It's Official--Romney and Ryan for 2012!!!

[asaratis]

I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.; As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care. I need details.

That is the most important myth that needs deflating by the Republicans.

If you are 55 years old already, your Medicare DOES NOT CHANGE! Harry Reid lies when he says otherwise.

...and, if you haven't read the Reid /Pelosi/Obama health code...the death squads are coming unless we repeal that monstrosity.

 

[asaratis]

Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ

The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today. And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.

So I would have lost a bet that it would be Marco Rubio. I did not think it would be Ryan. In truth, last night I was disappointed mostly because I really wanted Rubio.

But now that I've had some time to think about it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that Mitt Romeny is 100% serious about economic reform and he picked the most logical person to help do that. And, if they are elected, I am optimistic that they will make a difference.

So we have Mr. Businessman plus Mr. Economics as the official ticket. What do you think? A good one? Or not?

A terrible ticket politically. The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name. That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this and certainly won't happen after this.

Florida is obviously one of the most important states in every election. The GOP knew (or at least it should have) that their baggage from AZ and AL immigration policies would hurt them in Florida with the large Hispanic population. Now the GOP has alienated many (if not most) of the retiree population in the State. Both in FL and AZ.

One could contest that Clinton could have done better with Gore but at least Gore ran for President so HE thought he was ready.

One could contest that GWB could have done better than Cheney but there wasn't a whole lot of people with more West Wing experience than Cheney.

One could argue that Obama could have done better than Biden but Biden had solid credentials and strong foreign policy experience.

Ryan didn't run for President after 13 years in the House. It's hard to find any evidence that HE believes he is ready to be President. No objective evidence otherwise would make such a suggestion either.

One could argue that Romney could have done better than Ryan but there are plenty of ways he could have done worse. The ship sailed on Romney becoming President long ago so it's a matter destined for the trivia bin.

Obama is not ready to be President. He is years ahead of his time.

Ryan was a great choice by Romney. Now Obama has to learn math. As it stands, the R's have a plan that is mathematically sound...Obama doesn't. Obama can't even come up with a budget that passes muster.

 

[Intense]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

So I guess You can't be supporting Obama either then.

 

[Some Guy]

From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.

It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.

Well, you're a far lefty, so you would see it that way. You spend a lot of your time arguing politics and issues on a message board. You're more well informed about this stuff than probably 99% of the voting populace.

Most people aren't as tuned in to goings-on with Paul Ryan and his budget. A lot of people probably say "Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate" and went "who's Paul Ryan?" If they decide to go into any more detail finding out who he is, maybe they won't like some things about him but one thing will be clear: he appears to be serious about balancing the budget.

The best place to attack Obama is on the economy. Mitt Romney, successful businessman, claims he knows how to get the economy going. He's picked an economist as his running mate. What better way to tell the voting populace at large, not just far lefties or far righties, that his mission is to get the economy going again? Really, foreign policy, abortion, gay rights: all those issues put together probably don't add up to the importance that the economy and jobs hold for the majority of voters everywhere. All this pick really means is that Mitt's campaign is all-in on the health of the economy as the foundation of it.

 

[Katzndogz]

House Unanimously Rejects Pres. Obama’s Budget Proposal



When you understand it was a political gimmick; the importance fades unless you don't buy the gimmick nature of it. In that case, you're just not that sophisticated when it comes to federal politics.

414-0 is a gimmick? Why did Obama's Dems go along?

I guess Obama showed them when he put forward another version of his budget?
Wait, he never did?
I get it, that's the gimmick, the President never submitted a budget.

Well, if that is the case, what was voted down?

Congress votes down every budget submitted by the President based on principle and constitutionality that Congress creates the budget. As Reagan said, "I signed every balanced budget you sent me."

You'd have to ask the members of Congress why they didn't go along.

That's not exactly true. The senate voted down every budget passed by the house. Harry Reid as senator promised that the senate would never pass a budget previously passed by the house. Not even a democrat controlled house. obama, as president, has never submitted a budget at all.

 

[Borillar]

I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.; As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care. I need details.

That is the most important myth that needs deflating by the Republicans.

If you are 55 years old already, your Medicare DOES NOT CHANGE! Harry Reid lies when he says otherwise.

...and, if you haven't read the Reid /Pelosi/Obama health code...the death squads are coming unless we repeal that monstrosity.

And if you're 54 and younger, you're screwed. You talk about myths that need deflating and then bring up "death squads"? Please...

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.; As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care. I need details.

That is the most important myth that needs deflating by the Republicans.

If you are 55 years old already, your Medicare DOES NOT CHANGE! Harry Reid lies when he says otherwise.

...and, if you haven't read the Reid /Pelosi/Obama health code...the death squads are coming unless we repeal that monstrosity.

And if you're 54 and younger, you're screwed. You talk about myths that need deflating and then bring up "death squads"? Please...

If you have read the plan, you will see that the 54 and younger are phased into the new system. It isn't an abrupt all of a sudden change. You get some of the bad with the old system and some of the good with the new system. It should be embraced, not feared.

 

[Borillar]

That is the most important myth that needs deflating by the Republicans.

If you are 55 years old already, your Medicare DOES NOT CHANGE! Harry Reid lies when he says otherwise.

...and, if you haven't read the Reid /Pelosi/Obama health code...the death squads are coming unless we repeal that monstrosity.

And if you're 54 and younger, you're screwed. You talk about myths that need deflating and then bring up "death squads"? Please...

If you have read the plan, you will see that the 54 and younger are phased into the new system. It isn't an abrupt all of a sudden change. You get some of the bad with the old system and some of the good with the new system. It should be embraced, not feared.

I'll believe it's a great new system to embrace when I see Congress vote these crappy vouchers for themselves instead of their Cadillac plans. I'm supposed to be happy about paying into a system for 40 years and expecting to get some benefit out of it, but now some asshole wants to change things so the Rich folks can have yet another tax break? Instead of being fully covered, I will instead be given some vouchers and told to go try to find some insurance carrier that will cover me when I'm old and have pre-existing conditions? These vouchers will probably pay for healthcare for a few months, and then what? Die quickly, so I don't burden my kids?

 

[alan1]

Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ

The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today. And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.

So I would have lost a bet that it would be Marco Rubio. I did not think it would be Ryan. In truth, last night I was disappointed mostly because I really wanted Rubio.

But now that I've had some time to think about it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that Mitt Romeny is 100% serious about economic reform and he picked the most logical person to help do that. And, if they are elected, I am optimistic that they will make a difference.

So we have Mr. Businessman plus Mr. Economics as the official ticket. What do you think? A good one? Or not?

Ryan is a dreadful choice.

As correctly noted in the other Ryan threads, he brings nothing to the ticket; indeed, Ryan drives away the independents and weak democrats Romney needs to win.

Mr Ryan brings in the independent conservatives like me. Mr Romney is "liberal light", just like Mr McCain was/is. In the last presidential election, I couldn't bite the bullet and cast a vote for Mr McCain so no presidential candidate got my vote.

A Romney/Ryan ticket is strong for domestic issues, but lacking on foreign affairs. To bad Ms Condoleeza Rice is unwilling to engage as a VP. After they win, I hope they can appoint a good secretary of state for the international representation of our great country.

 

[alan1]

Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.

Usually that kind of reaction means that they see him as a real threat.

They were able to pretty well successfully destroy Sarah Palin who simply didn't have enough credentials accumulated to fight them off.

I rather expect Ryan is going to be more difficult to demonize, and will be better at setting the record straight and defending himself.

This is what the right wing said about Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. You remember those guys right? The liberals were supposedly so "scared" of those guys and everytime you said that; they would implode. It was obvious to most it was going to happen. The sad thing is that the myopic supporters of these candidates couldn't see the innate shortcomings and just how bad they were at campaigning in Perry's case.

Ryan doesn't give me cause for pause in the least. I say this for the obvious medicare reform he wants to enact. The truth is that most seniors are happy with their medicare and happy that the President is closing the Part D "donut hole." In other ways, the qualification question will come up eventually. He didn't run for President so obviously he doesn't think he's ready to assume the office; has served 13 innocuous years as a congressman from the Wisconsin 1st district; not exactly Broadway or Sunset. His resume is thin and it points to the Governor's judgment that this guy is "ready on day one" to take over. If anyone were to say that they'd feel comfortable with a Ryan Presidency at this stage, you'll get a howling laugh from most of the public.

This was a terrible pick from the choices that Romney had. Choices that would have delivered the same demographic without the baggage that will sink the Governor's aspirations for winning Florida. Arizona may be back on the table.

The Governor could have done worse, however. Ryan is a superior pick to Sarah Palin.

My only regret is that this isn't 2016. That would ensure a 12th year of the Oval being center-left.

Bold blue above is hilarious when you consider Mr Obama's resume and all the liberals that voted for him.

 

[Borillar]

Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.

Usually that kind of reaction means that they see him as a real threat.

They were able to pretty well successfully destroy Sarah Palin who simply didn't have enough credentials accumulated to fight them off.

I rather expect Ryan is going to be more difficult to demonize, and will be better at setting the record straight and defending himself.

This is what the right wing said about Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. You remember those guys right? The liberals were supposedly so "scared" of those guys and everytime you said that; they would implode. It was obvious to most it was going to happen. The sad thing is that the myopic supporters of these candidates couldn't see the innate shortcomings and just how bad they were at campaigning in Perry's case.

Ryan doesn't give me cause for pause in the least. I say this for the obvious medicare reform he wants to enact. The truth is that most seniors are happy with their medicare and happy that the President is closing the Part D "donut hole." In other ways, the qualification question will come up eventually. He didn't run for President so obviously he doesn't think he's ready to assume the office; has served 13 innocuous years as a congressman from the Wisconsin 1st district; not exactly Broadway or Sunset. His resume is thin and it points to the Governor's judgment that this guy is "ready on day one" to take over. If anyone were to say that they'd feel comfortable with a Ryan Presidency at this stage, you'll get a howling laugh from most of the public.

This was a terrible pick from the choices that Romney had. Choices that would have delivered the same demographic without the baggage that will sink the Governor's aspirations for winning Florida. Arizona may be back on the table.

The Governor could have done worse, however. Ryan is a superior pick to Sarah Palin.

My only regret is that this isn't 2016. That would ensure a 12th year of the Oval being center-left.

Bold blue above is hilarious when you consider Mr Obama's resume and all the liberals that voted for him.

Who were we supposed to vote for? Old man McCain and Caribou Barbie? No thanks!

 

[JoeB131]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.

Is it possible to talk about the person who is the subject of the thread without saying "But...but... but... Obama!"?

 

[JoeB131]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

So I guess You can't be supporting Obama either then.

NIce try, but not really.

Obama has been president for four years.

Only four other living human beings have that experience.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is something to say, however, that this thread is intended to be focused on Romney and Ryan. I have another thread in the CDZ that focuses on Obama's record. And there are other threads others have started elsewhere to discuss the pros and cons of McCain/Palin or to bash President Bush or any other past President.

The issue before us is whether the Romney/Ryan ticket is our best choice for the next four years, and what those four years might look like. If they are elected, four years from now, with the next election looming, we will no doubt be looking at the Romney/Ryan record and discussing why we would or would not want four more years of the same. What do you think their approval ratings will be.

It is of interest looking at the early polling data how few people know who Ryan is, how few could recognize him from a photo, and that suggests the GOP needs to do some major name recognition building in the next few weeks. It is only eleven weeks until it will be decided.

 

[georgephillip]

One name that should be included in Ryan's recognition building is William Graham Sumner, the first Sociology Professor at Yale College and leading proponent of social Darwinism.

Robert Reich re: Ryan and Sumner:

"Ryan’s views are pure social Darwinism.

"As William Graham Sumner, the progenitor of social Darwinism in America, put it in the 1880s: 'Civilization has a simple choice.' It’s either 'liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest' or 'not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.'”

It's either more for the richest 1% of Americans, and all of those who hope to join them one day, or it's more for those doing 90% of the productive labor in this country.

A vote for Mitt, Paul, Joe, or Obama is a vote for the 1%.

Robert Reich (The Ryan Choice)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One name that should be included in Ryan's recognition building is William Graham Sumner, the first Sociology Professor at Yale College and leading proponent of social Darwinism.

Robert Reich re: Ryan and Sumner:

"Ryan’s views are pure social Darwinism.

"As William Graham Sumner, the progenitor of social Darwinism in America, put it in the 1880s: 'Civilization has a simple choice.' It’s either 'liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest' or 'not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.'”

It's either more for the richest 1% of Americans, and all of those who hope to join them one day, or it's more for those doing 90% of the productive labor in this country.

A vote for Mitt, Paul, Joe, or Obama is a vote for the 1%.

Robert Reich (The Ryan Choice)

That Robert Reich is great. I loved him in Austin Powers.

 

[georgephillip]

Why did you post a photo of Hank Paulson?

 

[Intense]

Sanction of the victim

The concept "sanction of the victim" is defined by Leonard Peikoff as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values".[27] This concept may be original in the thinking of Rand: she holds that evil is a parasite on the good and can only exist if the good tolerates it. Atlas Shrugged can be seen as an answer to the question of what would happen if this sanction were revoked. When Atlas shrugs, relieving himself of the burden of carrying the world, he is revoking his sanction.

Throughout Atlas Shrugged, numerous characters admit there is something wrong with the world that they cannot identify; frequently, they are struggling with the idea of sanction of the victim. We first glimpse the concept when Hank Rearden feels he is duty-bound to support his family, despite their hostility towards him; later, the principle is stated explicitly by Dan Conway: "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed. If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain." John Galt vows to stop the motor of the world by persuading the creators of the world to withhold their sanction: "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us", and, "I saw that evil was impotent ... and the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it".

In Rand's view, morality requires we do not sanction our own victimhood. She assigns virtue to the trait of rational self-interest. However, Rand contends moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself.

Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Floyd Ferris

Ferris is a biologist who works as "co-ordinator" at the State Science Institute. He uses his position there to deride reason and productive achievement, and publishes a book entitled Why Do You Think You Think? He clashes on several occasions with Hank Rearden, and twice attempts to blackmail Rearden into giving up Rearden Metal. He is also one of the group of looters who tries to get Rearden to agree to the Steel Unification Plan. Ferris hosts the demonstration of the Project X weapon, and is the creator of the Ferris Persuader, a torture machine. When John Galt is captured by the looters, Ferris uses the device on Galt, but it breaks down before extracting the information Ferris wants from Galt. Ferris represents the group which uses brute force on the heroes to achieve the ends of the looters. List of Atlas Shrugged characters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A.K.A. Robert Reich

 

[Intense]

Ellsworth Toohey

British socialist Harold Laski was one of Rand's primary inspirations for the character of Ellsworth Toohey.

Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who writes a popular art criticism column, is Roark's antagonist. Toohey is an unabashed collectivist and Rand's personification of evil (when speaking freely, he explicitly compares himself to Goethe's Mephisto, who tempted Faust to destruction). Toohey represents the stifling, escetic forces of Communism and Socialism. His biggest threat is the strength of the individual spirit enshrined in Howard Roark. He falsely styles himself as representative of the will of the masses.

Aiming at a society that shall be "an average drawn upon zeroes," he knows exactly why he corrupts Peter Keating, and explains his methods to the ruined young man in a passage that is a pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best and its worst; the use of the ideal of altruism to destroy personal integrity, the use of humor and tolerance to destroy all standards, the use of sacrifice to enslave.[24]

Having no true genius, Toohey's mission is to destroy excellence and promote altruism as the ultimate social ideal. This is put forward in one of his most memorable quotes: "Don't set out to raze all shrines—you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed."

Rand used her memory of the British democratic socialist Harold Laski to help her imagine what he would do in a given situation. Lewis Mumford was also an initial inspiration.[25] The Fountainhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Reich reminds me of this guy, too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ptmGW89LKY]Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- Slavery and Spiritual Death - YouTube[/ame]
Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- Slavery and Spiritual Death

 

[georgephillip]

Where do you see Mitt or Paul in "The Fountainhead"?

Personally, Ellsworth Toohey reminds me more of John D. Rockefeller than Harold Lasky.
Let's ask Bob to settle this one:

"Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century.

"It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was 'merely a survival of the fittest… the working out of a law of nature and of God.'”

In terms of the "pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best" is John D. or Mitt R. or Paul R. or RR your "sacrificial victim?"