US Presidential elections: Romney flubs T-Party running mate Ryan's introduction

Mitt Romney could have said almost anything to a buoyant crowd ready to welcome his new running mate and it would have been OK. But flubbing Paul Ryan's big intro evoked a moment of "Say what?" uncertainty.

About 1,000 people had queued in long lines starting before daylight to be the first to hail the Wisconsin congressman who became a conservative hero for championing deep spending cuts.

People beamed, leaning forward, standing on tiptoes, craning their necks as Romney set up the most anticipated debut of his candidacy.

Then Romney says, "… the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan."  After Ryan had already launched into his speech about unabashed budgetary austerity, traditional values and the failures of President Barack Obama's Democratic White House, Romney stepped back onstage to smilingly correct his gaffe.

Ryan is the architect of a deeply conservative and intensely controversial long-term budget plan to cut trillions in federal spending, and his conservative credentials are highly regarded by fellow Republicans who control the House of Representatives.

Read more: Romney flubs running mate Ryan's introduction - World - CBC News

the Atlantic: The Atlantic - End the Vice Presidency - by Matthew Yglesias

For the complete report from the Atlantic click on this link

US Politics - End the Vice Presidency - by Matthew Yglesias

"The job was initially conceived as a consolation prize for the second-place finisher in presidential balloting, a scheme that almost immediately led to disaster, in the wake of the 1800 election. Thus we got the Twelfth Amendment, turning the VP into a powerless second banana, usually put on the ticket to provide regional “balance.” But recent decades have seen an effort, beginning in the Carter-Mondale administration and gathering steam during the Clinton-Gore years, to bestow some real powers on the veep. This trend reached its logical conclusion in the Dick Cheney era, which demonstrated that vesting vast, undefined power in a man who has little constitutional or statutory authority is even worse than paying someone a salary to do nothing.Given that the office is at best worthless and at worst a threat to the republic, why don’t we simply get rid of it? Obviously, having someone ready to take over in the event of a president’s death is a necessity. Few roles could be more important. It’s just not a full-time job. Let the secretary of state, or some other designated member of the Cabinet, shoulder the responsibility; we’d save the taxpayer a few dollars and spare the nation the absurd quadrennial spectacle of VP speculation, all at the cost of eliminating an office no one respects—and one whose occupant, ideally, does nothing at all."