VP Tomorrow

By Too Conservative

Pick in Virginia….Bob McDonnell?


  • Debbie Rose says:

    Please be Paul Ryan, Please be Paul Ryan!

  • JTHmishmash says:

    My bet is on Paul Ryan, whether it’s good or bad. I’ve heard reports that NBC has “confirmed it” and I’ve heard reports of Secret Service at Rep. Ryan’s house. He definitely seems to be the “favorite”.

  • JTHmishmash says:

    Not to mention one of Gov. McDonnell’s campaign promises to VA was that he would complete his 4yr term, because there was talk about a Presidential run possibly for him back then too.

  • RichmondDem says:

    “My bet is on Paul Ryan, whether it’s good or bad. I’ve heard reports that NBC has “confirmed it”

    Ahahahahahahahahahah! He picked the guy who has promised to destroy Medicare and replace it with coupons? Can he run his campaign any more incompetently? The ads write themselves! Bwahahahahaha! The champagne corks are going to pop in Chicago tonight.

    I was actually worried about McDonnell.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:


    Nate’s excellent analysis shows that picking Ryan probably won’t help Romney at all in the election. He’s a red-meat selection for the teabagger crowd. The problem is, if Romney is still trying to rally the conservative base less than 3 months before the election, he knows he’s not doing well.

  • Dan says:

    “He picked the guy who has promised to destroy Medicare and replace it with coupons?”

    RichmondDem, that is a complete mischaracterization of Congressman Ryan’s plans for Medicare. He didn’t propose ending Medicare and replacing it with coupons. He proposed ending Medicare and replacing it with vouchers.

    Actually, he didn’t propose ending it. He proposed “saving” it because he is still going to call it Medicare. So when you are old and have a giant stack of medical bills you can’t pay, you will be mightily comforted by receiving that voucher for a free ham sandwich or whatever the heck it is because the voucher (that won’t come close to covering those bills) will be labeled Medicare.

    You have to learn to think like a Republican. It’s all about marketing and the focus group tested words and phrases you use. When you want to allow more pollution to be released into the air, for instance, you call your efforts the Clear Skies Initiative. When you want to gut and end a hugely popular program like Medicare you call your proposal to do that “saving” it.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    And Ryan it is. Looks like Obama/Biden for another 4 years.

  • Debbie Rose says:

    I know a lot of people will actually be excited to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket now. I was in CA last week and heard the same thing from conservatives there. Good move.

  • Fear & Loathing says:

    I think that is a great selection. It shows Romney understands that the budget and economy are priorities number 1 and 2. This will create a great contrast between spend to we drop Obama and the person who thinks it is time to address our deficit, Romney.

  • Leej says:

    mitt the nitwit is all i can say

    mitt has lost my vote

    as a matter of fact i am going to write in a name for my vote for the first time ever

    the tea party may be happy but they are only a fraction of the votes 😉 extremes don’t win elections normally

  • Blackout II says:

    Well Romeny does it again! He can kiss Florida goodby! I look forward to seeing the reception Ryan gets when he goes there to defend Medicare and Social Security!

  • BlackOut says:

    I can’t make my mind up. Is this a better pick than McCain’s Palin pick? Guess you could say Ryan has experience where as Palin didn’t.

    Who to pander to, tea party or religious zealots? What a mess the GOP is.

  • John Marsh says:

    Put Tea Party and conservative strategy aside and simply look at the Ryan budget numbers. They don’t come close to adding up to relieve deficits without adding in the tax revenue that Ryan eschews. His budget is ideological, but more critically, it’s a fraud. If the Dems stick to numbers, and if America cares about numbers, Obama wins.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    So, with team Willard/Paul surely confident in victory, does this mean that Ryan will drop his House re-election campaign? Or will he run for both offices concurrently?

  • FedUp says:

    Excellent selection. America will be on the path to prosperity with Romney/Ryan!

  • Lady M says:

    Hands down, Bob McDonnell gave the best speech of the three of them.

    Paul Ryan loses the independent vote. Fatal flaw.

  • Dan says:

    “does this mean that Ryan will drop his House re-election campaign? Or will he run for both offices concurrently?”

    Very good question. I don’t know if Wisconsin election law allows him to do that or not. If he can run for both offices simultaneously I’m sure he will. That way he can retain his House seat in January and also have raised his national profile by virtue of the VP run. Helps set the table if he wants to run for president in 2016 when the office is open.

    If he can’t run to keep his House seat while running for VP then he needs to find a job come January and you would have to think WI-1 becomes a district in play. The district went for Obama in 2008 and went for Bush by 53% in 2004. So it is a competitive district.

  • Dan says:

    Did everyone catch how quickly Rmoney flip flopped on his own running mate? I seem to recall him saying he supported the Ryan budget 100% back during the Republican primaries. Today he said he won’t be running on the Ryan budget. Right after he picks the guy as his running mate! This guy is a real piece of work.

    I guess it was another etch-a-sketch moment. This guy seems to think he can actually have it at least two ways on everything he says and not create the impression that he is a slippery sort.

  • G.stone says:

    D. Rose . We are on solid ground. The Ryan pick was both brilliant and great for the country. As usual your voice is the sane grownup in the room . One day I will cheering your selection for higher office with the vigor and delight I now cheer the selection of rep Ryan as our next VP .

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    And Romney doubles down this morning by effectively endorsing Bill Bolling for the Republican candidate for governor next year.

    Stone, explain to me how Romney wins Florida when his running mate proposes to kill Medicare? Romney has just adopted the Ryan budget plan as his own, and that plan is toxic in Florida – as well as a lot of places.

  • John Marsh says:

    And it’s toxic for Allen in Virginia, who will struggle to disavow the Ryan Medicare “reforms”. Nothing “brilliant” about this choice, only a desire, achieved, to shake up the campaign Romney believed he was losing. Had he chosen Rubio, or even McDonnell (since Christie had decidedly removed himself) he’d have made the more “brilliant” choice.

    Romney doesn’t listen to others so well. He’s guided by his Bain brain. So now we have a choice that appeals to the faith-based innumerate for whom a Republican nominee can do no wrong, but of course, they do exist in great numbers!.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    Lady M – really McDonnell gave the best speech? That nitwit said “God given” at least 6 times. I a sick of politicians who think their mic is an open pulpit to espouse their Christian beliefs.

  • RichmondDem says:

    Coupons for Grandma. The ads write themselves.

    Got a $10,000 medical bill? Don’t worry! The Ryan Coupons will give you a whole TWENTY PERCENT OFF if you call right now! (Not valid in Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. Restrictions may apply).

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Romney has calculated that if he’s going to win, it will be a razor thin win. The rightwingers and tea partiers will fall into line now (see the first comment). This selection is for the base.

    Which means Romney is not liking the trends.

    Can Ds get their base to come out like the Rs can? That is the question, because the moderates are not going to swing toward Ryan’s economic plan.

    I know I won’t. It’s a radical plan — hardly “conservative”.

  • BlackOut says:

    It will be interesting to watch the moderate Romney now. Up to this point he has been jumping way right on social and fiscal issues. Beyond what he reflected in Mass in real life. Now that Ryan is there to appease that far right base, will we see Romney now start to move left to try and win the election via the Independents?

  • Leej says:

    good point BlackOut I spoke too soon what i said above.

    The little I saw on TV today they looked and spoke pretty darn good. we will see

  • Independent voter says:

    Mackie D was probably thinking: That should be ME!

  • BlackOut says:

    McDonnell will never shake the ultrasound Bob label.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    He’ll always be Taliban Bob to me. The vaginal ultrasound issue is just a small part of his overall medieval approach to governance.

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    Voted for the Iraq war, Medicare part D and TARP?

    Yet I am supposed to believe him on budgetary matters regarding cutting spending and deficits?


    This election we are picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    I am pleased with Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan, although I would have been happy with McDonnell. The pick has its risks, certainly (i.e. the Democrats demonization of the Ryan budget proposals, “throwing granny off the cliff” and so forth). At the same time, the GOP is signaling that it is their intention to have an adult conversation about the buget, the deficits, and entitlement programs (something that Democrats are apparently incapable of doing). Will it be a winning strategy? Only time will tell. However, the election will be a clear choice for the voters to consider. Ryan knows the issues inside and out, he speaks clearly, can handle the press, could potentially put Wisconsin in play, and satisfies the conservative base. He is also capable of drawing a crowd (over 10,000 people went to see him in Manassas) and help raise money ($3.5 million in one day after his selection was announced). Will it be a winning formula? As I said, time will tell.

    With respect to Bob McDonnell, I hope he will contine to serve as our Governor with distinction (and I have no doubt that he will) and then maybe perhaps he’ll run for the Senate against Mark Warner in 2014.

  • NateDogg614 says:


    Its the Daily Kos. Are we supposed to treat that as a credible source?

    Again, as I said before, the Democrats are unable, or unwilling to have a serious conversation about entitlements. Anyone who seriously listened (and actually paid attention) to Ryan’s plan would know that people over the age of 55 will see no change to Medicare. Even so, Ryan’s plan was simply a starting point, and the Ryan’s plan is not a carbon copy of the plan to Romney proposes. But, since the Democrats have nothing else, and nothing positive to say or to run on, they will look to demonize their opponents, just as the Kos article says, “Mitt Romney is in big, big trouble” for selecting the man who wants to pull the plug on Grandma.”

    Now, I suppose the press is just doing their speculative job. Perhaps they’re not. I’m curious to know what Obama’s plan is, since he’s the one who cut $700 billion from Medicare/Medicaid in order to pay for his precious ObamaCare. All they are able to do is demonize and keep their heads up their rears and pretend that there’s no problem coming down the pike. I’d be interested to hear what kind of reforms they are willing to consider in order to keep the program solvent, but also to make it more efficient.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    To borrow some comments that I just saw on the NYTs website (the commentator goes by the name cesplin):

    “Now after all your fear mongering a few facts:

    1. Ryan exempts all over 50 years of age from Medicare cuts.

    2. The choice is not Medicare as it is now or his plan, It is his plan or nothing. Medicare will be bankrupt.

    3.Government is the most inefficient method of caring for the poor.

    4. Church charities are efficient and keep the motivation to get off the dole.

    5.Distancing the giver from the recipient makes welfare a system of dependency that will never end and destroy lives. Examples include the Native Americans that have received more money per capita than any other group in the world and have the lowest standard of living in the U.S. and horrible social and family and medical problems. This is what you are pushing for all of America. Drugs, alcohol, no family stability, etc.

    6. Just like California, I have no problem when you do stupid things with YOUR MONEY, but using the government to extract money from the productive to ruin peoples lives is evil and I oppose evil.”

    Something for the liberals to consider.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Obama is history.

    Ryan gave a shot of electricity to the Right. Romney is winning his base, he is winning the money wars, and he will win in November.

    “Not only in Wisconsin, but at every stop they made, team Romney/Ryan drew overflow crowds. Ryan’s nomination refocused the race onto substance, and it brought out a new energy in Romney, who took aim at President Obama. ”

    Twice as many people showed up for Romney in Manassas as they did Obama is Leesburg.

    And Obama needed to bus people in to fill the seats.

  • mosborn says:

    “Romney is winning his base”

    Didn’t McCain/Palin win their base too?

    But lost Independents, a huge % of black and latino voters, everyone that’s LGBT and most of the youth vote?

    How’s this going to be different, other than potentially alienating “old people” too? Is the GOP base even large enough to win an election?

  • NateDogg614 says:


    A couple of points:

    1) More people identify as conservative than as liberal, according to Gallup.

    2) McCain/Palin did win their base, but the base — by and large — was not as enthusiastic about their choice than the Democrats were about theres. That was 2008. This year, polls are suggesting that the GOP base is more enthusaistic about voting than the Dems are.

    3) People know who Obama is now (despite the media’s efforts to keep propping him up) and you are likely going to see more people who switch their vote from Obama to Romney than you will see people who voted for McCain in 2008 vote for Obama in 2012 — if the latter exists, I would like to meet them for the purpose of trying whatever it is they are smoking.

    4) The only way Obama has a chance of winning in November (assuming that the economy doesn’t surge ahead in the next 3 months — which is unlikely) is to demonize Romney and Ryan to the point that the prospect of voting for them is somehow worse than another 4 years of Obama.

    5) Seniors could be a wild card – if they listen to the Dems hysteria. I wouldn’t write off Florida yet, as voters like to be talked to as if they are intelligent adults, which is something that Ryan can do quite effectively — one of the reasons that he kept getting re-elected in what could be considered a swing district in Wisconsin.

  • Leej says:

    In the DC area it is a no win situation. More government jobs will be cut in the DC area no matter who is president.

  • NateDogg614 says:


    That is a very definite possibility. I know that the Obama Administration has been asking (begging?) companies to hold off on releasing pink slips until after the election.

    The reality is that there are a number of government programs and contracts which could be cut, reformed, modified, or eliminated all together. We CANNOT continue on the same path that we are on now in terms of government growth and spending. I would argue that Bush grew it over 8 years, Obama grew it even more over 4 years (5 trillion in deficits when Bush left to close to 16 trillion now with Obama ??!?) We need to reform the system. No one (and I mean NO ONE) wants to starve kids or see old folks pushed off the cliff, as Democrats may claim (and again, the fact that they do means that they have no actual ideas of their own) and the time has come to actually have a discussion regarding how to make the government more efficient and a little less bloated. I would submit that Democrats don’t want to have that conversation because more people relying on government programs translates into more votes for them. Quite the cash cow from the standpoint of a politician, and its been that way for a REALLY long time. Well, if they want to ensure that these programs continue (and I agree that a safety net should exist for those who really need it) they need to get serious about ensuring that they don’t collapse on the ground that they can’t be paid for.

  • mosborn says:

    I know you wrote off that DailyKos post earlier because the DailyKos is a liberal source that can’t be trusted, but those are ACTUAL Newspaper Headlines. Not Dem hysteria.

  • NateDogg614 says:


    Did you actuall read all of my post about that?

    To quote myself:

    “Now, I suppose the press is just doing their speculative job. Perhaps they’re not. I’m curious to know what Obama’s plan is, since he’s the one who cut $700 billion from Medicare/Medicaid in order to pay for his precious ObamaCare. All they are able to do is demonize and keep their heads up their rears and pretend that there’s no problem coming down the pike. I’d be interested to hear what kind of reforms they are willing to consider in order to keep the program solvent, but also to make it more efficient.”

    So the press can speculate if they want — they do it all the time. But I would hope that the Democrats could actually offer something of substance. I think a lot of people, seniors included, understand that we can’t keep things going as they are now. Granted, that is speculation on my part, but when you consider how many people voted for the GOP in 2010, including seniors, and how the only President to this day who actually cut Medicare was Obama, well, the burden is somewhat on them to indicate what they would do differently.

  • Ben Dover says:

    “The only way Obama has a chance of winning in November (assuming that the economy doesn’t surge ahead in the next 3 months — which is unlikely) is to demonize Romney and Ryan to the point that the prospect of voting for them is somehow worse than another 4 years of Obama.”

    NateDogg, I completely agree with you. The demonization angle is something that no one wants to talk about or explore. I think that it is the lynchpin to electoral victory or defeat.

    Personally, I wonder at times WHY, WHY, WHY no one attempts to demonize President Obama (well, there was that Halloween image crafted by LCRC braintrust, but that was really zombification, not the demonization that you are discussing).

    I think that more needs to be done to demonize Obama for being the left-wing, socialistic, fake-birth certificate wielding, tax and spend liberal, never-done-anything, inexperienced, government job creating, deficit-loving, anti-captilistic, welfare-state defending, military mis-using nut-case that YOU and I know him to be. No one EVER talks about these things, NateDogg. Ever! How come NateDogg? How come people are afraid to talk about these things? How come you never talk about these things?

  • mosborn says:

    NateDogg614 –

    I honestly stopped reading when you discredited a post with actual Fla newspaper headlines simply because it was from DailyKos.

    I did catch your referrence to Obamacare as “precious” though. I think the nice old folk in Florida are growing more and more fond of it, as much as you belittle.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Well, thanks for being honest. However, I don’t know if the folks in Florida are growing more and more fond of it or not. A recent poll suggested that 56% of Americans wanted it repealed, but you know.

    Ben, if folks were going to demonize Obama, you know as well as I do that the media would look to cover it up. 😉

    Along those lines though, I do find his comments in Chicago striking:


    A “new vision of America in which prosperity is shared.” How is the idea of sharing prosperity new? In America, at least traditionally, the idea has been that if the country is doing well than all people can share in the prosperity (but not necessarily on equal levels). If he’s suggesting a new vision of America in which prosperity is shared, DOES he mean he’s looking to be more socialized in nature where everyone gets an equal share of properity? If that’s the case, no one needs to demonize anything….he’s pretty much spelling it out, provided people actually take the time to listen!

  • John Marsh says:

    We could have a serious political debate about whether to
    — reduce the size of government,
    — actually keep helping the elderly (who will vastly increase in the next 20 years),
    — seek to diminish the growing income gap in this country
    — reduce federal regulations on environment/safety/bank management,
    — and so forth.

    That would be a useful debate, as George Will notes (with his usual irrelevancies) in today’s Post.

    But first, Dems need to recognize needs for Medicare reform going forward. Erskin Bowles, of course, a Dem, has done so.

    And second, and least likely, Romney-Ryan supporters need to understand that Ryan isn’t a fiscal conservative, because his numbers are a sham, they require $14 trillon more in our debt by 2030, and he, like Romney, simply aren’t being honest.

    Check out Matt Miller and E.J. Dionne in the Post today.

  • mosborn says:

    “How is the idea of sharing prosperity new?”

    I don’t know the exact context, but I’m guessing he’s talking about the fact that since the Bush years, the income gap has increased in our country. Which is to say that the rich are getting richer….but no one else is.

    That the idea of “less gov’t intrusion and lower taxes is a rising tide that lifts all boats” has turned out to be a euphemism for “I’d just like to pay less taxes, and poor people can kiss my ass”

    Not exactly socialism.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Well, the exact quote from Real Clear Politics is:

    “Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.

    “Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

    “I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”

    Now, with respect to the income gap, you could make the argument that it’s been going up for longer than the Bush years. And it is true, a rising tide can lift all boats if given the opportunity to prosper. That does not mean there is going to be equal results — never has and never will. Shared prosperity is not a new concept in America. So again, why call it a “new vision” unless he’s thinking in terms of trying to equalize the results?

  • mosborn says:

    I don’t claim to speak for our President, but I would guess that by “new” he means “as opposed to current”.

  • NateDogg614 says:


    I understand, but he IS “current.” He IS the status quo and it’s HIS record that he has to defend. Why’s he going around talking “new” unless its counter to what the USA has been?

    Seems to me the guy is going to try and win another 4 years by trying to convince the voters that he hasn’t been the president since 2009 (coupled with the demonization of his opponents).

Leave Comment