Exactly ..wait till you get to know him . Define him just like they did Romney

I do hope the Dems are unrelenting , make the media cry oh! those dems are so nasty ...just like the Republicans

This is war considering what those lunatics + Kochs will do to this country.

If you an insurance company or medical provider that is profiting from Medicare and those profits are billions of dollars, are you inclined to support and contribute to Romney and Ryan? The Republicans could control the White House and Congress with veto proof majorities, but they are not going to vote for getting rid of Medicare. Private profits will win out over Tea Party principles.

I don't see the numbers improving when the campaign turns to Ryan's budget as an issue.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

As apposed to Obama's which was supported by......no one. Not a single Dem supported it. Ryan at least had 40 votes. The more negative about Ryan = more scared they are of him.

Not just his budget, but his stance on social and women's issues.

Eric - did you even read your own link? There is no "gotcha" there"

"Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April."

Meaning, Democrats were looking to update the budget proposal before voting on it - which McConnell knew, but he insisted the Senate waste the day voting on outdated bills and ridiculous GOP stunt bills everyone knew didn't have a majority of votes to pass.

OK, I'll bite.

First of all, when you define "resume," you're of course talking about a political resume, time spent in office versus anything else someone did in his or her career. A voter can decide that someone's prior job experiences, whether it's lawyer or doctor or actor or yes even community organizer, has some bearing on the kind of leader they'd make. It's one of the main reasons why Romney polls so piss-poor in the first place, people know what he did for a living and only people genetically inclined to vote against a Democrat and/or a black dude think it enhances their electability.

People CHOSE to vote for Obama. They pondered the choices and decided the guy with the lighter resume was still a better risk than the old veteran of both the Vietnam War AND Congress.

If people choose to vote for Romney, they're getting Ryan, whether they think he's qualified or not, whether they want him one heartbeat away or not.

I don't have the slightest clue whether or not that will sway someone's opinion, at all. Maybe there are people who are lean-Romney but having Ryan on the ticket makes them neutral or lean-Obama. I can't imagine there are many right-wingers who would vote for Romney NOW, that would not have voted for Romney before this decision. They may feel better about their decision now that Ryan's part of the team, but I doubt they would have stayed home on Election Day. The only reasons Ryan's negatives aren't as much of a liability is because Romney's negatives are even worse. People aren't voting for R/R they're voting against Obama. Obama's got some anti-Republican voters too, but there are more people who believe in what he claims to represent than R/R, by a long chalk.

This analysis of course presupposes the notion that you give a crap what other people think, as opposed to you posting here to be a contrarian douche nozzle, perpetually trying to paint Benen and the blog's team as Missing a Bigger Picture so someone might notice you.

Congratulations, this time I got the short straw.

well yes, I mean if you think that something other than ideology qualifies a person to be president then what else could it mean but time spent in significant leadership or Federal government positions?

I mean Jimmy Carter was certainly well qualified to be president even though it didn't end well as was George Bush though that ended even worse.

Of course the voters can determine they're own qualifications.

slappy:

exactly how is this discussion enhanced by you calling me names?

You want to be noticed. You don't seem to care in what context. So why should I care in what context I choose to notice you?

You're welcome.

Now see I missed that. I thought I was having a discussion about what makes a person "qualified".

I didn't realize that you want to make everything about me.

It's more of a pointing out that you insist on making things all about you.

Again, just trying to help. As I always say (or write): whatever helps keep the gun out of your mouth.

Nice, I write about the piece and you write about me, every time.

Then you bring suggesting suicide into the piece.

See the difference between us is that I don't have to point out the fact that you're a brainless dic-head because you're own writing handles that job quite well.

Here's another poll with different results. Beware early glee.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/abcwapo-poll-ryan-favorability-jumps-131956.html?hp=r5

Slappy, bb ALWAYS makes it about him. Always. The victim card is big with him.

You know he's been in Congress almost longer than Obama's been in politics, right?

Just an aside from my impression when the announcement was made: Paul Ryan shows up unshaven and without a tie for his elevation to being the next president of the united states...oops...what I meant to say...vice president...

Banned - So, your point is that he's part of the reason that Congress has become so dysfunctional and has lower approval than the IRS? Time in Congress, especially as an obstructionist member of the GOP, isn't exactly a sterling recommendation. All it means is that he knows how to kiss his party's ass and how to get reelected; those are two uniquely useless qualifications.

grumpy:

That's an ideological standpoint. By any measure of the word "experience" which is what George was writing about, he has it.

As far as Congress goes, Democrats are by far the bigger party. So if they turn out to vote, the GOP will not have control of the House, the Senate or the Presidency. It's foolish to blame the other party for electing people they want, if your party doesn't go to the polls.

Bull@!$%#, bb. And you know it.

If by "bigger", you mean "more magnanimous and open to compromise", then you're right. If you mean "bigger" as in "more members", then you've got some remedial math to learn.

The GOP dominates Congress, which is why claims of "Obama's policies failing" are horse@!$%# since they've choked them off through their Congressional control. It's that GOP behavior that has put Congressional approval ratings in the toilet, and Ryan is the banner bearer for that movement.

His experience is in being an obstructionist and destroyer; that's not exactly the kind of experience we want in an executive position, just like in Romney's case.

Most people did not know much about Obama either when he started to run. He was a very junior U.S. Senator with some state Senate experience in Illinois.

But you are right - in general the average voter is very uninformed when it comes to this stuff. A well placed lawn sign or misleading TV ad can change their vote.

But add to that, Skip - Obama was also a best-selling author (Dreams of My Father) and a key speaker who so set the world on fire at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, that the next day many a national pundit opined, "This guy's going to be the first African-American president!"

True June,

But MOST Americans (unlike folks here) do not watch political conventions much, let alone remembering a speech given 4 years before his name popped up again on network TV - by network I mean "prime time" television like American Idol, the Bachelor, etc - which most Americans watch. The vast majorty do not watch "national pundits" or the Sunday talk shows...they just don't, by the ten's of millions. In my opinon he was still a relative unknown outside of Illinois (and he wasn't that well known here in Illinois) when he started running for POTUS in 2007. His campaign was good though and the Republicans stumbled a lot.

I take your point, Skip, just saying there was something about then-up-and-coming Barack Obama that transcended the usual venues where voters first get to know a candidate.

I agree terriels, they would like people to think we are all so very "severely conservative". If that were true, they would have voted for Santorum or Gingrich. But they voted for Rmoney, the one the righties call too liberal.

Not to mention the elderly. The Rmoney/PRyin' ticket will wriggle around the Medicare issue saying it's for the younger ones, not them. (That's what Michael Steele says) I guess they forgot that these over 65 and soon to be (baby boomers) have grandchildren and would like to keep these things they love Social Security and Medicare.

It sure seems to me there are still quite a few disenchanted with Ryan. I noticed they are all running away from "the Ryan plan" and on defense. I keep hearing excuses that it's not Ryan, it's Romney.

I agree, this is not being cheered, just "bold" and backing away from Ryan plan. Michael Steele already stated, this is not for current seniors. It is not going to sell. They lie about Obama stealing from Medicare a variety of different numbers. (see link below)

The seniors and tea party already screamed hands off Medicare, so it will be a hard sell to put out lies. Looking for that link oncearepublican gave us, here it is:

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/medicare-facts-fiction-quick-lessons-to-combat-medicare-spin/

That's a convenient run of words, you could copy and paste it into any political discussion and it stands a 50/50 shot of being relevant. Silly, but relevant. Saves valuable time that you'd otherwise have to spend being a CREATIVE jackass instead of a generic one.