The Romney/Ryan Express

[Warph]

The Co-Presidency Talks at the 1980 Republican National Convention

Most people thought the 1980 Republican National Convention would be a bit of a snoozer. Presumptive presidential nominee Ronald Reagan had nearly pulled off the improbable feat of snatching the 1976 nomination from the incumbent, Gerald Ford, four years earlier, and he had ripped through the competition throughout the primaries this time around. How did the convention end up becoming one of the most interesting places in the space-time continuum, then? There was still one bit of lingering suspense when the GOP headed to Detroit for the convention: who would be Reagan's running mate?

Reagan's camp had an offbeat choice to fill out the ticket: former President Ford.

     

By having Ford run for the vice-presidency, the Republicans could trot out a "dream ticket" against Jimmy Carter. Ford's midwestern roots would provide some geographic balance for a Californian like Reagan, and Ford obviously had tons of Washington experience, something Reagan lacked.

The plan quickly hit a snag, though. Ford was apparently amenable to the idea of jumping back into the political ring, but he wasn't going to just roll over and be Reagan's second-in-command. Ford allegedly agreed to run, but only if he would be given such vastly expanded power as vice president that he and Reagan would form a team of de facto "co-presidents."

The idea didn't sit well with Reagan's advisers, but Ford had a pretty strong team to make his case. Ford's representatives in these negotiations included Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, and Dick Cheney, who had been Ford's White House Chief of Staff. Ford's team allegedly wanted a heavy say on foreign policy matters; rumors later emerged that Kissinger would have become Secretary of State in the co-presidents' cabinets. As one might imagine, Reagan and his team weren't too keen on giving up their foreign policy powers. (The same problems supposedly derailed talks of a deal for John McCain to run as John Kerry's vice-presidential candidate in 2004.)

On the Wednesday afternoon of the convention, Ford sat down for an interview with Walter Cronkite, and by the end of the recording, the whole nation had received signs that the "dream ticket" might be coming together. Excitement built throughout the convention's halls, and the deal seemed imminent.

According to both Reagan and Ford's camps, though, by the time the country got the news, the idea was already all but dead. Reagan had realized that getting Ford on the ticket probably wasn't worth giving up so much autonomy, and Ford had concluded that such an arrangement probably wouldn't work anyway.

           

In the end, of course, the Reagan camp chose George H.W. Bush to fill out the ticket. The choice was a sensible one, particularly since Bush had run a (distant) second to Reagan in the primaries. Like Ford, Bush would help give the ticket geographic balance and provide valuable experience in the federal government. Unlike Ford, he wouldn't want to become a co-president. Still, for a few hours in 1980, it looked like we might have ended up with a team of presidents, which has to be one of the most fascinating "What if?" scenarios in American political history.

[Warph]

     

America Ready for Paul Ryan's Adult Conversation
By Star Parker
8/20/2012

There's a line of thinking on the political left that Mitt Romney served them up a great softball in picking Paul Ryan as his running mate.

According to Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, "Ryan brings to the Romney campaign the tea party's style of magical thinking, a blissfully simplistic, ideologically driven world view that seems to think candidates can win votes by promising to reduce popular government services."

Republican candidates, they say, are ducking for cover to avoid being branded with budget reforms that Ryan, as Chairman of House Budget Committee, has proposed, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid.ul Ryan's Adult Conversation


Vice President Biden, eloquent as always, told a mostly black audience in Virginia that Republicans want to put "y'all back in chains."

Although Biden has taken flak for this nauseating remark, he should get credit for summing up how Democrats really think. That government running your life makes you free and that anyone who proposes freedom and choice wants to put "y'all back in chains."
Earlier this year, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, sent a report on the nation's budget to House budget committee chairman Ryan.

Here's what he said:

"The explosive path of the federal debt that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects under what many observers would view as current policies underscores the need for policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable course."

"The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs considerably higher as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)."

Elmendorf concludes that without major increases in revenues and/or substantial cuts in spending "the resulting budget deficits will increase federal debt to unsupportable levels."

So Paul Ryan's high crime is being courageous, honest and leveling with the American people about the tough realities facing us.

He, like most Republicans, believes that raising taxes, when our economy is growing at half its historical average, and with the unemployment rate 40% higher than its historical average, is economic suicide.

So Ryan takes on the major culprits in driving our long term fiscal crisis – entitlements spending.

Is this "magical thinking?" No, it's guts.

And what courageous measures do Democrat critics take on? No major spending reform proposals and no across the board tax hikes, which Elmendorf suggests as the alternative.

Just the usual class warfare rhetoric. Tax the top 1 percent, who already pay 39 percent of income taxes, and who alone could never cover the huge deficits that CBO is projecting .

In 1975 10% of the population was on Medicaid. Now it is double that.

Ryan's idea of block granting federal funds for Medicaid to states would give local latitude and responsibility to promote innovation to make more productive use of limited resources.

A new study published in the journal Health Affairs reports that 31 percent of physicians refuse patients on Medicaid. Yet, when innovative business models emerge to deliver care in underserved poor communities, they are attacked by the left.

The Center for Public Integrity, funded by George Soros, has posted on its website that Ryan's budget plan is a "Path to the Poorhouse." Yet it also attacks Dental Health Maintenance Organizations, a recent business concept to organize dental practices, making it feasible to accept Medicaid reimbursements and provide dental care in poor neighborhoods.

There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Paul Ryan is courageously delivering truth to the American people, boldly and clearly.

He can't make anyone drink the water. But if honesty and courage is no longer what sells in America, we can be sure that the future is not pretty.

Romney's bet, and I think it is a good one, is that the American people are ready for Paul Ryan and an adult conversation.

[Warph]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/22/john-stossel-who-is-paul-ryan/

Who Is Paul Ryan?

By John Stossel
8/22/2012

I wanted to like Paul Ryan.

Before he was nationally known, Rep. Ryan visited me at ABC, and we went to lunch. He was terrific. He was a rare politician, one who actually cared about America's coming debt crisis and the unfairness of entitlements. He even talked about F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"! If only more politicians thought that way.

But then the housing bubble burst. Ryan voted for TARP. Then he voted for the auto bailout. Who is this guy? I thought he believed in markets!

At Fox, when I got my own TV show, I asked him about that.

"I voted for TARP because I believed we were going to fall into a deflationary spiral, the economy was going to collapse. ... The purpose of voting for that auto bill was to prevent the auto companies from getting TARP dollars. ... Now TARP has become this revolving government slush fund. Never was intended ... ."

But in your ideal world, should government have bailed out the auto company?

"No."

Whew.

I wish he had voted against those bills, but the political class was in near panic, and Ryan is a politician.

It's a reason I don't like politicians.

But at least Ryan speaks against bailouts now.

"We're reaching a tipping point in this country where a majority of Americans are getting their benefits and livelihoods from the federal government ... .

Why does this put us on a road to "serfdom"?

"Because we're moving from a society where the goal of government is not to equalize opportunity but to equalize the results of our lives. ... The more we ask government to do for us, the more government can take from us. ... Government is doing so much in our lives that we have less freedom to govern ourselves."

I like hearing a politician say that.

I told Ryan that I fear that most Americans don't understand economics and actually prefer a government that "takes care" of us.

"No. I think people believe in the American idea, (that) our rights don't come from government. ... And so we do not want a government where they give us our rights and redistribute, regulate and ration our rights."

Hope he's right.

In 2008, Ryan proposed a "Roadmap for the Future," a budget plan that would slow the growth of government. It was timid. It wouldn't eliminate the Education Department or other useless government agencies and wouldn't balance the budget for decades.

Yet even Republicans said his plan was too radical. Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering."

Last year, I invited Ryan back on my show to talk about that. By then, "the needle had moved." Ryan's Roadmap helped change the discussion. Many Republicans woke up. Newt apologized for his comment. The Republican Study Committee proposed bigger cuts.

Now, said Ryan, "I would call (my plan) mild. I was trying to get consensus. We've moved the center of gravity. We've taken on what they call the third rail, these entitlement programs which are the big drivers of our debt. We showed the country that there is a different way to go and that we can get back toward limited government, economic freedom. And I feel pretty good where we are and how we brought this conversation forward."

He should feel good. For 50 years, the needle did not move at all. Americans accepted the welfare state. Now, more understand.

"We have one more opportunity in this country. ... It is not too late to revive and reapply the American idea. But there will come a point where that moment might pass us."

Countries can get off the road to serfdom. Canada did it and prospered because of it. It won't be easy for America, but if we do it, Paul Ryan deserves much of the credit.

"What I've learned in southern Wisconsin (is that) people are ready to be talked to like adults, not like children. And they know we're in a debt crisis."

[Warph]

    

Electoral college model predicts big Romney win

By: John Hayward
8/23/2012 09:06 AM



Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama's 218, with a 20-vote margin of error. A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney's favor is predicted.

The Bickers-Berry model draws upon a wide range of state and national economic data, rather than collating public opinion polls. It anticipates little lasting effect from factors such as the location of the party conventions, the vice-president's home state, the party affiliation of state governors, or – according to Bickers – "gaffes, political commercials, or day-to-day campaign tactics." He finds the focus of voters upon big issues "heartening for our democracy."

The Associated Press notes that "the model does not account for sudden changes in the economy or unexpected developments in states split 50-50." There appear to be quite a few states fitting that definition at the moment. The Bickers-Berry model has Obama losing almost every swing state, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Interestingly, the model predicts different partisan effects for two key economic factors: "Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income." That's obviously not good news for President Obama, who has made double-digit unemployment a permanent feature of the American landscape.

The forecast that has Romney winning with 320 electoral votes is based on five-month-old economic data, with an update planned for September. There are reports today that jobless claims are starting to rise again. Maybe Romney will do even better, when even more dismal Obama economic data is plugged into the Bickers-Berry model.

On the other hand, the professors note that it's hard to predict if the public will judge the economy in "absolute" or "relative" terms – in other words, will they consider the totality of the Obama record, or will they accept a possible uptick in a few key indicators during October as encouraging signs that the President is turning around?

[Warph]

             

I hope you saw the August issue of A Line of Sight that published yesterday.  I particularly wanted to draw your attention to the endorsement of Romney-Ryan by award winning radio host Craig Silverman.  .   

Silverman's support of Romney is particularly notable as he publicly supported Barack Obama in 2008, has spent most of his life as a Democrat, is Jewish, a member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and a self-identified "moderate."
http://alineofsight.com/policy/mitt-romney-for-president

.....Warph



Mitt Romney for President
20-Aug-2012 | By Craig Alan Silverman

I support Mitt Romney for President and Paul Ryan for Vice-President.  For most of my life, I have been a Democrat and I very publicly voted (live C-Span, live radio, NY Times) for Obama-Biden in 2008.  As I studied Obama's performance as President, I could no longer support him. 

That was not ideal for the longevity of award winning drive time Caplis and Silverman radio show broadcast on Denver's KHOW 630-AM for eight years.  Our radio show was somewhat premised as a left v. right dialogue.  Management pulled the plug on the show about six weeks ago. So be it. 

I have another career and plenty to do.  I am a small business owner (Silverman and Olivas, P.C.), and a Denver trial lawyer who is a proud member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.  My social policies are libertarian.   I am a fourth generation Jewish Denverite who graduated from Denver's George Washington H.S., Colorado College and the University of Colorado School of Law. 

Some of the groups of which I am a constituent may be displeased with my endorsement, but so be that too.  This is not a close choice for me and if you are paying attention, it should not be a tough choice for you either.  I am enormously disappointed in President Obama and his administration. 

The economy remains bad.  The debt bomb keeps growing.  Iran is on the verge of having nukes.  The power of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism is expanding rapidly.  Our Justice Department is full of politics and political correctness.  Fast and Furious is a disgrace.  AG Eric Holder needs to go.

I want leadership in the White House.  I want a government with a budget that makes sense.  I do not want problems perpetually kicked down the road.  I want major legislation to be debated in the public, and not rammed down our throats without even being read by anyone other than the special interests who wrote it. 

I want a leader to stand up against sharia law and jihad – and to make clear how antithetical these concepts are to the American way.  I thought Barack Obama was ideally situated to speak some necessary truths to the Islamic world.  But this President has not, and he will not in a second term.  The world is teetering on the brink as a result.  We need some Reagan-like truth telling about repressive systems of government and ideologies which are evil.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  I feel deceived and let down by Barack Obama.  His autobiography turns out to contain a lot of fiction.  What does it tell you about a man and his campaign when the truth is repeatedly distorted around an issue as solemn as cancer? 

Barack Obama ran as a positive bipartisan person.  Now, he is so negative and partisan.  Obama claimed he could work with the other side, but he is way too far over to the left.  This President is a super big spender and we simply cannot afford that any more

If we re-elect Obama, we get the same big spending, dysfunctional government.  This is no time for that.  Mitt Romney worked well with Democrats in Massachusetts.  Some people put down Mitt Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, but that works for me.  I expect it will work better for America.

Vice President Biden played the race card in Roanoke, Virginia and every decent person knows that.  The divide and conquer strategy disgusts me.  It scares me to have Joe Biden one heartbeat from the Presidency.   Paul Ryan is so much smarter and better.  Paul Ryan is a serious and decent man who represents a new generation. 

I disagree with Romney and Ryan on some social issues, but there are other, more pressing problems and priorities for America and the free world right now.

I urge other people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to make a change in 2012.

[Warph]

[Warph]

More Kemp, Please

By Quin Hillyer on 8.21.12 @ 6:11AM


The next step in Romney-Ryan messaging.

Paul Ryan is doing very well indeed on the stump so far in the early days of his vice-presidential candidacy. He can and should do even better, and the Romney-Ryan ticket also should better frame its overall message.

First, just to be clear: Asking Ryan to do better takes some gall, because he's the best communicator on really complex issues that Republicans have had on a national ticket since Ronald Reagan left the scene. His demeanor is just about perfect; he's likable, believable, knowledgeable, understandable, and persuasive; and his one-on-one political skills are first-rate.

But with a few tweaks, Ryan can move into the realm of the inspirational. He's not quite there yet.

Ryan is doing well at criticizing Barack Obama in just the right tones. He is doing well at making the case for saving Medicare. He is doing well at making the case that he and Mitt Romney are serious about fighting a crushing debt load and focusing on job creation. Yet, quite curiously for somebody who wrote speeches for Jack Kemp, the small things missing from his message so far are exactly the Kempian messaging touches that need to accompany his already Kempian can-do attitude.

No conservative was better than Kemp at spreading the message that it is conservatives whose policies are compassionate. The message of compassion, framed rightly, is absolutely crucial for two groups of swing voters: first, the lower-income range of blue-collar workers; and second, suburban professional moms and moderate, unmarried single women who together, according to some detailed polling analyses, create the largest single bloc of persuadable voters -- negative about Obama, but previously unenthused about Romney. Reading between the lines on the latter group, it seems they are non-ideological and thus against Obama not because of any aversion to what he believes, but because he hasn't produced good results and hasn't governed or campaigned like a unifying figure. They are, however, very concerned that policy be compassionate, in whatever way compassion can best be achieved.

What Kemp did so well was to draw the link, explicitly, between compassion and opportunity. He used the language of compassion (and Ryan should explicitly use the word "compassion") in a way that virtually equated compassion with "opportunity society"-style policies. There is a real compassion in taking the heavy boot of government off of entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Consumer Product Safety regulations, for instance, that hurt second-hand stores and even music students, along with taxes on medical devices like pacemakers and prosthetic limbs, are exactly the sort of burdens that would be removed by compassion involved in limiting government.

Ryan is doing a good job talking about problem-solving -- but it sounds like he is more interested in solving the problems of government accountants than in offering a sense of why individual citizens' own lives will be better in a Romney-Ryan opportunity society. (Note: The "opportunity society" phrase itself is old enough by now to sound a little hackneyed, so he probably needs a new label; I use it here merely for convenience of expression.) His demeanor is, to his credit, marked with a can-do ebullience; but his words are not the words of Kempian uplift.

Consider, for instance, this snippet from Kemp's 1996 speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination (Ryan himself may have written it, for all I know): "Our appeal of boundless opportunity crosses every barrier of geography, race and belief. We may not get every vote, but we will speak to every heart. In word and action, we will represent our entire American family." Boundless opportunity. Speak to every heart, and represent the entire American family. This is the language of inclusion, of caring, and of optimism -- without ever equating compassion with what government can give to somebody.

Later in the speech came this:

Democratic capitalism is not just the hope of wealth, but the hope of justice. When we look into the face of poverty, we see pain, despair and need. But, above all, in every face, we must see the image of God. The Creator of All has planted the seed of creativity in us all, the desire within every child of God to work and build and improve our lot in life, and that of our families and those we love.

And in our work, in the act of creating that is part of all labor, we discover that part within ourselves that is divine. I believe the ultimate imperative for growth and opportunity is to advance human dignity.

Dr. Martin Luther King believed that we must see a sleeping hero in every soul. America must establish policies that summon those heroes and call forth the boundless potential of the human spirit.

So far, this is a spirit of outreach, of human connection, that Ryan has not articulated. But everything we see of Ryan indicates that it is a spirit fully consonant with everything he believes and with how he lives. And it is a spirit that a man of his superb political talents can communicate, not least because he can do so in all sincerity, with the perfect comfort of someone doing nothing other than being himself.

As for the ticket as a whole, it has yet to lay out a compelling vision -- a "picture, about how it's gonna be," to borrow a line from a treacly pop song -- that citizens can see, and aspire to, in their own minds' eyes. The vision doesn't need to be a gauzy, Reaganesque "shining city on a hill." The secret to Reagan's vision wasn't that he provided an image, but that he joined an image with substance. His subtext was that in a time of malaise, he wanted to let Americans be Americans again, rather than the "wee, sleekin, cowrin, tim'rous, beasties" (with apologies to Robert Burns) into which Jimmy Carter and the Soviets threatened to turn us.

The vision does, however, need to be almost palpable, and it needs to match the Romney-Ryan ticket's strengths. Romney and Ryan clearly are problem solvers, guys who are competent and knowledgeable, and guys who believe that the American character is that of a people who still believe they can achieve their goals if only others, or government, wouldn't get in their way. Fortunately, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute already has identified and outlined exactly the sort of message that melds the Romney-Ryan strengths with the Kempian opportunity society in whose soil Ryan's roots are so deeply embedded. The key, says Brooks, is "earned success." The pursuit of happiness is achieved is rewarded, Brooks said, not with manna from heaven, but through the knowledge that one has accomplished success and has the chance to accomplish more.

As Reagan used straightforward language to connect the dots between his policy prescriptions and his vision of bright and noble city, so too should the Republican ticket explain that giving future senior citizens a choice, just as they have a choice for prescription drug programs, will give them a better system while saving Medicare for the future. Getting government out of the game of subsidizing piggy banks such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as Ryan bravely tried to do more than a decade ago and still would do today, would leave both taxpayers and homeowners less at the mercy of profiteers and bad lending practices. Promoting competitive best practices in the private sector, as Romney did with Staples, creates far more jobs than following the red-tape-strewn dictates of government planners.

The Obama administration has acted as a wet blanket on private enterprise; a Romney administration should be portrayed as one that won't get in the way of earned success, but that will act with a firm belief, as Kemp said, that there is a "sleeping hero in every soul."

Done right, this is the sort of campaign that, against a bad economy and a failed administration, can turn a tight-as-Lycra election into something that approaches a Republican romp.

The Romney-Ryan ticket has made a very good start. Here's betting that it has the right stuff to turn "very good" into "superlative," and to deliver on abundant promise.

[Warph]

Bless the Turnaround Specialists!

By Terry Paulson
8/27/2012


If you have not already summed up the Democratic talking points to usher in four more years of liberal "hope and change," you soon will as the political attacks drone on. One that remains a liberal favorite is how Mitt Romney's years at Bain Capital ushered in bankruptcies, cut thousands of jobs, and contributed to the deaths of some who lost healthcare coverage in the wake of these "greedy" takeover efforts. .

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger claims: "Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story. ...It was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been."

Mitt Romney does tell his story. Take time to read Romney's own defense to Obama's false attacks at mittromney.com.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/06/obamas-false-attacks?cct_info=1|25219|7946991837|138422374|7794059974|b|24458078854|tc||g|||&cct_ver=3&cct_bk=bain%20capital&gclid=CLS8vLC55bECFSIbQgodvRIARw

What did Bain Capital do? Like others, they took invested funds and re-invested them in smaller successful companies that needed more capital to grow from good to great. Companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Bright Horizons.

Bain Capital also looked for companies with potential that were on the verge of bankruptcy because of ineffective leadership and vision. They bought the companies, investing capital and new leadership in an effort to turn the company around. Many succeeded and ultimately became profitable again, hiring many new employees. Some, like the GS Technologies steel mill and the Ampad paper plant in Marion, IN, eventually failed and were closed. But the influx of funds and new leadership kept those operations and positions viable for many additional years.

What do turnaround practitioners do? They provide expertise over a broad spectrum of services from recovery, cash-flow and financing to the actual turnaround of an ailing concern. Some are called "Company Doctors" or "Business Rescue or Change Consultants." They temporarily replace a company's leaders taking over the decision-making process of the organization to guide it back toward profitability and a secure future.

Their job is not to lose jobs or bankrupt companies; it is to turn them around. Like a paramedic, the talent lies in making critical decisions quickly in order for the patient to have the best chance at recovery. Operating in the eye of the storm, the turnaround leaders must deal equitably and effectively with angry creditors, scared employees, wary customers and very nervous board of directors and investors. This is no assignment for the faint-hearted.

Will all succeed? Of course not, the free-enterprise system that has helped forge America's economic capitalizes on "creative destruction." While we often hear about the greatest entrepreneurial successes — Microsoft, Starbucks, and Apple — we rarely hear about the countless failures and the workers, leaders and investors who lost jobs and capital when they failed. Constantly, underperforming or outdated companies fall by the wayside as more innovative ones take their place. Workers who keep upgrading their skills to meet the challenge of change find a place in that future by adapting. Those who rest in sending around resumes for outdated skills or trust in government entitlements do not.

Mitt Romney has shown his expertise as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital and with the 2002 Winter Olympics. He is a leader ready to make the tough decisions America is facing. His selection of Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to his wisdom of getting the right leaders on the bus. Both have been men of action--something needed in Washington now.

Some Democrats have defended Bain Capital. Democratic mayor of Newark, N.J., Cory Booker, knows Newark needs more business and investment, not more government. Though repudiated by the Obama Campaign team, Booker rejected the Bain attack ads on NBC's "Meet the Press: "I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity.... I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses."

Let me end with the closing comment from Daniel Henninger's WSJ column:

"Voters don't want one man's story. They want someone who understands how the next 10 years can produce an American economy that offers the opportunities for them that the 1980s produced for Mitt Romney." The Democrats want to see Romney's tax returns; Romney wants your own tax returns to improve. Do you want more of the same inept leadership and uncontrolled spending, or do you a turnaround specialist ready to make the tough decisions in the White House?

[Warph]

       

GOP winning national Medicare debate two weeks after Romney picked lightning rod Ryan

Excerpt: Republicans are winning the political debate on entitlement reform and Medicare, issues long dominated by Democrats, in the wake of Mitt Romney's selection of running mate Paul Ryan. A poll released last week shows seniors nationwide back the GOP proposals on Medicare overall, with tight battles in some key swing states.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/gop-winning-national-medicare-debate-two-weeks-after-romney-picked-lightning-rod-ryan/#ixzz24npU0NFD

[Warph]

Knowing Congressman Ryan

By Manon McKinnon


The thrill, by one who knew the young Paul.

With all the people who have known and worked with Paul Ryan during his years in Washington, there are surely hundreds of stories to go with Governor Romney's choice for vice president in 2012. Here's mine.

It was very early on a Saturday morning down by the Chesapeake Bay and the local ospreys were already up, hunting and making those ridiculous chirps which are so unworthy of such a majestic bird. There was the first bare sign of light from the bedroom window overlooking the fields, but not yet enough to see if the deer were out for breakfast. For some reason I decided to get up and as usual turned on TV for the latest news, then headed for the kitchen -- and heard....

...reaction...Romney...surprise...secret...Paul Ryan... (WHAT??! TURN IT UP! ) selection...running mate...PAUL RYAN....

OMG!!!! IT'S PAUL WHO HAS BEEN CHOSEN FOR VICE PRESIDENT!! I grabbed the phone and called the friend who I knew would be as wildly excited as I was. Though it was not yet 6:00 a.m. she was lying in bed holding the phone and answered "Can you believe it?"

That friend and I worked with Paul at Empower America, a think tank founded in 1993 to study and develop serious conservative policy. The Clintons were in the White House, the conservatives were out and there was much work to do.

The enterprise started out in an unfinished office with the usual construction mess and with a staff that had to make do with whatever they could find. One of these was a very young Paul Ryan who I found sitting on a crate and working on an old computer that rested on some plastic drums. He was working on economic policy.

Paul came to Empower America as a policy analyst to work for and with some serious thinkers and doers: Jack Kemp on economic and monetary policy, Bill Bennett on social and cultural issues, Jeane Kirkpatrick on foreign policy, and Vin Weber on politics and strategy. Paul was incredibly dedicated to his work with a knowledge of issues that was more than impressive and the bosses knew it. But along with that the staff knew how kind, how unpretentious, how helpful -- and how good Paul was to work with. I think every staff member -- high or low -- counted Paul as a friend. And as for work ethic, one evening when I was anxious to call it a day, Paul told me he had to hurry to his next job waiting tables at Cactus Cantina. And now the policy wonk by day and waiter by night is on his party's Presidential Ticket!

From Empower America Paul headed to Capitol Hill as a staffer and when the chance came, as an elected member of the House of Representatives. One day as he was moving into his new office, a few of us stopped by to say hi. By nature congressional staffers are quite protective, and we were not expected nor particularly welcome for just barging in and saying we are his old colleagues here to wish him well. But a voice came from the inner office "I hear you, Manon, come on in!" Happy day.

I last saw Paul at his mentor Jack Kemp's funeral. As he entered the National Cathedral he was met by officials to escort him to a place of honor on the front row. Heading down the aisle Paul spotted the old Empower America staff sitting together and stopped -- as his escorts kept going. He said, "Oh, look! It's the whole gang!" and then called everybody by name. When Paul Ryan ascends to the vice presidency and spots a bunch of old friends somewhere, I think he'll let the Secret Service keep going and do the same thing -- greet his pals. Go, Paul and go America's Comeback Team!