John Hodgman writes this excellent essay that is, in part, about winning — but also about how winning isn’t an easy road and involves both compromise and disappointment:

…the cost of losing is very high. As a supporter of health care reform, same-sex marriage, women’s rights, tax fairness, a domestic policy responsive to the realities of the present day as opposed to toxic nostalgia, and an international policy that punishes our enemies more than it rewards our private contractors, I may not always agree with the speed or execution of Obama’s policies. But I know that a loss this year would not be seen as a noble failure. It would be seen as a repudiation of these values for a long time to come. Losses transform ideals into irrelevant fantasy, and idealists into weepy self-pitiers, like old-school Red Sox fans and Tea Partiers and people who really believe some day that Firefly might come back.

Mitt Romney, whose father was born abroad and whose grandfather was a member of an unusual religion, is really the last person who should be aligning himself with the birthers. Especially since, hey, I’ve never seen his long-form certificate, so I have to take him at his word that he wasn’t actually born in Mexico and isn’t a member of the FLDS.

Yet here you go:

The presumptive GOP nominee, joined for a rally outside Detroit Friday by running mate Paul Ryan, joked that he had been born in a nearby hospital and that ‘‘no one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. ‘‘

Forbes, that notoriously left-wing member of the “mainstream media”, asks which of the Presidents of the last 50 years has grown federal spending the least. Which one would Ronald Reagan “have to give… a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar”?

Oh, I think you know the answer.

(Naturally, the comments section is filled with threats and obscenities. Sometimes it can be hard for some folks to accept that facts have a left-wing bias.)

As you know, Mitt paid 13.9% on his taxes in 2010. Under the tax plan espoused by VP candidate Paul Ryan, Mitt would have paid… somewhat less.

In 2010 — the only year we have seen a full return from him — Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends…

Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax — saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

How does Mitt Romney introduce his freshly-minted VP pick?

“Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States: Paul Ryan.”

PRICELESS.