Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Breaking down the 2012 vice presidency’

Ryan was picked to shore up the base. Many Republicans are resigned to Romney being the nominee, and are not excited about it (i.e. they may not vote). Having to shore up the base meant Romney couldn't make a pick that appealed to the middle, independent voters. Making a pick like that would have alienated Romney's base.

I respect Mr. Bennett's opinion, but believe this election is different than any in the past in one important aspect. The lack of civil discourse and the polarization of the majority of the electorate has given us an election where between 86 and 93% of the voters have already decided and wouldn't vote for the other candidate for any reason. This entire election will be determined by the 7 to 14% who haven't made up their minds yet. These are people who don't see a major gulf between the two parties positions on most issues, or just don't care. Mr. Ryan's selection might have made a difference to a few wavering Republicans, but more importantly, his selection might convince the party faithful to get out and vote. Seems that this election is a contest between two candidates that almost no one wants in the White House.

Go Joe!!

Vice President John Nance Garner, who should know about these things, said of the vice presidency that it was not worth a pitcher of warm spit -- or words to that effect. The dog's body quality around the vice presidency has not changed much since 1941. The Tea-party Republicans and rib-rock conservatives who now wax enthusiastic about Paul Ryan should keep in mind this fact: should the ticket win, Romney will be president and Ryan will have only as much influence as Romney allows. Ryan can say what he wants in the campaign, but if Romney is not listening -- there it is. Ryan should have held out for a more important position than vice president: a cabinet seat managing entitlements or the office of budget.

Let me get this straight: Obama is stuck with Biden because he does not want to give the impression that he made a mistake 4 years ago and called on someone who is not presidential material. Well, of course, there are those -- here in Utah particularly -- who believe that neither of them are presidential material. There is historical precedence for removing a vice president that the members of the party concluded had not lived up to his potential. The 1944 Democratic convention made Roosevelt replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman. The logic was not especially sound: Wallace was certainly more sophisticated, worldly, and educated than Truman, but the rank and file thought Wallace was too socialistic (an odd sort of accusation to level in the days of the Roosevelt administration) and too enamored of Stalin, who was after all our ally in the Great Patriotic War. Certainly the 2012 Democratic convention could make Obama replace a Vice President that has not lived up to his political potential.