effrontery to fight back!!) and war (which they love, good for ratings, in addition to all other considerations of profit).

    4. The media storm will put maximum pressure on Obama. Romney will agitate for war by taunting Obama for being weak. The media frame will all be on the hardships of Israelis under fire and none on how the war started. Obama, actually being weak and political, will not have the will to tell the Israelis to finish what they started alone.

    5. The USA will jump in, and there will be the usual glorious drum-beating musical themes on CNN/Fox/MSNBC, etc. There will be gloating by the usual cast of retired generals about early American successes.

    6. The American sheeple will not see through this and the hardships yet to come will not be visible to them by Election Day.

    7. Obama will be reelected as a war president.

    • jim_m

      Time to take off the nazi armband. Israel and obama are not friends. There is no coordination between Netanyahu and the obama admin.

      • Commander_Chico

        Nazi? I am reading the Israeli press on the strike.

        If you read my post, you will see that Obama will be dragged into this by Bibi without notice but the war will benefit him nonetheless.

        • LiberalNightmare

          So, we should re-elect a guy that is going to allow the Israeli’s to drag us into a war?

          Is that a result of the foreign policy experience that Biden was supposed to bring to the table, or is that Obama’s smart diplomacy, reset button that everyone was talking about ?

        • jim_m

          Once again we see you trying to have it both ways. In your first comment you imply that obama will coordinate with and support the Israeli attack. Here you claim that the Israelis will drag obama in to conflict. If history is any guide Israeli will make an attack and the rest of the world will condemn it. obama certainly will. The only question is whether or not obama will have the US exercise veto power in the UN to prevent sanctions from the Security Counsel., In the past the US would do so. It is unlikely with obama and that is probably why the Israelis have hesitated.

          • Commander_Chico

            Can you effin’ read? I even numbered my paragraphs to make it easy for you.

          • jim_m

            Yes I can you dolt. In # 1 you say that Bibi and Barack will coordinate on an attack on Iran. In your other comment to me you claim that “Obama will be dragged into this by Bibi without notice”.

            As I have said you are a fraud, and you are logically incoherent in your beliefs.

          • Commander_Chico

            I said Barak, as in the Israeli defense minister.

            My bad, I assumed you might know something about the world.

          • jim_m

            You’ll forgive me for assuming that when you accuse Israel of of starting a war for the purpose of reelecting a sitting president that it sounds like you are suspecting collusion.

            I should have known you wouldn’t think that. You’re too much an anti-semite to still think kindly of obama if that were the case.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, the Israelis will start a war before the election to force Obama to get on board. Since the media will promote the war, it will incidentally help Obama get reelected.

            It seems you only have two arguments: “the left,” and “anti-semite.” Not very sophisticated.

    • LiberalNightmare

      You analysis is a little silly, but since its based mostly on snark with a side helping of wishful thinking, the result is the best you could have hoped for.

      The Israeli’s wont attack until they know who they will be dealing with after November. A republican president gives them breathing room and an ally, while 4 more years of President “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” means that they are on their own.

  • superdestroyer

    The only way that President Obama loses is if he is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. The number of automatic Democratic Party voters is actually over 50%. However, the Republican Party survives because Republicans turn out better than Democrats.

    Romney has no chance of winning any state that voted for Kerry in 2004. That is the baseline for the Democrats. That means that the Romney has to win virtually every swing state. I doubt if that is doing to happen.

    That Romney is campaigning in Virginia should let everyone know now badly the Republicans are doing.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Approx 137 million registered voters.
      Approx 43 million registered democrats.
      != 50%. Low 30s. I can eyeball that as I stand in the market waiting for my cold cuts.
      Someone said yesterday that Paul Ryan represented the left’s greatest enemy: Math. (or something to that effect). You are proving them right.

      • superdestroyer

        The register Democrats does not matter. There are more independents than Democrats in the District of Columbia. Yet, President Obama will receive over 90% of the votes even though the unemployment rate is high.

        Remember, most Independents are actually automatic Democratic Party voters.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Caught pulling one non fact from your ass, you double down.

        • jim_m

          Never mind that Ryan won in a district that obama carried and in doing so 1 in 5 of the votes Ryan received were from obama voters.

          Math really isn’t your strong point. Sure you’re not a democrat?

        • jim_m

          Unemployment in the DC is the lowest in the nation. DC is the only part of the country not in recession and that is because obama is juicing the federal government with enormous amounts of graft. If you think that DC is in any way reflective of he nation as a whole you are delusional.

          • superdestroyer

            The District of Columbia has an official unemployment rate of above 9%
   Yet, President Obama will get close to 90% of the vote in the District of Columbia. Look at the list of the states with the highest unemployment, only one swing state in states with the highest unemloyment rates.

            The idea that the economy is really going to effect the election is laughable. Do you really think Republicans can do anything to overcome the pitch of the Democrats to tax rich whites and give the money to others.

          • Vagabond661

            Are you seriously pointing to the District of Columbia as evidence that Obama will win this election? Remember it went to John Kerry too. In fact it went the Democratic Nominee in every election all the way back to 1964.

    • Sky__Captain

      You have forgotten something in your “math”.

      The 2010 election results. That was a sea change in American politics, ignored by Democrats, the lapdog media, establishment Republicans and apparently liberals in general.
      The Ryan pick is a winner, he will attract the TEA Party vote.

      Obama CANNOT run on his record as President, it’s an automatic loss.

      • superdestroyer

        Mid=term elections are different than general elections. Several incumbent Republicans who won in 2010 will lose in 2012 because of the difference in voter turnout. The only question is whether the Republican hold enough seats to hold the majority in the House.

    • jim_m

      Idiot. obama won VA in the last election. So your claim is that Romney is losing because he is threatening to take back a state that the GOP lost last time around? That makes no sense at all.

      Romney has no chance of winning any state that voted for Kerry in 2004

      Really? Romney is likely to win NH and now has a sporting chance to win in WI (and I will bet in MN and MI as well)

      The number of automatic Democratic Party voters is actually over 50%.

      You’re sure your name isn’t superidiot? since Roosevelt the only dems to win over 50% of the vote have been LBJ in 1964 (following the Kennedy assassination), Carter in 1976 (Following Watergate), and obama. Contrast that to Eisenhower winning by 55% and 57%, Nixon winning by 61% (in 1972), Reagan by 51% and 58%, George HW Bush winning by 53% and George W Bush winning by 51% (in 2004). This isn’t about turn out. This is about the direction of the country. The left has been the minority for 70 years and that hasn’t changed.

      So what was that bullshit about the dems being the majority?

      • superdestroyer

        The Republicans did not have to spend many money to win Virginia in 2004. Yet, in 2008 President Obama won the state in a rout. When the Republicans have to spend a dollar in North Carolina and in Virginia, it should be clear that the Republicans have no chance.

        Also, no real wonk would ever claim that the Republicans have a chance in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Wisconsin. The turnout of the automatic Democratic Party voters is so huge in those states that the Republicans have no chance.

        Paul will just be another failure of a VP candidate who is incapable of any delivering in own home state.

        • jim_m

          Yep, That’s why all three states have GOP governors right now, because the state dem machines turn out so reliably.

          You’re being a fool.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Foolishness isnt required of democrats, but it helps.

      • retired.military

        Mickey Mouse would have beat McCain in 2008. Hell without Palin on the ticket McCain wouldnt have gotten half the electoral votes he did.

        • Micha_Elyi

          And a Mickey Mouse did beat McCain in ’08.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Ill bet 10$ on the live boy option.

      • jim_m

        He is the first gay president after all.

  • Paul Hooson

    If Ryan can somehow chip away Wisconsin, in addition to losses in Iowa and Colorado,then Romney could win.

  • ChefFred

    Enjoyed that Cass Sunstein quote about Obama. He must have wrote those lines for Obama when he won the nomination, too, about the seas rising and the Earth cooling. What a load of pure unadulterated cr*p!

  • K Paul Boyev

    I remember reading some interview where the Solipsist in Chief was identifying his chief failure as “not telling a story” the American people could understand. Well, it seems Krauthammer has got a great one!

  • Pingback: A simple plan for victory? « Patriots Signpost

  • HWGood

    They also need to hammer home the message that the dem.’s had two years of a full majority on The Hill, and retain majority in the Senate.
    Bam-Bam and Dirty Harry rage about conservative roadblocks, but they are in control, and need to have that ownership slammed.

  • Pingback: BREAKING: Paul Ryan Is A White Man [UPDATE x2]

  • ToursLepantoVienna

    R&R should win this election handily.

    If they do not, barring some disastrous gaffe or scandal, I will have to conclude that the American public is pleased by our transformation into a European social democracy, essentially a larger version of Belgium. If that is the case, the America we love, and the Republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is doomed.