The headline summarizes Allahpundit's argument at Hot Air, "
Romney rolls the dice" (via
Memeorandum).
It's a good piece, although perhaps a shade more Eeyorish than need be:
This makes winning harder, not easier. Some tough truths: The Democrats are going to flood Ohio and Florida with ads aiming to scare the pants off of seniors and blue-collar workers about the “safety net” disappearing under Romney/Ryan. Obama will now frame the election not merely as a choice between Ryan’s budget and his own plan (whatever that is) but as a choice between the president and, as represented by Ryan, the most unpopular Congress in modern history. If the attacks work and Romney fades down the stretch, that could have huge downballot effects in House races too, jeopardizing the GOP majority. I think the best-case scenario is that Ryan’s salesmanship brings enough people around on entitlement reform to fight the Democrats to a standstill on that issue, and then Romney wins the election narrowly due to voter dissatisfaction on the economy. In other words, it’s both a “referendum election” and a “choice election”: If Ryan can make the choice on the budget a stalemate, the ticket can still win a referendum on Obama’s job performance. But that assumes, per Ryan’s speech this morning, that some critical mass of voters will respond to a campaign that tells them the truth and that ideas beat demagoguery, as the man himself once insisted. Is that true? Has it ever been true before when it comes to entitlements? If Krauthammer’s right that the infamous Obama Super PAC steelworker ad is working because voters don’t pay enough attention to be able to cut through the B.S. in emotionally charged ads, imagine how difficult it’ll be to rebut B.S. on a subject as complex and emotionally toxic as entitlements. Sean Trende, RCP’s elections guru (who’s no liberal, needless to say), argues that not only does this pick make things harder for Romney, it actually opens up the possibility of an Obama landslide. Huge gamble.
Allah's spent the day reading around for other analyses, bully for him. But I'm of the persuasion that Ryan helps Romney by providing a powerful choice and by invigorating the conservative base, a huge mass of partisans who'll drive big numbers for GOP turnout. And I doubt any other choice as running mate would have mattered: the Democrats would have
Palinized the pick no matter who got the second spot. Frankly, Obama's had the chance to turn things around and I can't see how Americans are going to reelect a president who hasn't done jack to restore economic growth and reduce unemployment. But campaigns matter. I'm giving Romney more credit than Allah. If Romney thought that he was in danger of losing to O he would have hardly picked Paul Ryan. He'd have gone with somebody safe, Portman or Pawlenty, for example. But then you'd have the most lackadaisical ticket since Carter-Mondale in 1980, and we know how that turned out.
And it's only been a day. As Zilla
notes, this is one handsome team, young and vibrant, and the campaign will focus on restoring the future and reinvigorating our ideals --- that's a factor that can't be underestimated after almost four years of Barack's apology tours and attacks on regular folks clinging to their guns and religion. Further, as CNN's John King suggests, Ryan might help Romney in the Midwest battleground states:
More at
Memeorandum.
BONUS: And be sure to reread Paul Rahe's excellent analysis, "
Romney's Declaration of War."
