I don't see how it even passes the Cheney test of picking someone who could step in and be president.

It's amazing that a choice like Ryan could make Romney seem relatively acceptable. Ryan would be stepping in for Romney - who is already a twit.

Unfortunately, both parties have been selling the deficit nightmare and that we have to get spending under control. Thats been one of the biggest mistakes of his first term. Couple that with the press liking Ryans plan because (in their comfy retirement secured eyes) it's a serious plan that deals with entitlements- because everyone has to sacrifice. So say the talking heads.

It is odd.  Carl Cameron on Fox was just reporting that it took most of the Romney campaign people by total surprise, including the crew that was down in Virginia doing advance for the pre-scheduled event.

BTW, this senior(I am older than the boomers) is voting for a the R & R guys.  

Here - chew on some facts for a change:

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that Medicare and Medicaid spending has decelerated in recent years, and not just because of the Great Recession. The public programs have seen their cost growth slow significantly compared to private health insurance. And this is expected to continue for the coming decade.

This is so important because, as Paul van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, the public debate has focused on transforming Medicare and Medicaid in the coming years, constraining cost in the very programs that are the most cost-efficient. If anything, the opposite should be true, and more and more of the system should be converted into public programs to increase the risk pool, allow for greater bargaining leverage on prices, and provide stability.

These data belie the claim that spending for Medicare and Medicaid is "out of control" and that the programs must be fundamentally restructured by adopting Medicare premium support or converting Medicaid into a block grant.

Medicare and Medicaid spending per enrollee will grow at rates of 3.1 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, over the next ten years -- well below the projected growth rate of 5.0 percent for private insurance and somewhat less than the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. (See figure.) John Holahan and Stacey McMorrow of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, base these estimates on the latest projections of national health expenditures prepared by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Republican plans - and that of the likes of Erskine Bowles - betray their real agenda by focusing on "runaway health costs" in Medicare and Medicaid, when the real runaway costs come from private insurance (and yes, this ends up affecting the budget because of the large employer deduction on health care plans).

Sarah Kliff tries to pinpoint the cost growth and when, precisely, it slowed. But while we can argue about that, we cannot argue this fact: the cost growth in Medicare and Medicaid, relative to private insurance, is much lower. So any reasonable look at the data would suggest that even if your prime objective was to bend the cost curve, your goal should be to increase Medicare and Medicaid rather than creating a lasting market for private insurance.

Are you old enough to remember what the Great Depression was really like?

Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement be- tween liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of jus- tice-and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources--can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.

Particular indeed.

it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services. It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed.

And what is "just?"

Procedurally, it sug- gests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed.

Death Panels anyone?

Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citi- zens in public deliberations-are to be socially guar- anteed as basic.

Want a child? Have your genes tested. Want a child? Don't say or do anything that will offend the people writing and enforcing the rules.

Conversely, services provided to in- dividuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

The challenged child who, at age 9, can only proudly point to his ability to tie his shoes but also offers boundless love is just out of luck.

And Granny?? Well, too bad. You've worked all your life as a good citizen should and now it is your time to die.

So that could be a wash.
Probably more to Obama's favor - since he is a relatively known quantity. Romney is another 4 years of on the job training.

The far far right (a notch to the right) will probably go Romney.

The liberals to whom the court is seen as the issue, will go Obama.
But the fevered youth, the "new Kennedy" people, will be unmotivated.

There is no far left anymore - if there ever was one.

To me this election is most uninspiring.