Romney's VP pic prediction

[Pythagorean]

Some say you can tell who's going to be VP by how many wiki edits their page is getting... it's almost as if somebody has millions of dollars to hire a lot of lobbyists to go to wiki war!

*snip*

In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, "just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.

Meanwhile, the Post said, "on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden's Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry."

*snip*

So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket?

— Ohio Sen. Rob Portman's Wiki page has been revised 16 times so far today, by someone called "River8009."

— Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Wiki page has been revised nine times so far today and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Wiki page has been tweaked four times today.

— Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's Wiki page has been edited once today, and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wiki page hasn't been edited today, but was revised eight times from Aug. 3-4.

— New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Wiki page has not been touched today. It was last revised on July 28.

— New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Wiki page hasn't been revised since July 24.

*snip*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...e-is-getting-the-most-edits?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

 

[Alfi]

I see there were no guesses put forward in this thread.

now we know. Paul Ryan. As per the news this morning.

 

[Pythagorean]

That was one of the articles predictions, 2nd most likely one according to their hypothesis.

 

[Alfi]

lol - if I had guessed ... one of these.

I would have been the only one to guess.
The debate will continue as to, is this a good or the best choice.
I don't see Mr Ryan as a bad choice.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see Romney as a good choice in the first place, so hopefully his VP pick will be irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I expect Romney to win, so the choice is important. For those who don't like Romney, take heart, he predicted Ryan would be the next President.

 

[Alfi]

I expect Romney to win, so the choice is important. For those who don't like Romney, take heart, he predicted Ryan would be the next President.

I do not expect Romney to win. His choice of a VP is a non issue for me.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.

 

[SixNein]

I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.

I think the Ryan pick was out of weakness. He needed someone to get people to stop talking about him. On the other hand, he'll appeal to the tea baggers but at the price of the more moderate line.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.

Obama can't be the next President, he's the current one. And the only way Ryan can be the next one is if Romney loses the current election.

 

[Evo]

We can only hope Romney doesn't win.

 

[Haborix]

I can only ever hope neither of them wins. "Two wings of the same bird of prey"

 

[WannabeNewton]

I feel like he's just picking an overly conservative party politics consumed individual for VP to offset his own flip flopping status and moderate status. Paul Ryan is a horrible human being, god I hope Romney doesn't win.

 

[Pythagorean]

I can only ever hope neither of them wins. "Two wings of the same bird of prey"

Yeah, but unrealistic. Lesser of evils is what we're forced to choose, lest we allow the greater.

 

[Haborix]

"Lesser of evils" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Pythagorean]

How do you mean?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Lesser of evils is what we're forced to choose, lest we allow the greater.

I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.

 

[Skrew]

I now have a reason to vote for Romney.

 

[skeptic2]

I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.

You're going to vote for the greater of two evils this time?

 

[russ_watters]

Paul Ryan is a horrible human being...

That's pretty strong -- what specifically is so awful about him?

 

[dydxforsn]

Paul Ryan was a good VP pick. Makes it clear that Romney's potential presidency is going to be all about the federal budget.

SIGNIFICANTLY better than John McCain's VP pick... I'm probably not going to vote this year, but it's good to see Republicans picking a candidate based on credentials rather than race sex or religion.

 

[Evo]

You're going to vote for the greater of two evils this time?

I believe he said he was voting for Romney.

 

[russ_watters]

Paul Ryan was a good VP pick. Makes it clear that Romney's potential presidency is going to be all about the federal budget.

SIGNIFICANTLY better than John McCain's VP pick... I'm probably not going to vote this year, but it's good to see Republicans picking a candidate based on credentials rather than race sex or religion.

I share that opinion, particularly the parts about budget and religion. I am particularly happy to see someone with virtually no religious cachet on the Republican ticket (Romney too).

 

[lisab]

Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.

 

[Haborix]

How do you mean?

I mean it in the sense that it is positive feedback to the system. People may say they are voting against someone or for the lesser of two evils, but it is still a vote FOR someone. This only acts as an affirmation to the party that what they put up people will vote for.

 

[ThinkToday]

Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.

I suspect the emphasis is to make clear that in this election "It's the economy, stupid" will once again be front and center. Hence, the Ryan pick makes perfect sense.

IMO, I think the Republicans may have a shot at the younger crowd with the recent report that for the first time in history, new retires will get less out of Social Security than they pay in! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/ How many young people could invest that same money in an age appropriate investment vehicle and do better over 40 or 50 years than to loose 7%, like in this report? "A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank." Likewise, I think Independents are going to the need for a change in the system.

 

[daveb]

Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.

And that's the issue. Romney had lackluster support from the base, but had a chance at independents. With Ryan as his pick, he will excite the base, but at risk of losing some independents. The key is will he gain more than he loses? (Of couse, this is all IMO, if it isn't readily apparent)

 

[russ_watters]

Which base?

The way I see it, there are two Republican parties; the gun-totin', hardcore Christian Right of Sarah Palin and the non-religious fiscal conservatives of...well...Paul Ryan.

Setting aside the problem of Palin's intelligence, McCain surely picked her to energize/appease the Christian Right, while hoping women would vote for her because she's a woman.

For a Republican, I don't think Paul Ryan could be more anti-Sarah Palin. So Romney must be betting he'll get the Christian Right either way and hoping the independents buy-in to the traditional Republican fiscal conservative values. I think that's a good strategy and one that has a pretty good shot at succeeding. I think Americans like fiscal conservative Presidents and I think that message should sell better now than it ever has before. I think it is a good pick -- unlike Palin, I think Ryan can only help Mitt, not hurt him.

 

[Pythagorean]

Which base?

The way I see it, there are two Republican parties; the gun-totin', hardcore Christian Right of Sarah Palin and the non-religious fiscal conservatives of...well...Paul Ryan.

Setting aside the problem of Palin's intelligence, McCain surely picked her to energize/appease the Christian Right, while hoping women would vote for her because she's a woman.

For a Republican, I don't think Paul Ryan could be more anti-Sarah Palin. So Romney must be betting he'll get the Christian Right either way and hoping the independents buy-in to the traditional Republican fiscal conservative values. I think that's a good strategy and one that has a pretty good shot at succeeding. I think Americans like fiscal conservative Presidents and I think that message should sell better now than it ever has before. I think it is a good pick -- unlike Palin, I think Ryan can only help Mitt, not hurt him.

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

 

[Pythagorean]

About fiscal practices:

Jacob Weisberg apologized for his initial praise, admitting that

"I reacted too quickly and didn’t sort out just how laughable Ryan’s long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

 

[Haborix]

About fiscal practices:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

I'm sorry, but to equate those timid budget cuts with an anarchist or a libertarian is complete hyperbole. This happens over 38 YEARS.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm sorry, but to equate those timid budget cuts with an anarchist or a libertarian is complete hyperbole. This happens over 38 YEARS.

I'll remove that sentence. I don't want to debate that... we can just look at the number and make our own judgments. In the same vein, you should probably expand on your use of the word "timid".

 

[Evo]

Based on how unpopular Ryan's proposed budgets cuts are, especially Medicare, It appears that Romney might regret his VP pick.

Paul Ryan plan unpopular, polls show

Paul Ryan's a numbers guy — and he's got some bad ones.

Last spring when Ryan unveiled his budget proposal, which proposed changing Medicare to a private program with government subsidies, pollsters jumped to see what Americans thought.

A flurry of polls showed a majority or at least a plurality of voters didn't like Ryan's idea. Among the elderly, it was wildly unpopular.

In June 2011 a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey found that 58 percent of American adults opposed the Medicare idea, while just 35 percent said they supported. Among the elderly, the disapproval rate soared to 74 percent. Even among conservative voters, 54 percent disapproved.

In the same month, a Pew Research Center poll found that 41 percent of Americans opposed turning Medicare into a voucher system, akin to Ryan’s plan, although 23 percent had no opinion. That poll also found that a majority of older Americans, 51 percent, opposed the idea. When Pew drilled down, it found that voters preferred Democrats handling of Medicare over Republicans by 10 points — 44 to 34 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79607.html#ixzz23SApxHCW

He's Catholic and has managed to gain the disaproval of the Catholic bishops.

 

[Haborix]

I'll remove that sentence. I don't want to debate that... we can just look at the number and make our own judgments. In the same vein, you should probably expand on your use of the word "timid".

It's timid because it doesn't even begin to address cuts to U.S. militarism. There is cognitive dissonance in both parties when it comes to militarism and the budget; they act as if they are unrelated. R's more so than D's. I want some Ron Paul style cuts to the DoD.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

 

[ThinkToday]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

I think all the things you listed are conservative values, and not limited to Fundamentalist values.

As for the first Vote you listed, I see no reason the federal government should be paying for optional after the fact birth control. I do support funding for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I’m not a Fundamentalist, but I think someone that has willful unprotected/under-protected sex and gets pregnant just exercised their “Freedom of Choice” and should live with the choice, just like the man. As a guy, I look at this issue differently, and here’s why. If a woman gets pregnant she can decide to keep it or not. She ALSO gets to decide whether the man is going to be a parent or not. The man has no “Freedom of Choice’. Is it fair for the man to get stuck with support for a child he doesn’t want, when the woman has a right to make the decision for herself? Should the man also have “Freedom of Choice” and be able to tell the woman, if you want it, it’s all yours along with all the bills and all the responsibility? If you don’t think the man should have the same right to choose to be a parent, why not? Mine isn't a Fundamentalist point of view; it's about fairness.

As for the second and third Votes you listed, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I don’t think Federal dollars need to go into what will ultimately be high profit private business lines. I do think it will ultimately lead to questions like how far do we develop and embryo before we harvest what we want? Do we let it develop organs and use the organs on patients? At what point will the unborn be a source of spare parts for the born? IMO, it has the potential to be an ugly future. Look at the Controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood?bloodsPage=15 so see issues of who should be able to bank cord blood and why. Consider the following from an ethics publication from the University of Alberta http://www.uAlberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm (FWIW, there are similar discussions for other circumstances.)


“[U]d) From Human Fetuses [/U]Is it ethical to transplant brain or other tissues from human fetuses to benefit others (e.g. those suffering from Parkinson's Disease)? If the fetus has died of natural causes, the ethical issues would be similar to other transplants from the deceased. When the fetus has died or will die as a result of procured abortion, however, other ethical issues arise. The Catholic Church considers direct abortion (the intentional killing of an innocent human being) to be gravely immoral. Some argue that to use tissues from a fetus killed by abortion could be done without approving direct abortion (cf. using tissues or organs from a murder victim). Such use, however, could "justify" abortion (i.e. to benefit others) for many women who otherwise are unsure about having an abortion. A good end though does not justify an evil means (see Rm 3:8). The timing of the abortion may be influenced as well. The widespread usage of electively aborted fetuses would establish an "institutional and economic bond between abortion centers and biomedical science..."(Post, 14; cf. CHAC, 15, re unethical cooperation)

Some argue that transplanting fetal brain tissue would require the fetus to be still alive, that is, the tissue would not be good for transplant purposes after the fetus has experienced total brain death.(cf. Duncan, 16-22) Some say that other means of treating such diseases as Parkinson's can and should be developed.(cf. Dailey)

Another issue involves consent. Anyone involved in procured abortion would not qualify as the fetus' guardian since they hardly have his/her best interests at heart. The Catholic Health Association of Canada (CHAC) concludes that, "Transplantations using organs and tissues from deliberately aborted fetuses are ethically objectionable." (45; cf. SCDF 1987, 16-18)”

IMO, looking at the date of this paper, the discussions of fetus and people as a source of spare parts is well under way. Slippery slope. Again, I'm not looking with a Fundamentalist view, but as a human that is seeing a decline in the value of one life over another.

Regarding the fourth Vote, from the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Given this country’s history and values at the founding of the country, I can see this going either way. Even people of good will can view the same circumstances with a different eye. We declared our right to be freedom from England evoking Nature's God and the Creator. We also wrote a Constitution that precludes the government from endorsing a religion, but also precludes the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. IMO, this is a tossup, and I can appreciate both sides, but support the inclusion in the pledge as written. When I was young (late 50s early 60s), it was common for some in school to omit the "one nation under god" when the pledge was said (I think it was a Catholic thing, but too long ago to be sure) because it was not considered appropriate for their beliefs. No one ever made an issue of who did or didn't say it.

Regarding the fifth and sixth VotesWe are each entitled to our beliefs, and so long as Rep. Ryan was reflecting the will of the people he represents, I support that decision. This is a representative form of government, so, IMO, he is bound to vote the will of those that he represents. If that happens to be his belief, I’m ok with that too.

Regard the seventh vote, I’d have to give the same answer as the one above. He is a Representative of his constituents, which are the people of his state and not DC, and he must vote accordingly. However, IMO, I don’t think this is a decision that should belong to Congress. IMO, child psychologists and more capable people trained in the field should make these determinations on a case by case basis. Congress should butt out here.

In my somewhat long explanation of your points supporting "His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists", I merely point out they maybe consistent with fundamentalist positions, but not exclusively the view of fundamentalists. As I see it, in this representative form of government, as long as he votes the will of the people that elected him, he's doing his job correctly as the founders intended.