Ryan pick could sink Romney's campaign

   On Aug. 11, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his pick for vice presidential running mate. While some have hailed the pick as "excellent," including the predictably conservative Wall Street Journal, the truth is, Ryan's positions make him wholly unsuitable for the job. In fact, I predict what seemed a safe pick at the time may ultimately sink Romney in the general election.
   Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
   Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
   Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
   As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
   And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their  sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
   Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
   In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
   So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
   Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
    That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.