Demogoguery vs. Substance

Democrats have wasted no time beginning their attacks on Paul Ryan, as I predicted yesterday. It really wasn’t all that brilliant a prediction; their game plan has been fixed for quite some time. And of course they have all the helpers they could ever need:

They’ve already accused Romney of murder. I think he’s finally getting the message that these kinds of unsavory attacks are for real:

Now they have two people they can accuse of the same thing:

Wouldn’t it be nice if the focus of this campaign could be the two different visions of what the country should be? That would give the electorate a real choice. I think the Republicans want it to happen, primarily because of the stark distinctions that can be made:

I know some on the Republican side are eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate:

Ryan has always been a serious lawmaker who puts forth concrete plans. Even Bill Clinton praised him. Erskine Bowles, the Democrat co-chair of the debt commission, called Ryan practically a genius. And Barack Obama, in an apparently unguarded moment, actually said Ryan had put forward a legitimate bill that could be the basis for a debate. Naturally, that was all before he became the number two man on the Republican ticket. Democrats who understand that Ryan is intelligent and a hard worker are having some anxious moments:

What we are witnessing, and will probably continue to see throughout the campaign, is the difference between those who resort to demagoguery versus those who possess the gravitas of substance.