Monday, May 16, 2011

A really good question

We learned over the weekend that Herb Kohl is going to retire from the Senate and that Paul Ryan, currently the point man on fiscal matters in the House as chairman of the House Budget Committee, is considering a run for Kohl's seat. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post asks an excellent question:

Ryan bypassed the chance to run against Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in 2008. His decision to remain as House Budget Committee chair, a critical role this year, seems wise in retrospect. Ryan has played a critical role in taking on the president while Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has proved to be an able conservative lawmaker.

The question then remains: if Ryan could run for Senate, why not the White House? A Senate campaign would require increased time away from family and the House. A Senate campaign would risk leaving him with no elected position. A Senate campaign would fuel accusations that his House work is motivated by a lust for higher office. A Senate campaign isn’t a necessity; there are other able contenders.

You see, each of the excuses often advanced for not running for the presidency applies equally to a Senate run.
I think so, too. There's a lot more at the link, including an excellent explanation of why Mitch Daniels can't carry the Ryan message as effectively as Ryan does it himself.


Anonymous said...

I am going out on a limb here and guessing that you aren't voting for Newt in the primary;-)


Mr. D said...

Heh. I don't know if Ryan should run or not. But Newt is a nonstarter with me. He'd be a great candidate -- for the Obama campaign to run against.