So it's final: Mitt Romney has picked Congressman Paul Ryan as his running-mate.
Personally, given where we are, I couldn't reasonably be happier. Ryan is solid, substantial, movement-conservative, articulate, unflappable, photogenic. He'll be a solid add to the ticket.
More than that, I was nervous about Romney's choice. If he'd even picked a conservative who was a tepid or a wobbly or a low-profile conservative, it would have been worrisome. But worse, if he had picked a moderate or a pro-abort, we would be talking disaster today.
Why? Because it would have signaled that Romney was taking conservative support for granted to the point of contempt. It also would feed the suspicion that his "conversion" to pro-life and conservatism was solely cynical, hypocritical and soon to be dropped.
With the pick of Ryan, Romney signals that he plans to make the economy the central issue, which is exactly right. But he also is gearing up on the social-issues side. What's more, he is playing offense, not defense.
The effect it should have on sane, adult conservatives is to provoke a sigh of relief, and to nerve us actively to support his campaign. Ryan would not have signed on if he believed Romney was going to swerve hard-left anytime soon. This is a good thing.
I've already seen an odd response from someone who would not/could not vote for Romney because he is a cultist. What's Paul Ryan? He is a member of a religion that preaches works-righteousness, touts rituals which at best border on magical, adds books to the Bible, says it's the only true church, prays to dead people, and a host of other things identified as "doctrines of demons" in 1 Tim. 4 and elsewhere. Kinda like Romney.
And so? I'm not happy about it. I'll pray for both of their salvation. Those are terrifically good reasons not to vote for either man as pastor, or to ask either man to teach a Sunday School class or a Bible study in church. But they're running for neither, and the issue is not doctrinal soundness. As long as the Romney/Ryan ticket doesn't propose signing legislation adding books to the Bible or outlawing the Gospel, it's not an issue for my vote.
My only reservation is sheer strategery. Two white guys. Strategically, it would have been good to pick a solid, articulate conservative who was either not white or not a guy. It might have held off the "raaaaacist" dodge for a minute. And, given that Romney's cult actually does have a genuinely racist past (until "God" changed his [their?] mind), it wouldn't have hurt his image any.
But then again, really? Non-whites like Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, Crystal Wright and all the others are buried under racist hatred and idiotic sniping, regardless. So the Romney folks probably figured it wasn't a major factor.
My happiest thought on that front is that it is a signal that Romney is prepared to deal with "racism" charges head-on in some effective way. Which is good.
So, in sum: I'm as happy as could be, personally.