Thoughts from George Will on Romney’s pick:
When Ryan said in Norfolk, “We won’t replace our Founding principles, we will reapply them,” he effectively challenged Obama to say what Obama believes, which is: Madison was an extremist in enunciating the principles of limited government — the enumeration and separation of powers. And Jefferson was an extremist in asserting that government exists not to grant rights but to “secure” natural rights that pre-exist government.
Romney’s selection of a running mate was, in method and outcome, presidential. It underscores how little in the last four years merits that adjective.
With a bonus discussion of what Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King had in common.
BTW one side effect of Governor Romney selecting Rep. Ryan is that he is no longer able to use TARP and the Auto Bailout against President Obama.
Since the selection of Governor Romney neutralized President Obama’s health care as an issue, since it was model on Governor Romney’s health care plan, all that is really left for the Republicans are philosophy and ideology arguments. So I guess this is making lemonade out of lemons 🙂
Ryan didn’t approve of the auto bailout.
Why would anything be off the table? Did Obama’s $700b in Medicare cuts take Mediacare off the table? Did OWS take #newcivility off the table? Did Obama raking record cash from rich people take class warfare off the table? Did Obama’s PACs outraising Romney’s take the corruption of democracy off the table?
Just more wishful thinking from Trolling for Obama(tm).
Since Will is talking about extremism, I have a question that’s been on my mind for quite some time: has a centrist policy ever actually fixed something?
Rand,
He voted for it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ryan-record-20120812,0,5460291.story
Rep. Paul Ryan’s voting record reflects a GOP foot soldier
By Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau
August 12, 2012, 4:00 a.m.
[[[In crucial moments near the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, for example, when the White House pleaded with Congress for a bank bailout plan to save free-falling financial markets, Ryan joined the effort to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Dozens of Republicans did not. Ryan also joined in passing the auto industry bailout in late 2008, in the lame-duck session before the new Congress.]]]
Are you saying that he was forced into voting for it? By who?
BTW this is what real conservatives thought about it, before they begin sanitizing their websites to erase Rep. Ryan’s past… Here is one that still preserves his Rep. Ryan press release on it.
http://www.nickschweitzer.net/2008/12/11/PaulRyanHarmsHisOwnConstituentsWithTheBailout.aspx
Thursday, December 11, 2008
[[[It is clear that the mounting hardships throughout Southern Wisconsin have been downright gut-wrenching. In addition to the imminent closure of the GM plant in my hometown of Janesville and mass layoffs elsewhere, hard-working Wisconsinites are finding it increasingly difficult during this recession to cope with strained credit markets, rising health care costs, and making their monthly mortgage payments.]]]
So are you still going to stick with the party line he was against it?
He didn’t vote to have Obama hand GM over to the UAW. He can run on that all day long.
Only by running away from his voting record…
Nonsense. He can simply say, “I voted to save auto workers jobs, and I expected to see something resembling a lawful structured bankruptcy. I didn’t vote to have the president turn over the company to his cronies with our tax money.”
Except a “lawful structured bankruptcy” is exactly what happened. They went to bankruptcy court and everything.
The UAW was owed cash, not stock, in exchange for the UAW to assume health care costs for their retirees. Everybody got a haircut, which is what happens in bankruptcies.
Something they could have done without the $60b giveaway to the UAW.
Except a “lawful structured bankruptcy” is exactly what happened.
Tell that to the GM bond holders who were denied their legal priority over stockholders in order to give control to the UAW. There was nothing lawful about that.
Indeed. A judge can sign-off on Calvinball and make it lawful, but it’s still just Calvinball.
Rand,
In short, he just voted the way the party leadership told him out of necessity instead of following his principles. I guess when push comes to shove he threw his principles out the window. So much for being a follower of Ayn Rand. We all know how she would respond to someone not being true to their principles and compromising to curry favor.
So is the statist argument against Ryan is a “tu quoque”–in other words “he’s just as much of a statist as we are”? That seems hard to believe. I mean, to be as much of a statist as Obama or Chrtis Gerrib, Ryan would have to spend years listening to subliminal as-you-sleep recordings of DAS KAPITAL and THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH.
Agreed. With Obama already stating he wants to “bailout” all industries, which clearly means he wants to nationalize them. At worse, Romney/Ryan are a step in the right direction. I’ll take that step over having a perfect fascist state.
Obama gave a nice speech today where he said prosperity needed to be “shared”. This is just blowing the dog whistle to rally OWS types.
Socialists always forget that prosperity has to be created before it can be “shared.” That’s the story of this administration.
Here is another one, http://washingtonexaminer.com/you-didnt-build-that-obama-says-wealthy-are-lucky-blessed-fortunate/article/2504776?custom_click=rss#.UClVSs1Zbww
Is there a context for this quote other than the pattern of Obama’s statements over his lifetime in public life?
“If you’re lucky enough, and fortunate enough, and been blessed enough to be in the other two percent, the top two percent, you still get a tax cut for your first $250,000 of income,”