To expand on this [Rubin's] comparison, the list of Daniels’s advantages over Ryan begins and ends with this: He has executive experience (something that tenure in the Senate wouldn’t change for Ryan). Here are just a few of Ryan’s advantages over Daniels: He’s more charismatic and personally appealing; he’s a better debater and has already successfully squared off against Obama on the budget and on Obamacare; he hasn’t called for a “social truce”; he has more interest and expertise in foreign policy (governors have far less to do with foreign policy than congressmen do, and Daniels seems to have less interest in foreign policy than most governors); he’s been a leader in the ongoing fights in Washington about the future direction of the country; he wasn’t Bush’s budget director; he’s young and dynamic; and he’s not afraid to criticize the president in strong, yet civil, language; and he (perhaps alone) can unite the party’s establishment and Tea Party — and social, economic, and defense — wings.Ryan's reasons for not running do him credit, too:
When asked about running for president, Ryan likes to say that his head isn’t that big, and his kids are too small.An ego that measures somewhere in the normal range would be another point in his favor. Anderson presses his case:
But our nation’s problems are too big, and our window of opportunity is too small. We need him to run — and not for the Senate. Ryan is too gifted, and this is his time. Duty calls.I agree, the need is urgent. And Ryan can really articulate the issues:
And if I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers. Their plan is to give government the power to deny care to seniors.Ryan looks awfully appealing when compared with Romney, the corporatist candidate, heir-apparent to the nomination, fundraiser extraordinaire, and antithesis of a Tea Party candidate.
… That’s the real class warfare that threatens us — a class of governing elites picking winners and losers, and determining our destinies for us.
Maybe Newt Gingrich's bizarre, self-destructive attack on Ryan's ideas wasn't so misplaced after all? Did he instinctively zero in on his strongest rival?
While we're fantasizing, imagine the smart, articulate Ryan up against Obama in a debate. One would be armed with ad hominem attacks, distortions, and vague slogans, the other with a keen grasp of the nature of the crises we're facing, from the details to the big picture.
Related post from yesterday: Gingrich vs. Ryan: No contest
Another post by Jen Rubin on a Ryan candidacy:
It is telling I think that Newt Gingrich blew up his presidential campaign criticizing Ryan. Republicans rallied to Ryan’s side and fired a barrage of criticism at Gingrich. This has as much to do with Gingrich’s intellectual instability as it does with Ryan’s new stature as the ideas man of the GOP. (Perhaps Gingrich’s blast can be explained as envy, for that is a role Gingrich once held.) That Republicans of all stripes understand that Ryan Republicanism — reform-minded, intellectually rigorous, pro-free markets and temperamentally cordial — is the wave of the future.RTR.
Ryan can make his decision this summer. But turning down a pointless Senate run is the first step toward that potential run.
Linked by Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross -- many thanks.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.