Paul Ryan en Newport News, Virginia

Paul Ryan en De Pere, Wisconsin

Town hall meeting.

Tampa: Paul Ryan

El Congresista Paul Ryan sorprendió con una intervención orientada a desmontar las políticas de Obama. Contrastó las dos visiones enfrentadas en estas elecciones. Lo hizo con un lenguaje para swing voters, proyectando un sentimiento de participación afectiva en la realidad de esos pueblos que alrededor del país no ven llegar la recuperación prometida.

Habló de impuestos, energía, deuda, ayudas sociales y del ObamaCare, que describió como la mayor amenaza contra el Medicare y como una ley que no tiene lugar en una sociedad libre. Y lamentó el pesimismo, el desempleo juvenil y la frivolidad del Obamismo que condenan a los jóvenes a vivir el resto de sus veintitantos años en sus habitaciones de la infancia, mirando decadentes pósters de Obama y preguntándose cuándo podrán poner en marcha sus vidas.

Presentó a Romney como un líder decisivo preparado para transformar la economía, y prometió que el ticket republicano estará a la altura del momento y afrontará las tareas más duras, liderando y asumiendo la responsabilidad, en contraste con echar la culpa a los demás, como dijo que hace este gobierno.

Aclamó el individualismo. Recordó la fuente natural de los derechos y dijo que nada de reemplazar los principios fundadores, sino volverlos a aplicar.

Utilizó apuntes biográficos para comunicar ciertos aspectos, invocando a sus padres y a sus orígenes en Janesville, Wisconsin. Y no se olvidó de Ronald Reagan, haciéndose eco de su "Tiempo para elegir" de 1964, ni de rendir tributo a Jack Kemp. Los dos iconos conservadores más representativos para las últimas generaciones.

Transcripción del discurso.

El turno de Paul Ryan

(Foto: AP/Mary Altaffer)


(Foto: AP/Mary Altaffer)

En el avión que le llevó hasta Tampa, el Congresista Paul Ryan preparó su discurso de esta noche con los asesores Dan Senor y Conor Sweeney. Se conocen muy pocos detalles del tipo de discurso que dará.

La historia nos dice que el candidato a VP puede afrontar su discurso de tres maneras: 1) utilizando su historia personal como hilo conductor, 2) dándole un contenido más filosófico sobre la visión y dirección del país, y 3) adoptando el papel de perro de ataque que se lanza contra la oposición. La tercera opción parece descartada porque Boston quiere evitar ir en negativo en los grandes discursos (ejemplo, Christie apenas mencionó a Obama). Por necesidades (de presentarse ante el electorado) y perfil (se le considera la fuerza intelectual detrás del programa republicano) es más probable que el discurso de Ryan sea una mezcla de los dos primeros puntos y que contenga también bastante de promoción de Romney.

Vicepresidenciables en los talk shows domingueros

El Congresista Paul Ryan en This Week (ABC).

Romney hace campaña con Paul Ryan en Wisconsin

En el American Serb Memorial Hall de Milwaukee.



Antes de salir al escenario en la Lawrence University de Appleton.



Mitin en la Lawrence University de Appleton.

(click en la imagen para ver el video en otra ventana)

Romney y Ryan en Hannity (Fox News)

Paul Ryan apoya a Romney

CONGRESISTA RYAN (en Fox & Friends): "Estoy utilizando dos criterios para tomar mi decisión sobre a quién votar en nuestra primaria el martes. ¿Quién es la mejor persona para ser Presidente? ¿Quién será el mejor Presidente? Y, ¿quién tiene la mejor oportunidad de derrotar a Barack Obama? En mi opinión, Mitt Romney es con claridad esa persona."

Este es un endorsement con un doble efecto: por un lado, solidifica la impresión general de que Romney será el nominado, y, por otro lado, le da un importante empujón de cara a la decisiva primaria de Wisconsin.

El ObamaCare une al GOP

Ex candidatos presidenciales como Michele Bachmann unieron sus fuerzas ayer con futuros presidenciables como Paul Ryan, Allen West o Rand Paul, en un mismo rally contra el ObamaCare.

Paul Ryan pide a los republicanos que sean atrevidos

Recordaréis que hace un año, el Gobernador Mitch Daniels, entonces el presidenciable favorito de la élite conservadora de cara a este año, fue el elegido para dar el discurso central en el banquete de la CPAC.

Este año el elegido ha sido el Congresista Paul Ryan, y el mensaje principal de su discurso trató sobre las elecciones de este año, lo que podría volver a disparar las especulaciones sobre una candidatura salvadora de última hora en la actual situación de confusión en las primarias. Ryan llamó a la unidad de los republicanos y les pidió que tengan valor para convertir estas elecciones en algo más que un simple referéndum sobre la gestión del Presidente.

"Sabemos que esta elección no puede ser un simple referéndum sobre el liderazgo fallido del Presidente Obama. Los americanos se merecen una elección - una elección entre dos visiones dramáticamente diferentes para el futuro de nuestro país. Como conservadores, les debemos a los americanos esa elección.

Mirad, sé que hay gente en esta ciudad a la que le aterra la idea de una elección donde estén en juego dos visiones alternativas. 'Hagamos un referéndum. Ganemos por defecto,' dicen. 'Símplemente opongámonos - podemos ganar así. No propongamos ideas audaces - eso es demasiado arriesgado.'

He de admitir que el camino fácil es siempre tentador. Pero, amigos míos, si eso es todo lo que defendemos, ¿qué hacemos entonces aquí, en la CPAC, el escenario al que tantos gigantes de nuestro movimiento vinieron para avanzar sus ideas más audaces?

(...) En otras palabras, una atrevida agenda reformista es nuestra obligación moral. Tenemos la obligación de proveer al pueblo americano con un camino claro que reencamine a nuestro país. Si planteamos el caso efectivamente y ganamos en noviembre, entonces tendremos la autoridad moral para promulgar el tipo de reformas fundamentales que América no ha visto desde el primer año de la Presidencia de Ronald Reagan.

Ese es el argumento moral por el que vale la pena ser atrevidos. Pero hay también un fuerte argumento político por el que ser atrevidos. El momento requiere líderes que entiendan el fondo de los problemas que enfrentamos, y que ofrezcan reformas de gran alcance que igualen a los desafíos. En 1980, Ronald Reagan ofreció políticas económicas de fomento de la demanda en casa, y la reducción del comunismo soviético en el extranjero. ¿Los desafíos de este tiempo? Son diferentes. Pero el momento exige el mismo tipo de osadía.

Todo el mundo sabe que este es un territorio político peligroso. Los republicanos tienen sus cicatrices en la lucha por la reforma de los programas de prestaciones sociales. Por eso algunos mantienen que deberíamos minimizar nuestra agenda y símplemente proseguir una campaña que se centre únicamente en el Presidente y su partido.

Estoy en firme desacuerdo. La audacia y la claridad ofrecen la mejor oportunidad para crear una coalición ganadora. No sólo ganaremos a la siguiente generación - tenemos una oportunidad única para barrer y rehacer el panorama político."

(click en la imagen para ver el video en otra ventana)

Escenario para nuevos candidatos (III)

Nate Silver:

I think there is a small but nontrivial chance that the Republican nominee could be someone like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie.

(...) The motive is pretty simple: Republicans are dangerously close to having none of their candidates be acceptable to both rank-and-file voters and the party establishment. It’s not quite clear what happens when this is the case; there is no particularly good precedent for it. But since finding a nominee who is broadly acceptable to different party constituencies is the foremost goal of any party during its nomination process, it seems distinctly possible that Republicans might begin to look elsewhere.

(...) Say that Mr. Gingrich survives this onslaught, as he certainly could. He wins Iowa and then either wins New Hampshire or finishes a respectable second there. He continues to lead in national polls of Republican voters, as he does now.

What happens then? One scenario, obviously — probably the most likely scenario — is that Mr. Gingrich wins South Carolina, and he wins Florida, and he holds on to win the Republican nomination.

But Mr. Gingrich might nevertheless be considered an unacceptable choice by much of the party establishment. That would put us in uncharted waters. There hasn’t really been a case in the past where a candidate who held the national polling lead after New Hampshire was considered unacceptable by the party elite. Most of the time, instead, the establishment (as measured by endorsements) and the rank-and-file (as measured by support in national polls) have agreed upon a candidate by that point in time.

There have been six cases, meanwhile, in which there was no clear front-runner after New Hampshire. These are discussed briefly below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1972 Democrats. Edmund S. Muskie, the clear favorite of the party establishment, won both Iowa and New Hampshire. The performances were perceived as disappointing, however, and Mr. Muskie was at only about 20 percent in national polls (still good enough to put him in a rough tie with Hubert H. Humphrey). A third candidate, George McGovern, who had helped to design the reformed nomination rules and cagily exploited them by dominating in caucus states, won the nomination despite taking only about 25 percent of the national popular vote.

1976 Democrats. Party leaders were extremely slow to endorse any candidates in 1976, but Jimmy Carter surged to the national polling lead after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Although Mr. Carter was a relatively obscure figure who was not beloved by the party establishment, he nevertheless took the nomination. This is among the more favorable precedents for Mr. Gingrich, although it differs slightly from this year in that there was no consensus among the establishment about who to support in lieu of Mr. Carter.

1984 Democrats. Walter Mondale was the clear favorite of the establishment and seemed headed for an easy nomination after a dominant performance in Iowa. The favorable media attention to Gary Hart’s second-place showing, however, give him momentum that he rode to a win in New Hampshire, after which he drew into a rough tie with Mr. Mondale in the national polls. Mr. Mondale eventually prevailed in a close race.

1988 Democrats. Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee, had won New Hampshire but had lost Iowa to Dick Gephardt. Mr. Dukakis was roughly tied for the endorsement lead with Al Gore, and was roughly tied in the national polls with Jesse Jackson. Thus, Mr. Dukakis was in the strongest overall shape, although he was not dominant in any one category so the nomination took some time to sort out.

2008 Democrats. This was a strange case. Hillary Clinton regained the national polling lead following her comeback win in New Hampshire. However, Barack Obama — who had once considerably trailed Mrs. Clinton in party support — unveiled a series of key endorsements from senators like John Kerry and Claire McCaskill in the week just after New Hampshire, making the question of who had the party establishment’s support ambiguous.

2008 Republicans. John McCain pulled into the national polling lead after his win in New Hampshire, although it took further wins in states like South Carolina and Florida before endorsers (who had long been split between Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson) closed ranks around him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although there are some loose parallels to this year in the 1972 and 1976 Democratic primaries, none of them involved an acute conflict between the establishment and the rank-and-file of the sort we have this year between Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. It is not a year like 2008, when the Democrats had at least two broadly acceptable nominees, in which you’d expect to see a brokered convention or a dark-horse candidate emerging. Instead, it’s a year like this one in which all the choices are unacceptable to some degree or another.

There are deterrents, of course, to a candidate like Mr. Bush or Mr. Ryan entering the race late. Most notably, there is no guarantee that they would succeed. If they tried and failed, that could be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party, undermining its eventual nominee. But the odds of a dark-horse candidate or brokered convention will increase to the extent that any of the following conditions hold:

1a. Mr. Gingrich leads the delegate count, but does not have more than about 50 percent of delegates.

1b. Mr. Gingrich holds more than 50 percent of delegates but is involved in a significant gaffe or scandal at some point later in the campaign.

2a. Mr. Romney has performed poorly enough in the early states that he is no longer viable.

2b. Mr. Romney is viable but his unfavorability ratings have considerably increased to the point that he no longer qualifies as a consensus choice.

3. A factional candidate like Ron Paul holds 10 or 15 percent of the delegates.

All of these conditions seem plausible based on what we know right now, which is what leads me to believe that a brokered convention is plausible as well.

Escenario para nuevos candidatos (I)

Rhodes Cook, del Center for Politics de la Universidad de Virginia:

The elongated layout of the nominating calendar this time provides the opportunity for a late-starting candidate to emerge. Should Mitt Romney stumble badly in the January events in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, another establishment Republican could enter the race in early February and still compete directly in states with at least 1,200 of the 2,282 or so GOP delegates. Many of them will be up for grabs after April 1 when statewide winner-take-all is possible.

Similarly, should non-Romney alternatives led by Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry fall flat in the January contests, there would be time for the conservative wing of the party to find a new champion to carry its banner through the bulk of the primary season.

In some respects, the layout of the 2012 primary calendar resembles that in 1976, starting in the dead of winter with events in Iowa and New Hampshire and building to a crescendo with California in early June. That year, President Gerald Ford and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan battled delegate for delegate until Ford prevailed at the convention that summer in Kansas City. It was the most closely contested and longest-running Republican nominating contest in the last 40 years.

On the Democratic side, the “back-loaded” arrangement of the primary calendar encouraged two late entries in 1976, Gov. Jerry Brown of California and Sen. Frank Church of Idaho. Each won several spring-time primaries. But they mounted their campaigns too late to offset former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter’s long lead in the delegate count.

Eight years earlier, Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York was a far more successful late starter. He entered the Democratic race after the New Hampshire primary and proceeded to run off a series of high-profile primary victories, culminating with a winner-take-all triumph in California in early June. Had he not been shot the night of his California victory, Kennedy might have gone on to wrest the nomination from Vice President Hubert Humphrey. As it is, Kennedy’s unfinished campaign is one of American history’s more intriguing “what ifs.”

To be successful, a late-starting campaign needs to feature a candidate with considerable fund-raising and organizational ability who is capable of quickly grabbing national attention. Charisma helps, as does a campaign message that can evoke widespread support. Robert Kennedy fit the bill in 1968, and there are arguably a few prominent Republicans on the sidelines this time who could mount a competitive, late-starting candidacy in 2012. These could include one of the establishment non-candidates who Republican elites pressured to enter the race earlier this year, such as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (although Christie has already endorsed Mitt Romney). The entry of any of these Republicans would cause waves, and because of their high profiles they would have little trouble raising money or attracting establishment support. On the other hand, if Romney gets off to a strong start in January’s opening round, then there might be pressure on the right to enlist former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to pick up the anti-establishment baton.

The long intermission next February — there are no primaries selecting delegates between Florida on Jan. 31 and Arizona and Michigan on Feb. 28 — provides a natural opening for major changes in the Republican nominating contest to take place. It gives time for active candidates to reassess their campaigns and for prospective candidates to make their move.

The main problem calendar-wise for late-starting candidates is there is often a lag time of two to three months between a primary filing deadline and the primary election itself. As a result, a candidate that jumped into the race early next February would still be too late to get his or her name on the ballot in all the primaries through early April, roughly 20 states in all. In these states, a late starter would have to be creative — “adopting” the Uncommitted line, for instance, in states where they are listed or mounting write-in campaigns in states where they are permitted.

But a late-starting candidate would be able to compete in caucus states immediately, where filing deadlines are rarely an issue. There will be fully a dozen states, plus territories, that will be holding their caucuses from Feb. 4 on. They will be offering a total of roughly 450 delegates.

And a candidate that entered the Republican contest in the wake of the Florida primary would be able to enter at least 15 primaries from April 24 on. It is a number that includes delegate-rich New York and Pennsylvania on April 24, Indiana and North Carolina on May 8, California and New Jersey on June 5 and Ohio on June 12. Taken together, this late array of primaries offers roughly 800 delegates, many of them to be awarded on a winner-take-all basis.

In addition, candidates that fall by the wayside as the primaries unfold often release their delegates, providing another significant pool for late-starting candidates to woo.

In short, the “new look” Republican nominating schedule for 2012 offers scenarios that the “front-loaded” calendars of the recent past could not. The likelihood of the usual quick knockout is reduced, while the prospect of a long slog for delegates is enhanced. And who knows, the latter could feature a late-starting candidate or two, adding another unique twist to a Republican presidential nominating campaign that has already displayed considerable fluidity.

Convención abierta y candidato de consenso. ¿Posible?

The Washington Times:

True, it has been generations since a presidential nominating convention actually made that decision, although, admittedly, this idea pops up every four years. The last contested GOP convention that went beyond the first ballot was 1948, when Thomas Dewey was chosen on the third ballot - and went on to lose to Harry Truman. For the Democrats it was 1952, when Adlai Stevenson was chosen also on the third ballot - and went on to lose to Dwight Eisenhower. The longest was the Democratic convention of 1924 that went on for more than two weeks and took 103 ballots to nominate John Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge.

There may be a pattern there. As G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young point out in their insightful Dec. 6, 2007, article “What if the conventions are contested?” “It is no coincidence that brokered conventions ended after networks began to televise them. The 1952 convention is instructive. Actually settled on the first ballot when Dwight Eisenhower beat Robert Taft, the intraparty brawling that preceded the Eisenhower victory appalled thousands who watched it on TV.”

In fact, hotly contentious conventions - whether the GOP in 1912 or the riotous Democratic Chicago convention in 1968 - often augur poorly for the general election. But whether good news or bad, five odd features of this season’s GOP primary process suggest inconclusiveness.

First is the much-mentioned weak front-runner, Mitt Romney. He has consistently commanded about 25 percent in the polls. Is that a floor or a ceiling? Conservatives urgently want to nominate an undoubted and solid conservative. With Republican primary voters increasingly conservative over the last generation, it would be curious if the GOP nominated the least perceived conservative two times running - first Sen. John McCain in 2008 and then Mr. Romney in 2012.

Second, equally paramount with nominating a conservative, GOP primary voters urgently want to defeat the incumbent, and they hold that passion more powerfully than we have seen in living memory. The conviction that the incumbent is plunging the nation into soon-to-be-irreversible, statist decline is driving the voters both to want to choose the most electable candidate and to make sure they pick a candidate with the conviction and capacity to radically reverse course and re-establish traditional, conservative American values and programs.

But do those strong feeling help Mr. Romney - seen by many as the most electable - or do they hurt him because he is not seen as committed to his conservative policies? Will the wild voter preference swings for and then away from various true conservative, non-Romney candidates continue as the voters feel this election is too important to make a quick - and possibly, wrong - choice?

Third, unlike previous primaries, the candidates announced late, they are underfunded - even Mr. Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry - there is little advertising and there are smaller state campaign operations with fewer paid and volunteer staff members.

Fourth, perhaps most important, with constant cable television debates drawing very high viewerships, talk radio, Internet and social media, this is the most nationalized and earliest primary process we have ever seen.

(...) Fifth, consider also that the GOP changed its winner-take-all rules. Now, any state that holds a primary or caucus before April 1 must award its delegates on a proportional basis, rather than the winner-take-all method. This means that a front-runner with, say, a 38 percent plurality in a six-way split field will get only 38 percent of the delegates instead of 100 percent. This will keep second-tier candidates in the hunt and deny the front-runner the steamroller effect that usually delivers a de facto winner in the GOP by February.

And here is the kicker. If we do go into the August convention with no candidate holding a majority of the delegates, then the door is open to nonprimary candidates being nominated after the first inconclusive ballot. Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee or others could get in the race. Or a brilliant speech by Newt Gingrich could take the convention by storm.

Break out the Nicorettes and flavored vodkas. We could be in for a modern version of smoke-and-whiskey-filled rooms in Tampa next August.

Newsmax:

Elements within the Republican Party are dreaming of a deadlocked convention that will hand the GOP’s standard to a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie, candidates they believe are best suited to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

Under the scenario batted around by party leaders and pundits, the top tier candidates battle it out state by state, dividing up the wins and delegates until they stumble into the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August with no winner. Deal making fails to crown any of the candidates and the field is opened up.

Former Florida Gov. Bush, New Jersey Gov. Christie or Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels gets the nomination, upsetting nearly 60 years of presidential nominating history.

“Yes, I have heard such talk from a few senior Republicans, including one officeholder,” University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato told Newsmax. “Why? They are dissatisfied with the field and hope that at a convention, a deadlock would produce a stronger nominee, such as Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or the like---a candidate who didn't want to run but would be willing to undertake a short general election race.

“I have said the same thing to each one: This is a pipe dream with at best a tiny chance of happening.”

Regardless, the thought has piqued the interest of political correspondents, talk show hosts and the former head of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele.

(...) NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell wondered who would carry the conservative flag if “Cain implodes.”

“Could it be Newt Gingrich? I would suggest he has so many flaws from his record that that would be a hard sell,” she said. “Is there a scenario? And you know the rules far better than anyone, Michael. Under these new rules, is there some sort of scenario where at the end of the day there could be a brokered convention – but could Jeb Bush come into it or someone else at the end of the day?”

Steele replied that for that to happen you would have “to have a scenario where you have two maybe three people going into the convention that are close in the delegate numbers.

“But what would happen in that situation is that the pressure would be on to really gravitate to one of those folks, to have a fourth person or third person come out of the blue and get the nomination would just upheave the whole thing. Because then you're having a conversation about a Jeb Bush coming in in August to run for the presidency in November.”

Paul Ryan encabezará el fondo presidencial del RNC

Un puesto que le puede ayudar a hacer contactos para una futura campaña presidencial.

Hotline On Call:

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., will head the Republican National Committee's presidential trust, the party announced Friday morning, a position from which he could launch a national campaign of his own -- eventually.

The trust is the fund from which the RNC will be able to make expenditures in coordination with its eventual presidential nominee. The fund can raise tens of millions of dollars, which could prove crucial after a nominee emerges from what could be a bloody, contentious and drawn out process. A broke nominee will be able to draw on RNC resources to fend off Democratic attacks while he or she restocks depleted campaign coffers.

In the long run, the post is a big deal for Ryan. The chairman of the House Budget Committee is a heroic figure to many in the conservative media elite, many of whom urged him to run for president. That was never a serious prospect, according to those close to Ryan, but he has realized that if he ever wants to run nationally, he'll need a donor base.

Running the trust will put Ryan's name in front of big donors who could eventually provide that base. A single donor can give up to $30,800 to the trust. And Ryan has promised Republicans he will be more than an honorary chairman; sources say he will dedicate both travel and call time to raising money for the trust.

His appointment is another sign that Ryan will disappoint fans in the conservative literati by forgoing a presidential bid this year. But it's a sign that he recognizes his potential as a future candidate, and he's laying a foundation in case the timing ever works out.

Paul Ryan da calabazas a los reclutadores

No se presenta:

"I sincerely appreciate the support from those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation. While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party's nomination for President. I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress."

Ahora máxima presión de los reclutadores sobre Christie.

¿Volverán a intentarlo con Thune?

¿Presionarán a Bobby Jindal después de que gane la reelección en Louisiana?

Continúan los esfuerzos para reclutar al candidato ideal

Wall Street Journal:

(...) "Do I think the field is complete yet? I would have thought so, but I've got to be honest. I think there could be a few more surprises," said New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jack Kimball.

There are few firm signs either Mr. Christie or Mr. Ryan will take the leap, but aides acknowledge the pressure. In Aspen, Colo., a few days ago, former Reagan administration official William Bennett took Mr. Ryan on a long hike, urging him to consider a presidential bid, according to people knowledgeable about the discussion.

Mr. Ryan's deficit-reduction plan has been roundly criticized by Democrats, but Republican insiders see him as the candidate with the intellectual heft to beat Mr. Obama in debates.

Mr. Christie, too, has been on the receiving end of many recent calls to get into the race. But Christie advisers have put the word out to unaligned donors and party elites in recent days that he has no plans to run.

"The intensity of the recruitment efforts has certainly increased to a new level, but nothing has changed in terms of the governor's plans," said Christie adviser Mike Du Haime.

(...) An unease also persists among big fund-raisers. "A lot of major bundlers are just kind of sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how things play out," said Ray Washburne, a top Pawlenty fund-raiser who has yet to commit to another campaign.

The challenge lies in the fact that the ideal contender, even more than normal, has to check two contradictory boxes: He or she has to appeal to the GOP's energized tea-party and social-conservative wings, while also assuring the party's elites of the ability to reach out to more moderate swing voters who usually decide general elections.

"Most people in the center-right realize that Obama is eminently beatable. Yet they don't feel that they are hearing a compelling message of how the leading Republican candidates are going to dig the country out of the economic quagmire that it's in, and they are searching for that message," said Fred Malek, a GOP fund-raiser who remains unaligned with any candidate.

There are others still in the wings. Former New York Gov. George Pataki has put out feelers in recent days, but his entry as a moderate Republican has gotten little encouragement, senior Republicans said Sunday. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is still pondering a run and should decide within days.

(...) Some GOP operatives say that time may have already run out for anyone beyond Ms. Palin to enter the race. "To develop a national campaign, you have to have been in a serious planning mode for months by now," said Phil Musser, a Pawlenty adviser. (...)

Abierto, inteligente, tranquilo y con sonrisa de monaguillo

National Review:

(...) There is another reason that Ryan would be a formidable nominee — he is likeable. Likeability is an important trait in any politician, of course, but it’s particularly crucial for conservative Republicans, who will be reliably demonized by the Democratic-leaning press. If Ryan is the nominee, they will call him cruel, they will say he’s an extremist, and so on. But then voters will see his open expression, his calm demeanor, his reassuring intelligence, and his altar-boy smile, and say, “Nah. He’s a good guy.”

Kristol: lo de Paul Ryan en un 50-50

Bill Kristol, editor del Weekly Standard: "Paul Ryan está pensando si se presenta. Creo que está en un 50-50. Creo que lo sabremos en una semana. Si tuviera que apostar, apostaría a que se presenta. También creo que si él no se presenta, se presentará Chris Christie."

Ser o no ser candidato

Stephen Hayes nos cuenta más detalles sobre los movimientos de Paul Ryan en Weekly Standard:

But some of the most interesting developments last week took place away from the cameras in the solitude of the Rocky Mountains, where Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan consulted with friends and family about whether he should join the race. Ryan has been quietly looking at a bid for nearly three months, since Indiana governor Mitch Daniels called him to say he wasn’t running. But that consideration took a serious turn over the past two weeks, following a phone call with New Jersey governor Chris Christie in early August.

Ryan and Christie spoke for nearly an hour about the presidential race, according to four sources briefed on the conversation. The two men shared a central concern: The Republican field is not addressing the debt crisis with anything beyond platitudes.

(...) Although the two men have not been especially close personally, their conversation about the campaign was blunt, and they agreed on a central point: If these issues are to get the kind of attention they deserve, one of the two men will have to run. One source called it a de facto pact, but another described it as a more informal understanding. Christie told Ryan what he has (usually) told -others: He does not want to run.

(...) Such things were on Ryan’s mind when he met later that day in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who stopped by to see Ryan before heading to Ames for the straw poll. According to several sources with knowledge of the meeting, Luntz had included in his polling of the Republican presidential race questions about some prominent Republicans not yet running. When Luntz volunteered to share the results, Ryan, who hadn’t done any polling of his own, agreed to see him. Luntz had tested voters’ responses to Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Ryan, among prominent noncandidates. The results, according to a Republican with knowledge of the discussion, were “very positive” for Ryan.

Luntz is not the only campaign veteran who’s been talking to Ryan. He has been speaking regularly with a number of Republican strategists. Among them are Karl Rove, the longtime adviser to George W. Bush. As Ryan has thought through his decision he’s had as a sounding board the only GOP strategist to win a presidential election in the last two decades.

(...) Ryan spent several hours last week hiking in the Rocky Mountains with Bill Bennett, who has been a friend and mentor for nearly 20 years. They have been doing mountain hikes for several years, but in an interview before the outing Bennett acknowledged that the significance of this year’s trek was the decision on the other side of it. “I expect to have some good long talks.” Bennett declined to share details of those conversations.

Several people who have been talking to Ryan expect that he will return to Washington near the end of August having made his decision. Most everyone who has been in touch with him believes that he is still genuinely torn between the daunting challenge of a presidential campaign he never expected to wage this year and the obligation of stepping forward to serve his country in a time of crisis.

¿Ryan para compensar la ausencia de Daniels?

Interesante apunte de Seth Mandel en Commentary señalando que detrás de este intento de reclutar a Paul Ryan como candidato parecen estar las mismas fuerzas vivas que hace unos meses empujaban a Mitch Daniels a presentarse.

All of the elite strategists and conservative opinion writers encouraging a Paul Ryan candidacy are making a strong case but not for the Wisconsin congressman. In fact, it’s difficult not to get the impression that, at this early stage, Ryan is a poor (conservative) man’s Mitch Daniels.

Don’t get me wrong—I believe the chorus of Ryan’s backers truly like Ryan, and they mean what they say. But the Indiana governor is the man these Republicans really want. (...)