I don't understand the choice. Romney's operatives have been pretty smart up until now. And he had two very good choices in Portman and Rubio that might help deliver a swing State, and a decent, very safe choice in T-Paw that wouldn't rock the boat. I guess it may show us that they didn't really think that they were on the path to a victory and had to swing for the fences.
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
Of course you don't understand, you don't learn from history...
...... This was the VP pick Democrats wanted, just as Reagan was the candidate they thought they wanted. They never took seriously Reagan as a legitimate threat to Jimmy Carter. America was never going to go for someone so radical, someone likely to start WWIII.
The problem for liberals was once America got a look at Reagan, there as nothing particularly scary. Democrats are underestimating Ryan's ability to explain to America who and what he really is. When he doesn't come off as someone who would push granny off a cliff there will exist the same disconnect that did with the Democrat caricature of Reagan vs. the real Ronald Reagan.
It's also been argued extensively that in picking Ryan Romney is admitting he needed to do something risky, that he knew he wouldn't win without "a bold move." That's true but not as bad as it's being made to sound. Some believe this pick illustrates Romney needed someone more exciting than Romney on the ticket. Romney willing to make debt and entitlement reform what this election is about means he's willing to make it about very big things.
I'm not just excited because it's Paul Ryan. I'm excited because Romney just told me I've been underestimating him.