• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney Picks Paul Ryan as VP

Wrangor said:
I think what Ryan gives Romney is some resolution. Love or hate Paul's proposals they are grounded and he sticks by them. In some ways he is the Anti-Romney. He put out the Ryan plan and it got blasted by some within his own party, yet he stood by it. I think Ryan is very smart, very articulate, and would do a great job as VP. Probably my favorite politician at the moment. If we had more politicians like Ryan on the left and the right we would be much better off as a country.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much credit we should give Ryan for putting out plans that are entirely unrealistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...udget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html
 
ChrisL68 said:
One thing that Ryan can be attacked on is that he was a fiscal moderate until the day that Obama became president. Voted for every stimulus vote to save the economy when it was W's neck on the line.
Click to expand...

I don't think many people understand the situation in DC during the TARP vote. It isn't a valid excuse, but the congress really thought we were going under. Many guys had out of character votes.
 
Hello said:
I don't think many people understand the situation in DC during the TARP vote. It isn't a valid excuse, but the congress really thought we were going under. Many guys had out of character votes.
Click to expand...

We were going under. Voting for TARP is to Ryan's credit.
 
Hello said:
I don't think many people understand the situation in DC during the TARP vote. It isn't a valid excuse, but the congress really thought we were going under. Many guys had out of character votes.
Click to expand...

this is all from Jaime Dupree's facebook (unverified)

National Journal 2011 vote ratings for US House have Paul Ryan as the 150th most conservative, 278th most liberal

-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
 
The Pubs have always been better at throwing ideological bombs at the decision makers than actually making those tough decisions when they are in power. You can certainly make that claim about Ryan.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The Pubs have always been better at throwing ideological bombs at the decision makers than actually making those tough decisions when they are in power. You can certainly make that claim about Ryan.
Click to expand...

Because he voted for TARP, the plan that undoubtedly saved our banking system? That makes him seem more like a pragmatic problem solver, which is obviously the image that the Romney campaign is going for, than a radical right winger who waffled on his principles for political purposes.
 
cville deac said:
Interesting choice and I believe a mixed bag. More than anything else, I think this is a move to placate the base of the party. The base believes Romney is a closet moderate, and evangelicals weren't thrilled about the whole Mor(m)on thing. So fundamentally, this is a move that will generate more excitement at the convention and for the campaign in general among the base. Anyone tempted to stay home in November will be less tempted now.

OTOH, the whole idea of privatizing Medicare and issuing vouchers for insurance is a scary proposition. Don't get me wrong. I think we need to have a frank discussion about Social Security and Medicare in this country. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are about 63% of our budget. (Add in military and debt payments, and you have 80% of our federal budget.) And I keep hearing that Medicare as it currently exists will no longer be feasible in another decade or so, and the same for Social Security a decade or so after that. Social Security is easier - you can keep kicking the can down the road by moving the eligible age back. Medicare and Medicaid are much harder because medical costs are out of control. But I don't think our politicians or populace are mature enough to face that discussion in a rational manner at this time. And color me cynical, but I'm suspicious that many a senior will not be able to afford the cost of insurance if they have to purchase it on their own. And color me even more cynical, but I'm guessing that if you live in Florida you might just be viewing an ad or 2 targeted at seniors about their Medicare being cut off.

So while this move will certainly energize the base, I'm guessing this is exactly who the Obama administration wanted to run against. Not that they were afraid of Rubio, TPaw, Jindal or Portman. But now the message is even more clear - we may not be doing great, but Romney and Ryan are downright scary. The 1st rule in picking a veep is do no harm. And while I know Romney felt like he had to mollify the base, I think he may have violated rule #1.
Click to expand...


Skimming the long post above, I think I tend to agree.


Still, a better choice than the last Pub VP nom. That's not saying much, however.
 
fuheel said:
I'm not sure how much credit we should give Ryan for putting out plans that are entirely unrealistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...udget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html[/QUO

Addressing our growing debt is unrealistic. What we need to do is start redefining our reality, and realizing the shape we are in. If Paul Ryan would come out in favor of moderate tax increases across the board to combine with some of his more aggressive spending cuts, he could run as an independent and I would vote for him.
Click to expand...
 
Clinton was 46 when elected and JFK was 43. Ryan will be 43 at inauguration if GOP wins.
 
Hello said:
TARP was done when we didn't know if we would go under. The Obama stimulus in 2k9 was the terrible stimulus.
Click to expand...

Is it remotely possible that you are overestimating hindsight with TARP and/or underestimating hindsight with the 2009 Stimulus? Not saying either was good or bad, but it seems logical.
 
TR1982 said:
We were going under. Voting for TARP is to Ryan's credit.
Click to expand...

+1 TARP was a good bill. Fuck the haters. All the disagreement *should* be over what we did afterwards with Dodd-Frank (stronger vs weaker vs leaner etc). I've got no problem saving the TBTF once, but we should have smashed them into itty bitty little banks that don't house systemic risks afterwards.
 
cville deac said:
Interesting choice and I believe a mixed bag. More than anything else, I think this is a move to placate the base of the party. The base believes Romney is a closet moderate, and evangelicals weren't thrilled about the whole Mor(m)on thing. So fundamentally, this is a move that will generate more excitement at the convention and for the campaign in general among the base. Anyone tempted to stay home in November will be less tempted now.

OTOH, the whole idea of privatizing Medicare and issuing vouchers for insurance is a scary proposition. Don't get me wrong. I think we need to have a frank discussion about Social Security and Medicare in this country. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are about 63% of our budget. (Add in military and debt payments, and you have 80% of our federal budget.) And I keep hearing that Medicare as it currently exists will no longer be feasible in another decade or so, and the same for Social Security a decade or so after that. Social Security is easier - you can keep kicking the can down the road by moving the eligible age back. Medicare and Medicaid are much harder because medical costs are out of control. But I don't think our politicians or populace are mature enough to face that discussion in a rational manner at this time. And color me cynical, but I'm suspicious that many a senior will not be able to afford the cost of insurance if they have to purchase it on their own. And color me even more cynical, but I'm guessing that if you live in Florida you might just be viewing an ad or 2 targeted at seniors about their Medicare being cut off.

So while this move will certainly energize the base, I'm guessing this is exactly who the Obama administration wanted to run against. Not that they were afraid of Rubio, TPaw, Jindal or Portman. But now the message is even more clear - we may not be doing great, but Romney and Ryan are downright scary. The 1st rule in picking a veep is do no harm. And while I know Romney felt like he had to mollify the base, I think he may have violated rule #1.
Click to expand...

Good post.

There are reasons why Congressmen don't win party nominations. Now Obama can run against a do nothing Congress. Ryan is a central figure in a very unpopular Congress. He's attached to a plan that guts what is perhaps the most popular government program.
 
PhDeac said:
Good post.

There are reasons why Congressmen don't win party nominations. Now Obama can run against a do nothing Congress. Ryan is a central figure in a very unpopular Congress. He's attached to a plan that guts what is perhaps the most popular government program.
Click to expand...

Somebody has to do it at some time. Might as well be now.
 
ConnorEl said:
Skimming the long post above, I think I tend to agree.


Still, a better choice than the last Pub VP nom. That's not saying much, however.
Click to expand...

That's saying nothing actually. But Ryan does have some personality and charisma - comes across as a decent guy. Way more personality than TPaw or Jindal. And way more substantive than Romney, who has desperately tried to avoid specifics thus far in his campaign. But the trouble is more substantive in a way that could scare off voters. He's the poster child for privatizing Social Security and Medicare. Some of y'all have been discussing his TARP and spending votes. While TARP votes may have hurt some folks in 2010, that was a vote that folks of all ideologies voted for and against. Obama voted for it and was asked to drum up more support for it among the black delegation, where it was particularly unpopular. I don't think TARP votes either way are gonna hurt anyone this time around. And Chris, while I get your point that Ryan was pro-stimulus under Obama and anti under Obama, I don't think those particular votes are going to be what the Obama team is going to focus on with Ryan. Ryan is the face and author of privatizing Social Security and Medicare - that's where the focus will be. This general election has had little substance thus far. I think it just got substance.
 
I do find it odd that Romney has been careful to not have any complete and scorable plans yet, and now he has Ryan's?
 
Wrangor said:
fuheel said:
I'm not sure how much credit we should give Ryan for putting out plans that are entirely unrealistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...udget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html[/QUO

Addressing our growing debt is unrealistic. What we need to do is start redefining our reality, and realizing the shape we are in. If Paul Ryan would come out in favor of moderate tax increases across the board to combine with some of his more aggressive spending cuts, he could run as an independent and I would vote for him.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble. Pubs, including Ryan, cannot come out in favor of a moderate tax increase to couple with spending cuts. I'm in favor of both. But remember, the rest of the federal govt that is not Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense or debt payments is only about 20% of the budget. So cutting everything else across the board 10%, which I favor and would be a significant cut, is only a 2% total budget cut. Which is why at the same time I believe we at least need to let the Bush cuts on higher income Americans expire.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top