It's ironic that 'R&R' usually stands for Rest & Relaxation — when resting on our current policies and relaxing our stance against government proliferation is the very opposite of what our own R&R — Romney & Ryan — intend to do. Such are the whims of fate.
Personally, I'm quite pleased with the pick. I originally thought that Romney & camp would go the low-key route — especially after the VP candidate in the last election outshone the guy running for the P slot — so picking a firebrand like Ryan showed they do, indeed, have a message for America. That they are, indeed, going to give it a choice.
My one regret is that I didn't start saving all of the "Why The Ryan Selection Is Great News For Obama!" links that suddenly popped up. It would have made for a fun post. Seriously, how insane do you have to be to make such a claim? Palin, sure. Newt, Perry, Bachmann, Christie, Pawlenty, Jindal, Portman, sure. I'd agree. All possible good news for Obama.
But not Ryan. Not the one guy even Democrats will tip their hat to for knowing his stuff.
And these loopy articles weren't on some backwater blog sites. Slate, Politico, Daily Beast, Puffington Host, Boston Globe, Washington Post, NY Times; all have spit out the "This is great news for Obama!" meme since the selection.
One wonders, if their immediate reaction to the announcement is gross hyperbole — what's it going to be like from here on out? I'd look for some real zaniness coming out of these sites in the near future. I'll collect some of the better ones for our mutual amusement.
The first official piece of zaniness is below the fold, and I'll also expound on why I think Palin not speaking at the convention is a good thing. Long-time readers know I'm a devout Palinite, so it's not an issue I take lightly.
Let's get Palin out of the way first. Not only do I not want her at the convention, but I don't even want her name mentioned on the campaign trail.
I agree completely with Ed Morrissey on this:
Palin electrified the convention in 2008... Few people in the party can fire up the grassroots like Palin does, and few people will draw the attention she gets.
Yeah, well, you already know where this is headed, right? It's that 'draws attention' bit that we don't want anywhere near the campaign. Sure, she fires people up — so what? The people clapping and cheering at the convention and at home aren't the people we're going after. She's now 5-for-6 when it comes to backing Tea Party candidates, and that's where she can help the most; not drawing media attention away from the main candidates. And she knows this.
Remember, presidents don't make laws. They can influence which laws are enacted and can issue fancy Executive Orders, but if you want the EPA defunded and rendered powerless, you need Congress. And if you want a cooperative Congress, you need the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
Okay, I promised you a fresh, juicy slice of official liberal zaniness, and ye shall not be denied.
Mitt Romney’s constitutional amendment would bar Paul Ryan from the presidency
Three years ago, Mitt Romney proposed a constitutional amendment that would say "the president has to spend three years working in business before he becomes president of the United States. Then he or she would understand that the policies they are putting into place have to encourage small business to grow."
As Andrew Kaczsynski notes, that provision would disqualify Paul Ryan, who has spent his life working for the government, first as a congressional staffer and then as a congressman.
To be clear about the point here, I think this reflects how dumb Romney’s proposed constitutional amendment is, not Ryan’s fitness for the presidency. It also reflects Romney’s tendency to take positions strategically without carefully considering their long-term impact.
First off, Romney's just spitballing, not actually seriously proposing an amendment to the friggin' Constitution of the United States. That much is obvious even before you watch the video. Furthermore, it only deals with the presidential candidate, which Ryan isn't, so the whole thing's bullshit right from the get-go.
But here's what puts it into the realm of 'zany'.
Romney in the video:
"I was speaking with one of these business owners, who owns a couple of restaurants in town, and he said, you know, I'd like to change the Constitution..."
Romney didn't propose it. The business owner did.
Seriously, how blind does one have to be to just blip right over what's actually being said and interject one's own little fantasy in its place? The bottom line is, these people are already acting desperate.
As well they should be.
