questionsis this the most partisan opposition pairing for…


This isn't meant to be an endorsement (or dis-endorsement, if that's a word) of Romney, but I'd say the fact that he actually managed to get things done while governor of Massachusetts shows he really can claim working with "the other side." It's hard to imagine a legislature weighted more Democrat than that.

(That said, I don't think he's really ideologically Republican either ... I think he's just hooked up with them for the powerbase. I may be mistaken, but he's struck me as more a pragmatist than anything else.)


@psaux: In four years as governor, Romney issued over 800 vetoes (some of which were overridden unanimously):
Which rather complicates any claim he may want to make of working with the other side...


@lparsons42: Great article; thanks for the link.


Here's the article that has made the most sense to me so far.

Seems like political suicide for Ryan. When this is all over, he'll get blamed for the loss.


A presidential candidate has to shore up his base. In picking Ryan, Romney is signalling that he has really become a conservative. We now have a full blown presidential battle between left and right. It would be hard to get a ticket more leftist than Obama/Biden or more right than Romney/Ryan. The moderate/independents are going to have to choose an ideological side in this race, there is no squishy middle here.


I'm using Chuck Norris as a write-in. :)


As I stated earlier, this presidential race is shaping up as being a pure left vs right battle. The only way I could see that being muddled would be if Obama dumps Biden and selects Hillary Clinton as his VP, as some have been advocating. Then we would introduce the gender issue into the mix and ideology could take a back seat.


@nortonsark: I disagree with the assessment of this being a pure "left/right" battle. While Obama ran under the idea of being a "left-leaning" candidate, his actions have shown him to be arguably more conservative than his predecessor, who was more conservative than his own predecessor, who was more conservative than his ... ad nauseum for many iterations.

So really, I would say it is more reasonable to call this a "right vs further-right" or "right-of-center vs far-far-right" battle. The people who really have no dog in the fight is the people who are actually on the left. Or, for that matter, people who are in the center and conscious of being in the center.


While it looks like there are a lot of people here having fun agreeing with themselves, if you want partisan you don't have it like other pairings. Heck, Clinton/Gore is the easiest target. Vice President Gore was not going to swing Tennessee. He was not a uniter, and was giggled at regularly when he'd get on the Senate floor to rail against global warming, similar to how people giggle at Rep. Paul and Rep. Kucinich whenever they take to the floor.

Mondale/Ferraro, Bush/Cheney, Bush/Quayle... They're all partisan and usually more to the left/right than the person at the top of the ticket. This all seems silly to me, as if Biden wasn't a partisan pick (Did President Obama really think that somehow New England was at risk of going Republican?)

Can we talk about issues now? This is just dumb.

cues downvotes


@lparsons42: I cannot disagree more - Obama's not known as being a center or right leaning candidate and none of his actions have shown any such leanings.


I'm thinking that the 1988 Presidential election was very partisan.
George H.W. Bush/Dan Quayle vs Michael Dukakis/Lloyd Bentsen

Bush was no Reagan. You knew Bush had some stones, he'd been the head of the CIA, but he came off wishy washy. He had the "wimp factor" as Dan Rather put it. Dan Quayle was roundly bagged as a nincompoop, culminating in the VP debate when Bentsen, a Texas boy, made the now famous quote to Quayle that "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Then there was the whole "out of the loop" claim Bush made about the Iran-Contra affair and the Read My Lips, No New Taxes.

Michael Dukakis was a member of the ACLU, a man who was mentally unstable after an episode of depression, a wife who was an alcoholic, who let the murderer, Willie Horton out of jail and who posed in a military tank. He was 5'8", most Presidents are over 6ft.

It's a wonder anyone voted.



8.3% unemployment. 1/3 of the country on welfare. Highest poverty in 50 years.
Not even most independent voters are pompous enough to turn this into a "left vs right race" and tickle their fancy about making choices over "ideology" here. It doesn't matter what party this current administration is, it's not doing it's job.

Romney's choice isn't the point. It didn't even really matter who won the Republican primary. The independent voters already hate Obama. Time for the pendulum to swing the other way now.


I know of many people who voted for BO the last time who are voting ABO this time. They are very disappointed in the partisanship and the lack of promised transparency on the part of the Whitehouse. They bought into the rhetoric in 2008 and wanted to be a part of real change only to realize now that it was a bunch of empty promises to win the election. Gitmo is still open. The wars are still on and our troops not home, our debt is 16 trillion and millions are still out of work. Oh and gas is around 4 bucks. Nothing has gotten better and many things are worse. Hope and change were just slogans. Time for a real change.


@hessem: By ABO do you mean "against Barack Obama"? I'm not familiar with a candidate whose initials spell out "ABO".

That said, I agree that Obama has fallen short of his aims by a long shot. What we have seen from him instead has been a continuation of everything that GWB started. If there was an actual liberal candidate in the election my vote would go to him/her.

Romney is socio-economic suicide for most of us. 99% of people would see their effective taxes climb as they end up paying more for everything that taxes normally support, while not seeing a decrease in their actual taxes. The great economic divide would at best stagnate but more likely become more pronounced and impossible to overcome.


@dmaz: Those numbers are right where they would have been (at best) had we continued on the trajectory we were on before Obama was elected - because we maintained the same trajectory. Taxes stayed the same, the wars stayed the same, spending stayed the same. Our health care system didn't change, and neither did our education system. Jobs are still being shipped overseas.

Voting for Romney would change what? Nothing. Romney wants to bring back everything Bush was doing. Granted, voting for Obama wouldn't change anything either - at least, if the last 4 years are any indication of the next 4 - but it wouldn't be an outright promise to destroy the future of the middle class.

The only way we'll see a change is if Romney's awful decision blows up so epically that people not only re-elect Obama but they also kick out their conservative representatives in congress and replace them with democrats. I'm not holding my breath for that, though.


People need to disconnect from politics and don't let any media outlet that needs advertising dollars to survive feed you the one-liners that spew out of people who lie for a living. Remember that media gives you MAX two sides of a story and only the part that generates ratings. And anyone that quotes statistics and "facts" doesn't know SH!T. Unless you give the ENTIRE statistic and PRIOR statistic with the CONTEXT of the subject it's just BULLSH!T...
They call member of the Legislative Branch "Law Makers". Ask yourself how many "Laws" does the US need. When do we stop making laws and start enforcing them. The only reason they create laws is to shift money around. Take it from someone else to give to another. It doesn't matter who's side your on. It all goes to those who have influence. You can only buy influence with money. You can only get money through influence.

So don't believe the "hype". The only motivation these scumbags in office understand is money.


@mtm2: First of all, I just voted your comment back up (don't know who voted it down) in the hopes you would come back.

Second, if you look at what Obama has actually signed into law as president, you would be hard-pressed to find a single law he signed that GWB would not have signed. Even the bill that the conservative media has managed to instil into peoples' minds as "Obamacare" is something that GWB would have happily signed - the bill was primarily written by conservatives in congress and was quite possibly the greatest corporate handout in the history of our country. On top of that Obama has extended tax cuts for the wealthy that GWB championed and extended the wars that he started. As someone else pointed out, Gitmo is still open, as well.

Sure, the idea of Obama - what we were sold in the 2008 election - is liberal. However what Obama has actually done is conservative, even on a US scale.


It's really not a good argument to validate what BO signed based on what you think GWB would've signed. Using what you think GWB would've done is making an unprovable assumption to justify BO's decisions.

BO had two years with a democratic legislature to pass anything he wanted to to get America on the right track. He's had three going on 4 years to show improvement and there isn't any.

It's time to give someone else a turn to drive the bus.


@hessem: I think you have misread me. I do not claim that Obama made good decisions by doing what GWB did for 8 years and would have continued doing had he been able to run for a third term.

Rather, I say that he has made bad decisions by doing this. Sure, for the first two years he had a chance to do almost whatever he wanted as the democrats controlled both houses. Instead for some reason they opted to try to work with the republicans anyways, and ended up running into one brick wall after another. Then they let the republicans write the "health care reform" - better assessed as the health insurance company bailout - and signed it because he had no other option.

So basically in 2012 we have a moderate conservative who won't change anything (Obama) versus a radical conservative who will sell the middle class into slavery and poverty (Paul Ryan, and to some extent Mitt Romney).