The battle lines are now clearly drawn for the US 2012 presidential election campaign. It is clear that a game of hardball is going to be played out with both, the Republican and Democratic sides holding diametrically opposing views. The announcement by Republican candidate Mitt Romney, of his running mate, makes it clear that he intends to go all out after President Barack Obama’s team and its policies. The announcement of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate puts the most hard line side of the Republican Party on centre stage. Ryan, who has headed the Senate budget committee, is a strong opponent of the Medicare and Medicaid programmes, reforms which formed a central part of Obama’s domestic policies in the last electoral battle. Ryan has made it clear that he opposes the changes and wishes to see less government spending on providing medical aid to those who do not have insurance. This would, of course, leave some of the poorest Americans out in the cold. Obama has already described the strategies Ryan advocates as “social Darwinism” leaving only the toughest and most able to survive. This, of course, in the present context means the rich or the relatively rich.
The picture then is now spread out before us. As was largely the case in 2008, domestic policies and the question of the state’s role in caring for those most in need will form a central point of the 2012 campaign as well. While the healthcare issue had always seemed likely to form a part of the campaign, with Ryan’s nomination, it now stands at the foreground of the contest.
By making the long-awaited announcement regarding his running mate, Romney has signalled that he has no intention of holding back. Obama will be equally determined to defend the changes he has introduced, which according to him, were aimed at assisting those Americans who have no voice. He will now need to see if these persons, and others who share his views, can lend him the same kind of support they offered four years ago and keep a Democrat in the White House for another term.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 13th, 2012.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713418975-0/MehwishKhans-(1)1713418975-0-270x192.webp)
1712071304-0/image-(14)1712071304-0-270x192.webp)
@Falcon
None of those policies are affected by whoever is elected as president, Republican or Democrat. They remain the same. As a news for so-called 'Pakistani liberals', there is a 'deep state' in US too, just machinations are different .
@Concerned: No offense but America's presidential and vice presidential candidate don't only affect Americans anymore. It affects the whole world in such a globally integrated world. Three aspects that affect the world significantly are America's foreign policy, energy security policy, and economic policy (Ex: domestic quantitative easing in 2009 triggered inflation in emerging markets).
Why ET has to make it a editorial and outsiders have to comment?
@Concerned. I agree with u.
Gentlemen could you pls leave it to American public what is best of them?
@Ch. Allah Daad, Paul Ryan is not good for America. He believes in "trickle down economics" Which means that the federal government would no longer provide subsidies for the poor, cut social welfare, destroy the medicad/medicare program for the poor. He wants to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and believes that businesses will "employ" more people if they get tax breaks, which is B.S. Ryan is a corporate puppet and besides that he has voted for al the wars and supports a very right wing hawkish foreign policy.
Paul Ryan is a risky choice and it would only inspire rightwing faction of the party. PR has no management experience (like governor of a state) or foreign policy experience. All his credentials are in conservative economics. He does not qualify to be one heartbeat away from the US presidency. In addition PR is as white as they come and would not bring any votes from the fastest growing minority Latinos.
Its Mit Romney's very impressive choice. At the young age of only 42, Ryan has already 13 years of legislative experience. Political path adopted by Ryan should be followed by those who want to make politics as their career. Join one of the main stream parties, get necessary experience and apply it for the benefit of the nation. Whenever I see young politicians doing great service to their countries, I feel very sad for Imran Khan. If he had joined one of the main stream parties, two decades of a precious life would not have been waisted. Imran is over fifty five and still no government experience. I was so impressed with Ryan's political knowledge, his grasp upon budgetery matters and government policies, whereas our young generation's hope has only negative remarks and abuses for his opponents.