Even with party higher-ups investigating the possibility of his nomination, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan still seems like a long shot for president. And not just because he keeps saying things like “I am not running for president.”
In a historical context, a Ryan candidacy would be a stark outlier. Take his age. In recent history, very few GOP presidential candidates have paid full price at Denny’s. The Republican party’s nominees have included John McCain (72), Bob Dole (73), George H.W. Bush (64), Ronald Reagan (69), and Gerald Ford (63.) George W. Bush was the young pup of the group at 54 years old in 2000.
Ryan, at age 41, is three months younger than Brett Favre. It’s hard to think of someone else who rose to prominence within the Republican party at such a young age. Perhaps the closest match would be Richard Nixon, who spent six years in the House and Senate before being added to Dwight Eisenhower’s presidential ticket in 1952, at the age of 39.
Like Ryan, the young Nixon rode a single issue into the national spotlight — in Nixon’s case, it was his investigations into the Alger Hiss spy case on behalf of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Nixon broke the Hiss case wide open when he discovered that Whittaker Chambers had been hiding microfilm of secret documents in a pumpkin. (When I mentioned this comparison to Ryan personally, he smiled and politely asked if I could perhaps find a different example. Somehow I don’t think my second pick, Dan Quayle, would work for him, either.)
It’s not merely Ryan’s age that would be an anomaly. He would be running as a member of the House of Representatives, which has traditionally been a graveyard for presidential candidates. In America’s history, only Henry Clay (1824), James A. Garfield (1880), and John Anderson (1980) ran for president in the general election as sitting House members. And, as everyone knows, before 2008, no member of Congress, not even a senator, had been elected since John Kennedy in 1960. Of course, we live in strange times — our current president broke the 48-year streak of senators being snubbed by the voters. (And I think I read something on the Internet about him also being African-American.)
Others have mentioned Ryan as a potential candidate for vice president — a position Ryan has been less interested in expressing his lack of interest in. But any GOP ticket with Ryan as VP would be what is traditionally called a “kangaroo ticket” — with all the strength in the rear. If the Republican candidate were to lose in 2012, Ryan would be out of Congress. Plus, even in victory, who would want to take the House’s brightest policy nerd and stick him on a shelf to collect dust for eight years?
So, for now, anything goes. The current GOP frontrunner is a reality show star who swears at crowds in public and wears a golden retriever on his head. Are we really in any position to start ruling people out?
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
I like Ryan, but I think he'd be a terrible VP pick. There's nothing wrong with him or his plan - except perception, which is everything. It's hard to see Ryan adding marginal voters to a Romney or Pawlenty or Perry or Daniels campaign, but he could lose a lot of waverers.
Jindal remains the top VP candidate in general, IMO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's my (long) scenario for a Ryan run: he'll stay in the House through the end of the fiscal year, 1 October. By then, we'll have the answer to the following questions:
1. Is the Ryan plan successfully passed? Likely not, but...
2. Is the Ryan plan popular with the GOP base? Probably.
3. Is the Ryan plan popular with the general public? Hopefully.
4. Is there a shutdown fight that goes the GOP's way? Maybe.
5. Is the President still seen as an aimless loser who can't make a decision, not even on the greatest challenge facing America? I'll take that bet.
While a run from the House is normally crazy, this is far from a normal year. By this fall, Paul Ryan may be the most famous Republican in America, demagogued by the Left and the President by name, and backed up by ever Republican and conservative eager to fight this fight.
Coming up on the start of Fiscal Year 2012, the question could very well be, "Are you for or against the Ryan budget?" With that kind of megaphone, *who cares* if he's from the House? Ryan, if stymied by the Democratic Senate and the Democratic President, could very well decide that while he'd prefer to remain chairman of the House Budget Committee, the need to fight this fight compels him to run to replace Barack Obama.
Even with that late start, even running from the House, Ryan would have the megaphone to overcome those challenges going into the primaries.
But that all depends on three things, I believe. One, Ryan stays in Congress through the budget fight; Two, the budget fight goes well for the Republicans, i.e. Obama and the Left fail to demagouge the GOP on this issue; and Three, Sarah Palin stays out of the race (while she's very different than Ryan in many respects, I think she's the most natural challenger for the votes he'd get-- if she runs, Ryan has to fight for a different primary constituency, but if she stays out, his appeal captures the Palin Tea Party voters AND the establishment eggheads).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, be careful calling Ryan a policy nerd. The guy knows a whole lot more than just budget stuff. He has written brilliant historical work on American Political history. Secondly, Helllooooooh! Maybe the reason the people are getting out in front of these candidates and out in front with Ryan is that they are sick to death of mealy mouthed Republican politicians. Maybe people want someone like Ryan because he is NOT like all the rest of these guys from earlier generations. I think people are looking for new leadership so desperately that they are seeing a guy who has provided it for a long time and has been passed over in favor of the same old, same old, emphasis on old. I think when you really look at it, the people are way out in front of the political class and Ryan could be a perfect fit for the job. Get Bolton as vice president or secty of state or whatever. We have to get our house in order before we lose the strength to deal with the rest of the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA couple random polls showing high-name-recognition, big-media-hyped Trump on top does not make him 'the frontrunner'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the lack of success for House members had as much to do with lack of recognition as anything.
Ryan, for good or bad, is becoming a household name in Social Security/Medicare households. His plan, for good or bad, stands as "The Plan" that the Republicans have rallied around.
I really like the guy. But he doesn't have to sell to me.
As far as Veep, let's keep in mind that you need money to win. Obama's going to get it. McCain barely got enough until he ignited the base with Palin. Ryan would get the base money flowing.
Now, I'm not saying he has to be the candidate or the veep. The problem, as I see it, is that the current crop of candidates has this voter completely turned off (with the exception of T-Paw who I have absolutely no reaction to).
The irony is that if Ryan were a governor, he wouldn't be in a position to push The Plan on the national stage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGerald Ford, of course, is perhaps best known for becoming President without having been elected either President or Vice President, so no, he was never the Republican nominee.
But he was pretty old.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvan, Gerald Ford was the Republican nominee in 1976. He beat Ronald Reagan for the nomination, but then lost to Jimmy Carter in the general.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the Republican candidate were to lose in 2012, Ryan would be out of Congress."
Why? Biden ran for re-election to the Senate and Vice President at the same time in 2008. When he won both offices, he just resigned as senator prior to taking office as VP. If the Democratic ticket had lost the presidential race, he would have just stayed in the Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe Joe Lieberman did the exact same thing in 2000 - ran for VP and ran for reelection in his Senate seat, too.
The precedent for Ryan would be long-established, if he chose to go down that route.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoops. Looks like I wanted to be a smart a** more than I wanted to be right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGolden retriever? Hmph, coulda swore it was the south end of a northbound labradoodle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"brightest policy nerd" LOL. no policy nerd worth their weight would write a budget proposal based on unemployment being 2.8% by 2015. You would have to have no clue about the economy to make that prediction.
The guy lives in a fantasy world. Yes, more serious than Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, but that is not saying much. Sad for the republican party...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Publius and Scott - Wisconsin's election laws would have to allow Ryan to run for both offices. (They may already do so.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFastest ascent since Nixon, or possibly Tom Dewey, who was the GOP presidential nominee in 1944 at 42 years old, and who had been the favorite for the nomination in 1940 at 38, before he backed out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDaniels-Ryan would be a pretty grown-up ticket. One which could actually lead and govern. I'm tired of hearing how we have a field of midgets. In truth, we have quite impressive political, executive, and governing talent to choose from. In no particular order:
Romney, Daniels, Ryan, Rubio, Cain, Rand, Jeb, Palin, Tpaw, West, Jindal, Bolton, Walker.
Pick any two, in any combination, stick 'em in the front office--and we'd instantly be light years ahead of where we are now, as well as finally headed in the right direction...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse----"brightest policy nerd" LOL. no policy nerd worth their weight would write a budget proposal based on unemployment being 2.8% by 2015.----
I'd laugh at Obama's budget, if he would provide one. His budget probably wouldn't have an unemployment calculation at all, since he apparently doesn't care about unemployed Americans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan's youth would be a plus for those who need something more than a budget to get them excited. (That would not be me, but it would be loads of people.) As I figure it, Ryan would displace Kennedy, by a matter of weeks, as the youngest ever to be elected -- although not TR, who would remain the youngest to assume office (after McKinley's assassination).
Displacing Kennedy -- now, that has a nice ring to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find myself trying to expound the virtues an elected head of state to my family (while they fawn over that archaic ritual going on the UK) and then I see that the GOP front-runner is TRUMP!!??
John 11:35
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn that a presidency is less one person than the team of advisors the electee assembles, I would fully trust a Paul Ryan to assemble an excellent team of advisors, one that acknowledges his strengths (taxes/economy/fiscal issues/legislative) and his weaknesses (foreign policy/defense/general youth & inexperience). There are older, more experienced, and perhaps more 'electable' GOP-ers, who I would not trust so well to do the same, due mostly to ego. Ryan seems to be without ego, meaning that political sort of belief in one's own press releases.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is the best argument against Paul Ryan, I'm happy with that.
Youth is a problem? Please! The laundry list of fossils listed above is top heavy with candidates who LOST and Reagan was a transcendental figure who can't be defined by age, or any other single trait.
Bill Clinton and BO are both examples of candidates in Ryan's age group (not to mention Kennedy) who blow this supposed liability up.
As for being a member of Congress being a liability? Again; Please! The reason that's been an issue in recent memory is due to the fact that sitting members who were running were also waffle-kings who voted out of both sides of their mouths for 25 years. Can anyone credibly accuse Ryan of that particular trait? Really?
And as for the idea of taking the best fiscal policy wonk out of circulation for 8 years, this idea is laughable. The fiscal death spiral we are currently on is the greatest crisis of any time since WWII. Who BETTER to have in the WH than Ryan? Who BETTER to have in the WH than a man who can arguably be described as the only viable potential candidate who truly understands how poorly our money has been spent? The President is the guy responsible for spending appropriations, or have you forgotten?
I hope this article is facetious, and only a way to further the conversation as means to tighten up the sales pitch FOR Paul Ryan. If it isn't, it should be viewed as an embarrassing failure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse