[A]n honest assessment of Ryan’s record requires acknowledging that he’s made his own party substantially more responsible and rigorous, while also challenging some of the self-deceptions that are endemic on the Democratic side of the aisle....The word "responsible" appears 3 other times in Douthat's short column.
Against this backdrop, Romney’s choice of Ryan looks a lot like Ryan’s own policy positioning: It was more politically risky than the alternatives, but it was also more responsible.
१५ ऑगस्ट, २०१२
"Why Moderates Should Like Paul Ryan."
I feel like Ross Douthat has written a column aimed right at me.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
Everyone talks about adult supervision.
maybe this is what it looks like.
I think we should all vote on the issue of "gay marriage." After all, in thirty years the fight will be over and forgotten and this is one of the last chances we will get to argue over this.
The national debt will be there for us in thirty years, bigger than ever. We can worry about it then!
Sincerely
- A. Moderate
Romney, Ryan, Responsible...rolls right off the tongue!
He’s made his own party substantially more responsible and rigorous, while also challenging some of the self-deceptions that are endemic,...
Gee, I wonder how he feels about Mitt's (and Orrin Hatch's - always with Orrin Hatch) Mitt's multi-level marketing and pyramid schemes?
Or maybe we should ask Mitt?
I betcha, if someone were willing to look, that would explain how Harry Reid got rich, too.
And as with all cons, the victims are invisible,....
So, Anne. Were you, perhaps, confusing Paul Ryan with Rick Perry or the ever intolerable Newt Gingrich?
In all seriousness, if you do not beleive the economy is the most important issue, and that healthcare and the US government deficit aren't major contributors to the vile economy, then go ahead and vote your heart on Gay Marriage (and maybe revoke about three years worth of blog postings). Otherwise....
Well, reflect that compromise will likely not come from an equivocal vote, or from candidates who do not have firm defensible positions on the issues. Folks like that tend to pander, and respond to people who are yelling the loudest. Compromise will come from people like Ryan and Romney who understand the issues and the numbers, and know wehre they can deal, and know where they should not. It will slso come only if the Democrats are too scared to resist a deal. And, frankly, I think that's going to come if they are wiped out in 2012.
The choice is even more clear than in 1980. We know a lot more about what works and what doesn't now. Obama isn't even trying to explain an alternative.
Ryan's more moderate than Conservative, it's just that anybody calling for anything like fiscal sanity is going to be called Conservative. His plan isn't bad once spending is under control, but Medicare and Social Security have to be fixed first.
You want a Conservative budget, talk to Rand Paul.
"I feel like Ross Douthat has written a column aimed right at me."
That's extraordinary.
McCain was the moderate in the '08 election; Obama was the radical liberal, rated as the most liberal member of the Senate.
"Moderates" who voted intelligently voted for the moderate in the race, not the radical liberal who was the least experienced person ever nominated for president by a major political party.
"Moderate" doesn't mean what you think it does.
"Moderate" doesn't mean what you think it does."
More to the point, EVERYONE thinks they are moderate (well, most nearly everyone), in the sense that "moderate" means "reasonable."
No doubt there are countless examples throughout history where people who deemed themselves "moderate" supported immoderate, unreasonable actions; people are stupid that way, and immune to histories lessons.
Nothing in Obama's history, ideology or experience should have ever suggested to any cogent observer any sense of political moderation or reasonableness.
His running for office as transparently the least experienced person was an act of extreme hubris and audacity; there was nothing moderate or reasonable about it, whatsoever.
As time passes, hopefully people will realize this.
I have only slight hope they'll be able to do so in time to rectify their mistakes in '08, but to the degree people can delude themselves into believing the epic failures of the affirmative action hire we have has president can be salvaged because "he's the moderate candidate," we'll continue to cannibalize America's future for no good reason at all.
Here is slow-Joe's gaffe today:
'Folks, where's it written we cannot lead the world in the 20th century in making automobiles?," said Biden.
Slow-Joe doesn't realize the 20th century is over.
They would demagogue every...proposal, decline to offer any alternative on any issue, and seal themselves inside a fantasy world where tax cuts always pay for themselves and budgets can be balanced by cutting funding for NPR.
Substitute 'healthcare' for 'tax cuts' and 'raising taxes on the rich' for 'cutting finding for NPR and this perfectly describes present day Democrats. Guess those things are only bad for Republicans...
Politicians from both parties sometimes seem to lack the requisite intellectual tools for addressing our financial problems. It's not a coincidence that former investment banker Erskine Bowles has praised Paul Ryan's efforts, nor is Bowles simply an apostate. I think it's because both men understand the concept of net present value:
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-net-present-value-of.html
Apparent shooting at FRC by an anti-CFA and FRC activist. No doubt, Palin will ne to blame.
I know I'm repeating myself but I really believe Romney-Ryan will win in a landslide. All Obama is talking about is Romney's dog riding on top of his car and the "Gonna Put Y'all In Chains" Biden can't help the Obama-Biden ticket even though Biden gets a free pass from the liberal media, I just don't see a long shelf life for their non issue all negative campaign given the high unemployment.
The author talks about Ryan's "deficit reduction plan, but it's no such thing.
All it does is reduce the rate of growth of the federal deficit.
I don't understand why you chose to remark on the incidence of the word responsible in Douthat's column. You're just as likely to find the word responsible in any pro-Obama essay, the difference is the words George W. Bush, Republican-controlled Congress and someone else is always nearby.
All it does is reduce the rate of growth of the federal deficit.
Yes. Louder, please.
Politicians are so afraid to do something meaningful, so afraid to do something that might lose them an election, that they don't do anything. So we congratulate Paul Ryan for being conservative and we congratulate ourselves for finally having a good alternative to Obama.
Meanwhile, the national debt is at $16 trillion and no end in sight. Not even with Romney as president.
Ryan has also never proposed a rigid "plan." He has put forth proposals and defended them, but he has also been clear that he is open to rational discussion about alternatives. And he seems actually sincere about that, unlike Obama, who claims he is open to all ideas and then trashes anything else anyone proposes besides whatever he is hawking at the moment.
"All it does is reduce the rate of growth of the federal deficit."
If we can grow our economy more than the rate of spending, we could still reduce the debt, how much, depends on how robust the economic growth is.
From an interesting 2009 profile of Paul Ryan:
Not a culture warrior
He cautioned listeners more than once that day that Democrats "aren't our enemies, they're our opponents," and, "They ran on doing these things and so they're doing them. They won!"
Ryan prides himself on his personal relationships with Democrats and his outreach to African-Americans, organized labor and others.
"A lot of conservatives just think unions are nothing but bad. That's just not true," says Ryan, who grew up in a city with a huge United Auto Workers local and broke with most conservative Republicans by voting for the auto bailout in December, citing the "mounting hardships" in southern Wisconsin, once a car-making hub.
"They're people who are just trying to make their lives better, people trying to collectively negotiate a better standard of living for themselves. What the heck is wrong with that?" he says of unions. "Granted, I get picketed once a week."
While socially conservative, Ryan's focus is so overwhelmingly economic that he generally avoids entanglement in the culture wars.
"He doesn't get caught up with the so-called social issues that separate people," says Steve King, the former state GOP chairman who has chaired Ryan's campaigns.
Learning from gay friends
One social issue where he broke with most House Republicans was his support for federal legislation banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"I take lot of crap for that vote" from conservatives, says Ryan, who doesn't consider himself a strict libertarian but says his views lean that way on this issue. "The way I see that . . . may be informed by just friendships I've had, people I grew up with in Janesville who didn't choose to be gay. It wasn't an orientation they decided to experiment (with) or choose. It's just who they are. They were just created that way."
This guy sure sounds like an ideological extremist to me.
This guy sure sounds like an ideological extremist to me.
But Ryan's a Randian, as surely as the financial architect of the Clinton boom was.
Ryan does not want to reduce spending, just the RATE of spending. He also voted for HR 347 and NDAA. He is just another criminal, committing treason, by allowing a non natural born Citizen to serve as POTUS. Both sides of the aisle are the same. Wake up!!!
Mick said: Ryan does not want to reduce spending, just the RATE of spending.
Excuse me Brenda, but reducing the rate of growth is tantamount to deceleration--a first and necessary step in reducing growth. And you, an LSE graduate.
Cheers,
Keith
P.S. Are we still on for that 50th year gig?
Next thing you know a gay, bisexual and transgender association is going to endorse him because he has achieved 6% body fat.
Liked the editorial.
Excuse me Brenda
Heh heh
Ryan's take on homosexuality is a big break with the religious right who monolithically believe that it's a lifestyle choice or a perversion.
chickelit said...
"Mick said: Ryan does not want to reduce spending, just the RATE of spending.
Excuse me Brenda, but reducing the rate of growth is tantamount to deceleration--a first and necessary step in reducing growth. And you, an LSE graduate.
Cheers,
Keith
P.S. Are we still on for that 50th year gig?"
Nonsense. His reduction in the RATE assumes a 5% per year growth in GDP for 20 years. ALL BS. Ryan is a criminal like the rest. It will take a Revolution to drain the swamp. There is no law and no constitution as it stands, with an illegal President, that this supposed "constitutionalist" allowed. But then arguing about economics w/ a liberal is like fighting a man w/ no arms
@Alex:
Ryan's take on homosexuality is a big break with the religious right who monolithically believe that it's a lifestyle choice or a perversion.
I give the religious right more credit than that. They are fully capable of believing it's both.
Brian - the point is Ryan's view is going to force the hand of the radical right wing at the convention. No wonder Palin was not invited, she represents the religious right.
Brian - the point is Ryan's view is going to force the hand of the radical right wing at the convention. No wonder Palin was not invited, she represents the religious right.
When you say things like this, I know you're wearing your
(meta)moby hat.
But in case others take you at your word-- yeah right. Palin may be a social conservative (I actually have no idea), but she's hardly an avatar of the religious right. And like Ryan, she has a record of gay-friendly legislation in Alaska.
The fact that Romney and Ryan are the GOP nominees and Chris Christie will be the convention keynote speaker is enough to demolish the "radical right wing" crack.
And all of that and more refutes the notion of a "monolithic" religious right.
Alex said...
Brian - the point is Ryan's view is going to force the hand of the radical right wing at the convention. No wonder Palin was not invited, she represents the religious right.
Wrong on each count, Alex.
I find your rants about Palin telling.
PS Santorum is speaking at the convention too.
It's a big tent, and that's a good thing.
Only once the GOP has purged itself of the radical right will they get to complain about the media coverage. Radical is radical.
FYI "purging" is the kind of thing radicals do.
Oh, what's the point of carrying on an argument with someone you're not sure is being serious.
I'd like to know what and whom you mean by "radical right" though.
Only once the GOP has purged itself of the radical right will they get to complain about the media coverage. Radical is radical.
There is no one in the GOP that is radical right. There are conservatives, moderates, and RINO's. But no radicals.
Hey Crack... who knew? Utah is rife with Multi-Level schemes ... I thought the capital for that was teh Calvinist town Grand Rapids, Michigan ...Amway and all that RINO De Vos family stuff.
Nothing in Obama's history, ideology or experience should have ever suggested to any cogent observer any sense of political moderation or reasonableness.
Well that's just it. He didn't have much in the way of political history, and all his pre-politics stuff is apparently locked away in the world's most secure vault. You could have projected whatever you wanted onto his vague rhetoric.
Of course, that's no longer the case.
Only once the GOP has purged itself of the radical right will they get to complain about the media coverage. Radical is radical.
So spending the same amount you collect in taxes is radical?
I Callahan ... you are dead on in that analysis vis a vis radicals... actually, as a fellow Michigander, I'm almost stunned that anyone even slightly to right of teh RINO's du Jour is really running for office. :-)
But I am prejudiced ... in all my years here Democrat and Republican differences were solely in the avatar they choose to use. Our most famous and longest serving Republican (Ha ha ... highest taxing bastid evah!) governor formally endorsed John Kerry in 2004. Now some actual conservatives have a chance...whoa!!
I may need time to recover from the shock here abouts.
He opened his mouth again? Via Vodkapundit:
OBAMA: But but but…here’s the thing. I-I-I If you’re lucky enough, if you’re fortunate enough, and been blessed enough, to be in the other 2%, the top 2%, you still get a tax cut for that first $250,000 of income. All we’re saying is, after that, maybe you can do a little bit more to help pay down this deficit, and invest in things like education that help our economy grow.”
Seeing Red, there's also this from some days ago:
“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
“I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”
Oh yeah, let's go forward to a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared. (Nothing radical about that!) Wouldn't want to go backward to the "same" old America in which prosperity was created in the first place.
New boss, new rules around here, kids. Learn to share, Timmy! Give Tommy your handmade toy. You didn't build that. Now keep making those toys so I can pass them out to the rest of the kids.
Bad boy, Timmy. Go to your corner.
(NB That third paragraph also begs to be unpacked.)
"You can make it if you try" makes it sound like he's talking about advancement through hard work and merit.
But if a Republican said that "you can make it if you work hard" they'd be vilified.
So spending the same amount you collect in taxes is radical?
You're taking Alex seriously. Stop it at once. :)
Absolutely, Synova. But to my ears there's also a difference between "try" and "work hard."
To my ears it sounds like Obama's saying we should want an America in which if you just "try" (such a weak word, just "give it a try"), then no matter what, you should be guaranteed to "make it."
A guarantee only an all-mighty government can make.
Recall the "you didn't build that" speech. That passage started with him scoffing at those who think they made it because they "worked so hard" or were "so smart." But he ridicules that notion-- after all, lots of people (you people in the audience, am I right?) work hard, lots of people are smart!
The implication is: it's not hard work or smarts or the considerable risks "you" (i.e. they) took, but a matter of luck (or injustice) that *you* made it and not others, who "tried" just like you did. That's not fair: if anyone tries, they should make it too.
This goes to something Ryan's talked about in his speeches: that America is a land that promises equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
The "new vision of America" that Obama is proposing, sounds to me like one that promises the inverse-- an equalization not of opportunity but of outcomes. No matter what, you'll "make it" if you "try." An all-powerful "benign" government will ensure that you do. (Especially if you're someone who might blame not making it on "what you look like" or "who you love.")
Don't worry, Julia, you'll make it.
A government that has the power to even the score between winners and losers. And of course that means: the power to pick winners and losers.
Obviously this is not a charitable interpretation; Obama's words could be interpreted much more charitably, to mean something I would wholeheartedly agree with. But taking his words in the context of everything else he's said and done, I don't feel inclined to be charitable.
That promise of an equalization of outcomes, guaranteed by government-- that's the socialist European model.
Yashu wrote: Don't worry, Julia, you'll make it.
This reminded me of lines from "Love is All Around," the Mary Tyler Moore Show theme song:
How will you make it on your own?
This world is awfully big, girl this time you're all alone
But it's time you started living
It's time you let someone else do some giving
Love is all around, no need to waste it
You can have a town, why don't you take it
You're gonna make it after all
You're gonna make it after all
It's an uplifting song to be sure, and no one should bash Julia's optimism. Still, Julia should not expect any patronizing authority to take care of her.
Oh yes, chickelit, I heard that song in my head too. I love the Mary Tyler Moore show.
But that song is obviously appealing to her sense of self-reliance and independence. Not reassuring her with a patronizing pat on the back.
Unless you reinterpret "It's time you let someone else do some giving..."
Unless you reinterpret "It's time you let someone else do some giving..."
Well, yes because like Julia, like the MMT character was never seeking conjugal love--just affirmation and material existence. I guess it took Murphy Brown to go further with that.
Typos, like OMG!!
Synova,
"You can make it if you try" makes it sound like he's talking about advancement through hard work and merit.
But if a Republican said that "you can make it if you work hard" they'd be vilified.
And why would that be? Since it's been Mitt saying that, about his favorite pyramid schemers, who know you can make $200+ on at least a $2,000 investment - if that - then vilification seems warranted.
But I know - to you now obedient "followers" who see no wrong and acknowledge nothing - it's all wasted breath.
Oh, man, the economy's gonna do GREAT under this guy,...
But you will still vote for Obama. Even liberals who like to believe they are reasonable never stray from the flock when it comes right down to it.
granmary,
But you will still vote for Obama. Even liberals who like to believe they are reasonable never stray from the flock when it comes right down to it.
And conservatives do? Jesus, you guys really have to look up the word "hypocrisy" because listening to yourselves definitely isn't doing the trick.
Look, wave your R/R placard and shut-the-fuck up, will you?
It won't get you any more credibility, but you might - might - maintain a smidgen of dignity that way,..
I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try
... said the President of the United States, a black guy from Hawaii named Barack Hussein Obama.
The subtext of these little speeches of his is "I am SO awesome that I was elected President even though Americans hate black people with funny-sounding names".
... said the President of the United States, a black guy from Hawaii named Barack Hussein Obama.
Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Slam dunk, Rev.
Chris Christie is the keynote speaker? That's great.
"Renewable energy not only helps meet our goals of increasing sustainability and protecting the environment, but can be an engine for economic growth and the creation of good-paying jobs for the people of our state. The bill I am signing today furthers these goals and will help us remain a national leader in the solar energy industry as we continue to promote innovative approaches to solar development, like developing landfills and other unusable lands and transforming them into sources of usable clean energy, all while holding down costs for families and businesses."
Legislation signed by Christie July 23 will require New Jersey utilities including Public Service Electric & Gas to get 2.05 percent of their electricity from solar projects in 2014, up from less than 0.5 percent now. The solar mandate will rise to 4.1 percent by 2028.
Christie has RINO baggage, but that would be a problem if he was the VP pick, rather than the keynote speaker.
On the focal themes of the R/R campaign (which his speech will be limited to), I can't think of a more fiery, effective, combative, passionate, no-bullshit speaker.
Christie's a blue state RINO in some ways, but his speeches are red red meat. Yet he appeals to purplish independents and disaffected blues too, so IMO he's a great choice.
Besides, someone up there has to represent for the non-P90X population.
Crack: Jesus, you guys really have to look up the word "hypocrisy" because -
You first.
Crack: It won't get you any more credibility, but you might - might - maintain a smidgen of dignity that way,..
LOL. The anti-Mormon psycho is lecturing us about credibility and dignity.
Why the fuck do you even post here anymore? Other than to pimp your blog on Ann's dime, of course.
Check thyself into mental ward before you go postal. Asshole.
Mitt's multi-level marketing and pyramid schemes
Get thee to a remedial English class; I am penalizing you for improper use of the third person possessive.
Now do your homework, and think about what you've done. :)
Fen,
LOL. The anti-Mormon psycho is lecturing us about credibility and dignity.
Not that you've ever proven to be worth discussing anything with, but for the record:
I have stayed 100% consistent in my position on cults and you can scream "bigotry" all day - just as Mitt's campaign taught you to - and it won't mean an iota to me. You're a bunch of cultish followers now and I don't listen to them.
The rest of you have become total dick suckers for a man you were told to back ("inevitable") though you previously called him a phony, a flip-flopper, not-a--conservative, and a host of other titles. You followed the Republican elite's line to the letter, focussing even on Ann Romney's horse and leaving out her weird obsessions with quackery like "Craniosacral therapy" faith healing (which her son, Josh, "trained" in - nice looking kid for a fruitcake) reflexology, and all the other non-non beliefs shared by every cult I've ever foliowed.
At this point, you fools will say everything but the truth:
You sold your souls - and your country - for the very thing I told you, from the beginning, to beware:
What it could do to YOU.
Now fuck off, you fucking zombie, I - for one - aim to keep[ my brain,,...
I - for one - aim to keep[ my brain,,...
Heh. Better tell your fingers.
The response you deserve is:
"What a fucking moron. Can't believe you are still spewing this cult shit. Get a life you fucking moronic bigoted hypocrite. I can't believe I waste time here telling you how stupid you are"
Did that change your heart/mind Crack? Because thats exactly what you sound like - a rabid little bitch on the verge of a complete breakdown.
If there are any friends left here that you haven't driven off with your madness, please chime in and help Crack out. Its gotten too pathetic to even parody anymore.
If there are any friends left here that you haven't driven off with your madness, please chime in and help Crack out.
Was there a point at which he wasn't a couple of tacos and a bean burrito short of a combination plate?
Revenant,
Was there a point at which he wasn't a couple of tacos and a bean burrito short of a combination plate?
Yeah - every time I fart that shit in your face.
Now pull my finger, bitch,...
To my ears it sounds like Obama's saying we should want an America in which if you just "try" (such a weak word, just "give it a try"), then no matter what, you should be guaranteed to "make it."
A guarantee only an all-mighty government can make.
Recall the "you didn't build that" speech. That passage started with him scoffing at those who think they made it because they "worked so hard" or were "so smart." But he ridicules that notion-- after all, lots of people (you people in the audience, am I right?) work hard, lots of people are smart!
The implication is: it's not hard work or smarts or the considerable risks "you" (i.e. they) took, but a matter of luck (or injustice) that *you* made it and not others, who "tried" just like you did. That's not fair: if anyone tries, they should make it too.
Yashu nails it. Send that to the Romney campaign.
Reference @Seeing Red's quote of Obama:
OBAMA: But but but…here’s the thing. I-I-I If you’re lucky enough, if you’re fortunate enough, and been blessed enough, to be in the other 2%, the top 2%
Yep, no reference to anything but chance, ... not diligence, hard work, sacrifice, or creativity.
The Obama man cannot escape himself. His expansion of thought ended with "Capital: Critique of Political Economy" by Karl Marx. He strove for it and reached the same plane of intellect as the sophomores from the 1960's.
I'm pretty sure he spent little or no time studying John Locke, or Classical Liberalism. Individuality is no where near as easy to assess to the simple minded as is the concept of exploitation of the masses, which requires exploitive leadership to re-distribute among them, the fruits of those that labor to those that do not. Perfect circular lazy logic.
The scary part for me is the fact a majority of voters voted for this guy. Some very bright minds found succor in the Obama fantasy ... and I will never really understand that.
I'm not "in love" with Romney, but with only two choices, I'm going to vote for Romney, misgivings and all. I share some of "Crack's" misgivings and have a couple of my own regarding the Michigan bred RINO Republican nature. I do not think Romney is going to make everything better ASAP like some rescuing knight of yore. My hope is that, realizing we're in a hole, Romney will at least stop the digging.
The choice is between a guy we know won't stop digging, and one we hope is smart enough to ... even if he can't fill the hole back in.
That and I cannot vote for any man/woman who believes success is just luck, scabbed off the backs of the less lucky. In essence, such a man/woman is a thief.
Moderation in the defense of liberty is no vice.
You are wrong Aridog,
Socialism, capitalism, and all the other -isms we usually talk about are European, or have their roots in Europe, like ourselves.
Obama's attitude is not; it is a Third World something that is alien to us, and we do not recognize it or know quite how to deal with it, which is why the discussion do not make much sense. It is like an Italian and a Frenchman speaking to each other; the words are similar, but it is not the same language.
Yeah well, some stick to their guns.
Crack sticks to his message.
Hagar....I think you have a point about Obama's third world outlook, however I also believe that he's imagining it, contriving it, as part of his invented identity. He is consistent only in his reference to success as luck or exploitation of everyone else.
Obama had a v-e-r-y western upbringing and education. He was exposed to and tutored in Communist thought in Hawaii through high school at least. Everything he says reeks of it.
I spent my college days (daze?) around sundry Marxist and Leninist types. Lots of imaginary Cuban revolutionary posers around in those days. Pretty hard to say "Che" wasn't marxist/communist. Most were wholly untutored in any other "ism" in Western thought, especially those sponsoring individuality. Obama sounds not a little bit like, but e-x-a-c-t-l-y like those student associates of my youth...nearly perfection in deja vu.
Communism fits perfectly in to most 3rd world thinking by playing to the poverty aspect as caused by outsiders, etc. ...e.g., "exploiters."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा