Which bring us to another problematic aspect of Romney’s decision to pick Ryan. The very qualities that attract the right to Ryan — his ideological purity and his verbal dexterity in making the case for smaller government — are very likely to eclipse Romney, who despite the boldness of his choice still projects a weak political persona and ideological ambiguity. No candidate willingly demotes himself from first to second fiddle, but Romney has chosen to do so.

In this context, Fred Barnes paid the ticket a backhanded compliment:

Romney showed that, like a smart businessman, he knows his shortcomings. For all his attacks on Obama’s economic policies, Romney has failed to create a sense of urgency about the country’s faltering economic situation. And without a national fear of an impending catastrophe, he can’t defeat Obama.

Romney’s solution, Barnes wrote, is to get someone who can: “No one in America is better than Ryan in spelling out, with figures and facts, the crisis America faces.”

For very different reasons, Democrat strategists like Burton and Garin would agree.

Paul Ryan IS fear incarnate.

If Romney can't win 50.1% of the vote with boring bullshit, then Ryan can scare the crap out of them to get them to vote.

That's the new strategy. Scare the crap out of voters.

Well, technically not 50.1% right? Just swing states e.g. Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Virginia since most states are going to vote one way or the other regardless.

You're right, scare the heck out of Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, and they win.

That possibility scares me, too.