Krugman on Paul Ryan

    He thinks that a big part of Ryan is to snooker the media yet again, to make David Brooks go "ooooh" and "aaaaah."

   "So, let me clarify what I believe is really going on in the choice of Paul Ryan as VP nominee. It is not about satisfying the conservative base, which was motivated anyway by Obama-hatred; it is not about refocusing on the issues, because R&R are both determined to avoid providing any of the crucial specifics about their plans. It is — as Jonathan Chait also seems to understand — about exploiting the gullibility and vanity of the news media, in much the same way that George W. Bush did in 2000."

    "Like Bush in 2000, Ryan has a completely undeserved reputation in the media as a bluff, honest guy, in Ryan’s case supplemented by a reputation as a serious policy wonk. None of this has any basis in reality; Ryan’s much-touted plan, far from being a real solution, relies crucially on stuff that is just pulled out of thin air — huge revenue increases from closing unspecified loopholes, huge spending cuts achieved in ways not mentioned. See Matt Miller for more."

    "So whence comes the Ryan reputation? As I said in my last post, it’s because many commentators want to tell a story about US politics that makes them feel and look good — a story in which both parties are equally at fault in our national stalemate, and in which said commentators stand above the fray. This story requires that there be good, honest, technically savvy conservative politicians, so that you can point to these politicians and say how much you admire them, even if you disagree with some of their ideas; after all, unless you lavish praise on some conservatives, you don’t come across as nobly even-handed."

     "The trouble, of course, is that it’s really really hard to find any actual conservative politicians who deserve that praise. Ryan, with his flaky numbers (and actually very hard-line stance on social issues), certainly doesn’t. But a large part of the commentariat decided early on that they were going to cast Ryan in the role of Serious Honest Conservative, and have been very unwilling to reconsider that casting call in the light of evidence."

     "So that’s the constituency Romney is targeting: not a large segment of the electorate, but a few hundred at most editors, reporters, programmers, and pundits. His hope is that Ryan’s unjustified reputation for honest wonkery will transfer to the ticket as a whole."

     "So, a memo to the news media: you have now become players in this campaign, not just reporters. Mitt Romney isn’t seeking a debate on the issues; on the contrary, he’s betting that your gullibility and vanity will let him avoid a debate on the issues, including the issue of his own fitness for the presidency. I guess we’ll see if it works."

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/romneyryan-the-real-target/

      I don't entirely buy Krugman's premise that it's to get the Fourth Estate on Romney's side. I think if that happens that may be a nice byproduct.

      Romney really did this chiefly for the base. I agree the first time around a lot of journalists did swoon over Ryan. However, the facts are out about Ryan's budget and while no doubt Brooks himself will swoon I don't know that he'll be quite so heralded this time around.

      Why would he need to shore up his base? Well, you can never assume your base. They won't vote for Obama but they may stay home. Last year this was a real worry for Obama as well after the comment about "the professional Left."

       Romney actually had gotten a lot of criticism from his base recently and they had made it real clear they didn't want Portman. With Romney getting pummelled by the Obama team and with is falling polls I do believe they were worried.

      What Romney's pick really says is that he has to win on base. He won't get any Reagan Democrats or independents. The Hispanic vote and the soccer moms are off limits for him.

      In part the Romney team sees the Bush election in 2004 as a blueprint, although Bush 2004 got 40% of the Hispanic vote-unthinkable for Romney. It's not enough for the base to support him, they have to support him in about the highest volume in recorded history.

      They need Tea Party turnout to be off the hook.

      P.S. Obviously Krugman's point about Ryan's budget being totally "unserious" is correct and needs to be emphasized by the Obama team. If by serious you mean cutting the deficit, the Ryan plan isn't serious at all. It will however, seriously, destroy Medicare and totally destroy any remnants of the social safety net.