If the economy doesn't improve, President Obama will be in re-election trouble, especially if he faces Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, two Republicans with executive experience who are stressing jobs as an issue. But some Republicans are still unhappy with the prospect of one of those two winning the nomination and are trying to persuade House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to run. That could be a mistake. Ryan is the one person most associated with the fight to reduce the size of federal government, and that could give Obama a chance to change the focus of the campaign:
A Ryan candidacy would highlight a schism of sorts inside the GOP. Republicans won last year's midterm election on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. Yet they have spent much of this year trying to cut federal spending. And that has sparked an internal debate over whether the party is on the right track.
[. . .]
Ryan is perhaps the single Republican most associated with the cause of reducing government spending. Until now, most Republican presidential candidates have been hesitant to fully embrace Ryan's budget plan, which among its many proposals calls for a voucherlike program to reform Medicare. If Ryan were in the race, there would be one candidate running wholeheartedly on the budget; if he were the nominee, the Ryan plan would be the Republican Party platform.
[. . .]
In 2008 voters elected Obama to fix the economy, and he spent much of his time on Obamacare. In 2010 they elected Republicans to fix the economy, and they spent much of their time on the deficit. Will any candidate in 2012 address their concerns?
Is that a valid concern? I have mixed feelings. Reducing the size of the federal government has been a big deal for me most of my adult life, so I'm glad to see the conversation finally getting to the right place on government spending. On the other hand, I have a job, so I can afford to concentrate on the bigger picture.
I happen to be one of those who agree with Ryan that cutting back on government would be good for the economy in the long run, but that's a hard sell. If Ryan gets is the nominees, he wil have to be successful at defining his budget plan as a good plan for the economy, and as one observer notes in the column, "It would have to be a really, really good speeech."
Comments
Leo:
Hell, I'd be happy with a rollback to the damn CLINTON years...and that's not saying much...!
Leo, what about Ron Paul who came in a very close second? The media should at least give fair coverage of the candidate who came in second over those who were not even there or came in third.
I agree. Paul deserves more coverage.
If nothing else, he's the only candidate - including the incumbent - who is genuinely anti-war.
But as vulnerable as a bad economy normally makes any sitting president, I don't see any Republican hopeful who would have a chance against Obama. Romney *invented* Obamacare and welcomed gay marriage. Now he's just lying about those things. Perry is exaggerating his jobs success. Most of them are minimum-wage jobs and the rest came from his acceptance of huge federal stimulus funds. He also seems to speak before thinking. Everything Bachmann says turns out to be not true. For years she insisted people call her "Dr. Bachmann," despite the fact she has no doctorate.
Obama might be vulnerable, but not to anyone currently running against him.
By the way, for those of you about to suggest Perry is your best bet against Obama, I just ran across this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/bruce-bartlett-rick-perry-bernanke_n_931334.html
Besides, we need another former Texas governor who was told by God to run for president. What could go wrong?
"If nothing else, he
Keep your day job, Tim. Barack didn't brag about taking out bin Laden. Dubya was the guy who strung the "Mission Accomplished" banner, while wearing the macho flight suit. Give us a single example of Obama acting "macho." The usual criticism is that he acts too professorial.
Bring on your Ham Sandwich. It'll lose. Which Ham Sandwich do you predict will get nominated? Southerners won't vote for Mormons who believe in science. Northerners won't vote for ignorant rednecks. Perry currently leads in the polls. You figure he'll get the nod? I was hoping for Bachmann, but he'll do.
It was not Obama that took out Bin Laden. It was the US military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, (Engineering degree, Masters in Science) is a person who understands the capability of the US military. He understands life and death. He has seen firsthand an individual burned, bleeding and most likely dead, but did not give up on this person but did exactly what was necessary, did not hesitate, did not question; he acted.
The chain of command started with Obabme who agreed with the military to take action.
The people who were tasked with taking out Bin Laden are truly above average individuals. All Obama did was approve the plan. For this I congratulate Obama for actually trusting the military.
Admiral Mullen was there in the room with the President when it all went down. The Seals did the task well. Politicians are all the same, they take credit where little or no credit is owed. Our military deserves our support and the credit, not politicians.
Admiral Mullen, after 43 years of service to this country, is in my opinion, one of the best, if not the best Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, this country has ever had. Thanks again for your quick action 09-25-1979 0610 San Diego.
Mr. Larsen,
You make an absolutely valid point.
Now, will you concede that it wasn't Carter who wrecked those aircraft in the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran?
Fair's fair, my friend.
I remember the Iranian Embassy hostage very clearly. I was in San Diego and our ship, USS Fox was the ship to host visits by the public on board at Broadway Pier. In preparation we were at sea where we were trained in repelling boarders, shooting 45 caliber pistols and rifles. I had the opportunity to shoot at expired milk containers that were thrown off the fan tail to see if I could hit them in moving water.
The US military back then was like children squabbling over control of many things. The defense budget was cut drastically and the size of the US Navy shrank considerably as did all other services. Every service wanted to prove they were better than the others in order to keep a larger share of the defense budget. I think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back then was more prone to supporting their "service" than the armed forces in general. The Iranian debacle highlighted that different services used different "technology" to communicate as well as interservice rivalry.
The mission was made up of all four branches and the team was not a cohesive unit. The US Military made major changes due to that tragic mistake. If my memory serves me right, Carter was the one who made the decision to use all four services to quell the squabbling of the services to the CJCS. However, I could be wrong. I do not blame Carter. The CJCS at the time should have been intelligent enough and his support staff should have done a better job of looking at what assets were to be used and how they would interact.
Does anyone else recall how the decision was made?