Saturday, August 11, 2012

The Artoo ticket

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.

Game on.


14 comments:

The Squirrel said...

Yep. I like it.

I'd like it even better if we could reverse the ticket... ;-)

Squirrel

Seth said...

Looking forward to some R&R from today's administration. #hopelives

Tom Chantry said...

I haven't met Ryan or gone to see him, but I did once have some correspondence and one phone call with a member of his staff. (I do not live in his congressional district, but my church is located in that district.) I believe he's a good man and that his issue is the issue of our day.

Ken Abbott said...

I have yet to see anyone observe that "RR" evokes Ronald Reagan, referred to in some conservative circles as "Ronaldus Magnus."

Jeremiah Halstead said...

I agree w/ squirrel. Reverse it and I'd be a lot happier, politically speaking.

Missy said...

Ken, I haven't seen anyone observe that either until you. It was my first thought! :)

Christina said...

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I agree 100%.

Susan said...

I was over at two friends' house last night when the subject of Romney's running mate came up. The husband of the pair seemed disillusioned about Romney's pick. I said to him that this would galvanize the Republicans to vote, but he disagreed and said this would split the GOP (because there are RINOs), so I'm beginning to wonder if this is going to hurt the Republican chances. (But then again, if Romney had catered to the RINOs, it would make him even less appealing, so I'm glad he picked Ryan.)

Susan said...

Squirrel and Jeremiah: Your wish looks promising--listen to Romney himself starting at 2:09....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/11/politics/romney-ryan/index.html

Rachael Starke said...

Just watched his homecoming speech. Gave me chills. If I was strategerizing, I'd be making this campaign as Ryan focussed as possible.

Between Ryan and Chantry, I'm this close to checking on real estate prices in Janesville.

Larry said...

I think Romans 13 is where we as Christian should be, anything more is a blessing when it comes to government.

DJP said...

Ah, the passage that explains why Americans need to engage and take responsibility for the behavior of their elected servants. Good point.

jmb said...

You make some good points. Maybe I'll change my mind about not voting at all, although in MD voting Republican is pretty much the same thing. Catholicism is much closer to the real thing than is Mormonism, but, then again, close only counts in horseshoes.

jmb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.