The rub of my disagreement with conservatives who want Paul Ryan
to run for president comes down to risk assesment. Those who think
he should run quite plausibly believe this election will be fought
over spending and entitlements, that Ryan's plans will already
figure prominently in Democratic attacks, and that other possible
nominees will either run away for them or prove incompetent at
defending them.
Those are all valid arguments and I don't really disagree with
them. But I think Ryan would be unlikely to win, that his defeat
would be hard to interpret as anything but a rejection of his
reform plans, that it would be hard to get a president of either
party to go near entitlement reform post-Ryan, that his leadership
role in the House Budget Committee is important, and that a
presidential candidate who can fudge entitlement reform details and
pivot to Obama's record on jobs and the economy is more electable,
and that such a candidate could still advance entitlement reform
effectively as president -- in conjunction with Chairman Paul Ryan
-- even if they aren't quite as good at explaining it.
If I believed Ryan could win or that even a losing bid would
advance his proposals, I'd be in favor of him running.
Good analysis. Ryan is better in the trenches of the budget
process than as Chief executive. What about as a VP running mate?
Would trounce Biden in a VP debate, but of course who wouldn't. It
would be fun to watch though, even more fun see him debate Obama on
the budget.
WV Repub| 8.16.11 @ 12:58PM
Good analysis. Ryan is better in the trenches of the budget process than as Chief executive. What about as a VP running mate? Would trounce Biden in a VP debate, but of course who wouldn't. It would be fun to watch though, even more fun see him debate Obama on the budget.
Lesser Weevil| 8.16.11 @ 2:27PM
We need him just where he is.