Bill Kristol has floated the idea of a Paul Ryan – Marco Rubio ticket in 2012:
Having just returned from the e21 and Manhattan Institute-sponsored Conversation with Paul Ryan (very ably conducted by Paul Gigot)–and having seen Marco Rubio speak recently as well, I’ll just say this: Wouldn’t it be easier just to agree now on a Ryan-Rubio ticket, and save everyone an awful lot of time, effort, and money over the next year and a half?
Having seen Ryan in action the past few days, there is no doubt he would eat Obama alive in a debate, and Rubio would filet Joey Biden.
Is Ryan the dark horse, below-the-radar candidate who could generate enthusiasm? Does he even want it?
Inform me, wise ones.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
Unless Marco Rubio can show that his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, he is ineligible to run for POTUS. People should just forget about Rubio.
John Bolton and Sarah Palin are my personal preference for the White House. A third person is Alan West but I think West needs to be tested in the house before having a firm opinion on the man.
Sarah Palin has been the only one who has been prepared to go up against Øbama and his policies. John Bolton is the Foreign Policy wonk.
Mike Pence needs to get the executive experience as governor before contemplating a run for the White House, and really, the same goes for Paul Ryan.
Paul Ryan would make an excellent Treasury Secretary.
Also, forget Chris Christie in the White House. I think what he says and how he takes on the unions is good, but he has been a let down in critical areas such as the issue of the GZVM. No thanks. He would make a very good Attorney General and yes he would get the convictions including one very big one which most of us desire.
As for Jindal – his parents were not USA citizens when he was born. That makes him a citizen according to the 14th Amendment, but not a Natural Born Citizen. He is also a non-contender.
The question isn't whether or not Palin is stupid. The question is whether or not the general public perceives her as stupid, which they do outside of deeply red states. Palin would have a hell of a time getting to 260 votes. You think the press was hard on her and soft on the One in 2008? If she were actually on the Presidential ticket, 2008 would seem like never-ending puff pieces on Palin by comparison. She'd be slaughtered by the press. They would be running debates where Obama would get asked softball questions about policy, and Palin would be grilled on whether or not Bristol's Dancing with the Stars Success is due to her fans being extremist birther nutjobs.
Maggie's observations appear sound to me, including one regarding a big prosecution.
What appears unsound to me is the fear, expressed by several commentators, of the legacy media in re Sarah Palin — and by implication the entire 2012 election — and her so-called "negatives" (as measured by whom, BTW!).
Sarah Palin is not afraid of the legacy media or their liberal arts faculty/trial lawyer/trust-fund baby supports. Why should anyone else be? To fear those tergiversators is unseemly. To fear at all is despicable.
Everyone experiences fear, that is human and is also an epistemological function. But to act in fear, or to plan in fear, that is not human and it is reprehensible. Humans do not consult their fears.
And who calls Sarah Palin's "negatives" negative? Legacy media, RINOs, union leaderships, superannuated goddesses from "the 60s," trial lawyers, liberal arts faculties, race hustlers, trust-fund super-rich oligarchs, affirmative action bureaucrats. In other words, all the right people. When those people align against one, they attest one's goodness and power. They are the finest credentials Sarah Palin could have. They affirm she has everything needful.
And one should be afraid of them, and their narrative about Sarah Palin? Be afraid of God, perhaps, but not those trouble-makers.
Why not, rather, overwhelm them with courage, confidence and truth and cheerfulness? Courage is a negative in the eyes of voters and people generally? No it is not. Who hates courage are the cowards — in today's parlance "the leftists" — not the creatives — in today's parlance "the conservatives."
And finally, who is a conservative going to vote for in an election between Sarah Palin, in either ticket position, and the occupier of the White House or any other member of CHAOS, save perhaps Jim Webb.
It's time to take on the legacy media and their liberal arts faculty/trial lawyer/trust-fund baby supports and make them feel the sting of rejection. Hold them by the nose and kick them in the pants. Hit their clay feet with the truth, do that in as many ways as are possible, all that occur to one to do, and above all else, do not fear. It's time to roll.
"Wouldn't it be easier just to agree now on a Ryan-Rubio ticket, and save everyone an awful lot of time, effort, and money over the next year and a half?"
Ah, there's the rub. You don't go from 0 to 60 without a national campaign effort and the fire in the belly to win the primaries first–not to mention the other shoe, the general election.
Also, there's the problem of lack of executive experience and showing that either of them can actually get things done. So far it's all talk.
Perhaps Ryan will be able to show expertise in accomplishments in the next two years in the House, but probably not if he's running a national campaign. He would have to be Obama2 with lots of no shows on key discussions and votes.
Kristol is often quirky in assumptions–such as the one above that democracy and winning votes against other attractive candidates doesn't really matter. He likes to play the "If I were king . . ." game.
Leave a Comment