August 12, 2012 1 Comment
Here’s a nice pro-Romney example of overveeping things:
In choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has opted to go for broke, and he has indicated that he is a serious man — less concerned with becoming President of the United States than with saving the country from the disaster in store for it if we not radically reverse course, willing to risk a loss for the sake of being able to win a mandate for reform.
Oh that’s what choosing Paul Ryan to stand next to him on some stages, and ‘debate’ Joe Biden, means, is it?
Because, should Romney win, the fact that Paul Ryan would move into 34th & Massachusetts would ‘sav[e] the country from the disaster in store for it’?
This is all the more illogical coming from someone who finds Mitt Romney ‘sadly wanting’. Ah, but put Paul Ryan next to him as a candidate for a non-job, and suddenly it has the potential to save the country!
The other interesting running theme of that post is the idea that the country is doomed, but Romney’s not trying to win, he’s trying to maximize the chances of country-saving reform if he does win. This is painted as a good and great thing. But if (so the thinking goes) the country is (a) doomed if Romney doesn’t win, and (b) possibly doomed in some scenarios in which Romney does win, why should we be so ecstatic that Romney is making no attempt to minimize the probability of (a)? Let alone, why does the choice of Paul Ryan alone mean that if (b) happens, we won’t be doomed?
I don’t understand.