• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

VP Picks 2012

Yup, I think Frum nailed it. Romney is caving to the Tea Party, and he's making the same mistake McCain made in 2008. So much for going with the "safe" candidate who won't eclipse you.
I also liked the Frum article. I'm not in his camp but I think he's a very good commentator.

Ryan will fire up the Tea Party, but he'll alienate moderates and independents. And Romney will parrot the Tea Party line from now until November 5th.
But I'm not sure about this. I saw or read recently (don't remember where so no cite) that the number of undecideds is very low. It was asserted that that number usually doesn't get down so low until late in the campaign. If so, then there aren't too many left to alienate and pumping of the base is the right strategy. If so (again) then Ryan was a good choice.
 
Gosh, what does “the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand" imply to you?

Eh, there's plenty of more legitimate criticisms of Mr. Ryan...

For instance, if I were to credit any individual figure for getting me interested in political matters, it would be Ronald Reagan. And while I still respect the guy and his accomplishments, I've mellowed and can clearly see his negative side.

When Mr. Ryan starts writing budget proposals like the Dread Pirate Danneskjöld, then we can pillory him. Won't be long. :D
 
There was no Tea Party in 2008. IIRC the first events were Feb 2009. Unless you include the Ron Paul stuff.

Thank you for the tacit admission that the Tea Party weren't concerned with government spending until the black Democrat got into office. But generally I thought you were supposed to trumpet that they protested Bush as well?
 
The problem with this pick is the people who will be fired up with Ryan were going to vote for Romney anyway because of their distaste for Obama. Now Romney is going to have to own Ryan's budget, and if he doesn't (which would be the smart move), he risks alienating the very base he made this pick for.
 
Last edited:
Not quite -- Romney will split the difference, being vague as ever about his budget proposals ("closing loopholes" and "eliminating earmarks," that kind of thing, along with "repealing Obamacare"). He'll just assume that having Ryan on board signals his true intentions, wink wink, and it's up to you to decide if you trust him or not.

Most of his supporters think Obama is some kind of communist double-agent from Kenya put on earth to destroy the Republic anyway, so it'll work. Where it won't work is with the swing voters. There he'll have to be smarter.
 
Thank you for the tacit admission that the Tea Party weren't concerned with government spending until the black Democrat got into office. But generally I thought you were supposed to trumpet that they protested Bush as well?

They're known as one-twenty-o-nine deficit hawks.
 
Vice president nominee Paul Ryan’s love-hate with Ayn Rand

If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas…Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

I saw this article earlier, and there's something about this sentence that does not sit right with me. Anyone who has spent time with the hard-core Randroids knows they often like to shift arguments from politics and morality to epistemology and metaphysics. A couple points...

1) Virtually no one is drawn into Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" because of her theories of knowledge. What appeals to teens are the stories of ultra-competent but misunderstood two-dimensional characters; in fact, Rand fashioned her theories on epistemology in the sixties and seventies, decades after the publication of The Fountainhead. Incidentally, the theme of that novel is -- you guessed it -- individualism vs. collectivism.

In other words, I think Paul Ryan's full of ****.
 
From the CBO's Long-Term Analysis of Ryan's budget

Under the proposal, the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the traditional program. (The magnitude of that change is discussed in the following section.) That greater burden would require them to reduce their use of health care services, spend less on other goods and services, or save more in advance of retirement than they would under current law.

In addition, federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. Although states would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs and might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than they do under current law, the large projected reduction in federal payments would probably require states to reduce payments to providers, curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.
 
Last edited:
Oh and then there's the
The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO notes, “spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]” and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of government would largely have to disappear. That includes everything from veterans’ programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families and individuals other than Medicaid, national parks, border patrols, protection of food safety and the water supply, law enforcement, and the like. (In the same vein, CBO also notes that spending for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest “has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II.”[2]) [source]

I have a feeling this isn't going to go over well with the general public.
 
Romney is already signaling that he's not running on the Ryan budget. Want to bet? If Obama is going to run against the Ryan budget, then Mitt's in a pickle.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-ryan-budget.php

Quoting talkingpointsmemo!

Yes, they do have "talking points" for you.

How about something original for a change? Instead of just being a parrot.

Looks pretty much like the election has just shaped up.

Capitalism vs socialism.
 
Quoting talkingpointsmemo!

What about the linked article is incorrect?

Yes, they do have "talking points" for you.

The Romney campaign's talking points, yes.

How about something original for a change? Instead of just being a parrot.

Looks pretty much like the election has just shaped up.

Capitalism vs socialism.

...

This is a joke, right? You did that on purpose...right?
 
Andrea Mitchell on NBC is having a sad about T. Pawlenty. According to her, the former Minn. gov was very upset about being passed over 4 years ago for Sarah Palin. Now he's been overlooked again. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Other news. Tagg Romney delivered the bad news to the 2 also-rans.
Isn't the VP the "bridesmaid?" Always the um, Junior Bridesmaid, never the Maid Of Honor. Not quite as catchy though.
 
Romney is already signaling that he's not running on the Ryan budget. Want to bet? If Obama is going to run against the Ryan budget, then Mitt's in a pickle.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-ryan-budget.php

Ouch. That's a little embarrassing... I think the Obama campaign is going to have a field day with this, because if Romney runs from or doesn't at least defend Ryan's budget, then the Tea Party is going to be pissed at him.

And something else I noticed in the article: Romney is talking about coming up with his own budget plan? WTF dude?! Your running mate has one hanging out there and all, and now you're saying "Oh just wait, I'll come up with something..."

What a clown show :rolleyes:
 
How about something original for a change? Instead of just being a parrot.
Ok, let's try this. Imagine the situation turned upside down. The Elephant is running for a second term and a Donkey VP candidate has just been announced. He:

  • has NO foreign policy experience
  • has NO military experience or expertise
  • has NO private sector experience (in spite of the prez saying it is "essential")
  • is relatively young
You'd be going ape**** with glee wouldn't you?
 
From the CBO's Long-Term Analysis of Ryan's budget

Oh and then there's the


I have a feeling this isn't going to go over well with the general public.

Oh yeah, I remember starting a thread on the Ryan Budget proposal:

Paul Ryan's insane budget proposal

The biggest thing to notice about this proposal is what it leaves out:

1) It promises huge spending cuts in the discretionary part of the budget (from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75%), but doesn't say what those cuts will be.

2) It claims that its huge tax cuts for the rich will be paid for by closing "loopholes" but doesn't say what those loopholes would be.

Even that radical lefty magazine Forbes can see that the promises it makes are ridiculous:

Paul Ryan Proves It: We Can't Balance The Budget With Spending Cuts

Paul Ryan may not have intended it, but his 2013 budget is the strongest argument I’ve seen for why any serious fiscal plan must include new revenues. It’s far more convincing than partisan Democratic complaints.

Ryan says he wants to balance the budget only by cutting spending. But he proved with hard, relatively specific numbers (on the spending side, at least) that he can’t get there from here. And if you take the second page from the Republican hymnal and add huge tax cuts to the mix, you may find yourself headed off in just the wrong fiscal direction.
 

Back
Top Bottom