The GOP succession
by digby
Last night Blue Gal tweeted this observation:
This is true and more's the pity. It's the old "conservatism can never fail it can only be failed". These people are certified lunatics and it's bad for the country for them to keep going further and further right, which is where this attitude inevitably leads.
On the other hand, when I read this WSJ editorial I wondered if this could change the dynamic:
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.
Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie.
As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity.
As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself?
Republicans are likely to do worse if they merely play defense on Medicare and other entitlements. The way to win on the issue is go on offense and contrast Mr. Romney's patient-centered reform with President Obama's policy of government price controls and rationing medical care via a 15-member panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things—Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the last two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election.
If the election really were a referendum on Ryan's Randian wet dream, and they lose, one would think that the right would have to reevaluate. The problem, of course, is that Ryan wouldn't be the man at the top of the ticket, so I don't think he'll be held responsible for the loss. And according to GOP rules, his turn would be next. Do we really want him as a shoo-in for the 2016 nomination? I don't. I think he's the most dangerous man in America, for all the reasons spelled out in that gooey WSJ endorsement, and I don't want to ever take a chance that this Randroid nutcase ever gets his hands on real power.
So, here's hoping that Mitt goes in another direction. I'm hoping for Tim Pawlenty and his smokin' hot wife. Feel this magic:
Now that, my friends, is a Vice President.
.
