GOP Insiders: The Paul Ryan pick is a complete disaster

[Stevenson]

Politico

My favorite quote - "Sarah Palin with a PowerPoint and a bunch of numbers to justify a plan that is very unpopular."

"“I think it’s a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It’s going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big,” said former President George W. Bush senior adviser Mark McKinnon."

 

[Eastoff]

Stevenson, you got that post all wrong! You're suppose to use a single quotation mark instead of the double quotations when nesting quotes. ;]

But your statement looks quite right! =]

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Meh. He was a safe pick. That said, I still think Obama will win.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-panic-romney-crowd-sizes/article/2504781#.UCqguxqe5Mg

Paul --

I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday's Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.

There's no spinning that number. It's a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.

And that's not all. Since the VP announcement, Romney's campaign has brought in over 70,000 donations from his Tea Party base.

We've got to step up our game and mobilize our supporters -- starting right now.

Donate $3 or right now to help us rally our base around President Obama's agenda >>

Listen to what one Republican supporter said about Paul Ryan: "I love him...He's going to excite the Tea Party and get them on board..."

We can't let the Republicans claim the momentum. Donate $3 or whatever you can:

http://dccc.org/Stand-With-President-Obama

Thanks,

Brynne

Brynne Craig

DCCC Field Director

 

[Denny Crane]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/13/biden-campaigns-before-a-crowd-of-660-in-north-carolina/

Biden campaigns before a crowd of 660 in North Carolina

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think Stevenson's post (as well as the other lefty sheep here) typify the new left in America- "attack & lie". I mean, let's face it, Obama has been very successful with this strategy. It may be below the belt politics, but it's part & parcel of the left in politics these days. And to be perfectly frank, I think the right did something like this against Kerry with the swift boat stuff.

 

[Eastoff]

I think Stevenson's post (as well as the other lefty sheep here) typify the new left in America- "attack & lie". I mean, let's face it, Obama has been very successful with this strategy. It may be below the belt politics, but it's part & parcel of the left in politics these days. And to be perfectly frank, I think the right did something like this against Kerry with the swift boat stuff.

hehehe Oh you! Is it a lie that Paul Ryan wants to gut social security? Is it a lie that he directly benefited from Social Security when his father died and Ryan was 16? is it a lie that Ryan wants to make it illegal for the killing of any fertilized egg, thus making In vitro fertilization basically illegal? Is it a lie that Paul Ryan wants to cut pell grants?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think we need a bullshit filter.

How about reading what Ryan actually wrote on his govt. www site about Social Security?

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227


In a shared call for leadership, the budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical program. As Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration, put it in a House Budget Committee hearing, “ Our Trustees and everybody who speaks on this has opined extensively about the value of acting sooner rather than later, so that we can have gradual changes phased in and we have more options if we act relatively soon.”

 

[Eastoff]

I think we need a bullshit filter.

How about reading what Ryan actually wrote on his govt. www site about Social Security?

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227


In a shared call for leadership, the budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical program. As Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration, put it in a House Budget Committee hearing, “ Our Trustees and everybody who speaks on this has opined extensively about the value of acting sooner rather than later, so that we can have gradual changes phased in and we have more options if we act relatively soon.”

Because a politician has never changed their mind or used fluffy words before.

 

[Denny Crane]

Pell Grants?

Ryan's plan is to cut the maximum amount of the individual grants from ~$5650 per student to ~$5550 per student.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/...udget-would-mean-for-college-aid-and-schools/

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan — the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the House budget — notes that Pell Grants cost more than a country facing a $15 trillion debt can afford. His plan would reduce the maximum income of Pell recipients to $23,000 a year from $33,000 a year.

The budget would also set a maximum grant of $5,550 — about one-third the average total yearly cost of college.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because a politician has never changed their mind or used fluffy words before.

Or because you're more open to listening to and believing lies told you by partisan sources?

 

[Eastoff]

how about here Does this count?

 

[speeds]

I thought the thread article would be about Ryan driving the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile.

http://www.bonappetit.com/blogsandforums/blogs/badaily/2012/08/paul-ryan-lunchables-salesman.html

 

[Denny Crane]

how about here Does this count?

Count for what? It doesn't support any of the lies you repeated.

But does this count?

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think we need a bullshit filter.

If so, we'd lose our lefty sheep.

 

[Eastoff]

Alright, you all have fun. If you think Romney and Paul Ryan are great guys and all of my words are worthless, I don't have the ability to change your mind. Good luck and may you enjoy your old age.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think they're particularly great guys, and I don't think your words are worthless (when they're YOUR words).

I do think Ryan is one of the best minds there is when it comes to budgetary matters. The social stuff, not so desirable. The debt and deficits are huge issues to be resolved ASAP. The social programs are worthwhile but out of control - the cost of the status quo is unbearable, and Ryan is the only candidate (pres or vp) in this race who's actually talking about fixing (not gutting) them.

In fact, I think it's a shame Romney picked Ryan because a Republican House and Senate with Obama president needs a guy like him to write the budgets, like Kasich (now gov. of Ohio) did for Clinton.

While I disagree with Ryan on much of what he wants to do outside the budget, he seems to be a downright good guy and it's a downright shame the idea is to dig for dirt against him instead of addressing his ideas. It doesn't bode well for the future of govt. if the best and brightest are intimidated from running because the shit storm ain't worth it.

Those are MY words, not some spin or talking points from one of the campaigns or their surrogates.

 

[zeded]

Alright, you all have fun. If you think Romney and Paul Ryan are great guys and all of my words are worthless, I don't have the ability to change your mind. Good luck and may you enjoy your old age.

I'm appreciating Denny's words and honesty.

And I can't help but be disgusted by this tone from Westnob. Particularly the highlighted words. Your retirement will be rotten if you vote Republican? That's exactly the type of silly fear-mongering that's wrong with politics.

The reality is that our system takes in not enough, and has spending commitments for too much. Something has to give. Whether it's increasing taxes or decreasing disbursements or some combination, something has to change. The Democratic approach seems to be about rejecting any proposal from the other side as 'destroying Medicare as we know it' or threatening retirement. I've actually never seen a serious proposal from Democrats on how to correct this clearly wrong direction we're going.

Plus, I was raised on the concept of working hard, saving my money by living below my means, and to take care of my own retirement. Who in their right mind plans on retirement being fully dependent on the government. Yet, look at Westnobs comments and you see a fairly common attitude. 'Vote for us because we're going to pay you money from the public coffers and the other side will not pay you.'

Disgraceful.

 

[Eastoff]

I'm appreciating Denny's words and honesty.

And I can't help but be disgusted by this tone from Westnob. Particularly the highlighted words. Your retirement will be rotten if you vote Republican? That's exactly the type of silly fear-mongering that's wrong with politics.

The reality is that our system takes in not enough, and has spending commitments for too much. Something has to give. Whether it's increasing taxes or decreasing disbursements or some combination, something has to change. The Democratic approach seems to be about rejecting any proposal from the other side as 'destroying Medicare as we know it' or threatening retirement. I've actually never seen a serious proposal from Democrats on how to correct this clearly wrong direction we're going.

Plus, I was raised on the concept of working hard, saving my money by living below my means, and to take care of my own retirement. Who in their right mind plans on retirement being fully dependent on the government. Yet, look at Westnobs comments and you see a fairly common attitude. 'Vote for us because we're going to pay you money from the public coffers and the other side will not pay you.'

Disgraceful.

I'm sorry you interpreted my open-ended statement as such. For record the only people I know that don't have savings started for their retirement are republicans.

Here's another vague statement that you can put words behind. You are an interesting character.

 

[barfo]

In fact, I think it's a shame Romney picked Ryan because a Republican House and Senate with Obama president needs a guy like him to write the budgets, like Kasich (now gov. of Ohio) did for Clinton.

Well, I don't know that there will be a Republican House and Senate, but Ryan will still be in the House next year. He can run for both jobs simultaneously, and he'd be a fool not to.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

I don't think they're particularly great guys, and I don't think your words are worthless (when they're YOUR words).

I do think Ryan is one of the best minds there is when it comes to budgetary matters. The social stuff, not so desirable. The debt and deficits are huge issues to be resolved ASAP. The social programs are worthwhile but out of control - the cost of the status quo is unbearable, and Ryan is the only candidate (pres or vp) in this race who's actually talking about fixing (not gutting) them.

In fact, I think it's a shame Romney picked Ryan because a Republican House and Senate with Obama president needs a guy like him to write the budgets, like Kasich (now gov. of Ohio) did for Clinton.

While I disagree with Ryan on much of what he wants to do outside the budget, he seems to be a downright good guy and it's a downright shame the idea is to dig for dirt against him instead of addressing his ideas. It doesn't bode well for the future of govt. if the best and brightest are intimidated from running because the shit storm ain't worth it.

Those are MY words, not some spin or talking points from one of the campaigns or their surrogates.

I think it's unfair to assume that Ryan is the only one trying to address the issue. I will concede most elected politicians aren't doing much about it. But I do believe Obama has tried to disqualify his ideas because of what Paul is speaking in favor. There is definitely a lot of mud slinging going on (Note Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity are outspending all other Super Pacs combined).

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it's unfair to assume that Ryan is the only one trying to address the issue. I will concede most elected politicians aren't doing much about it. But I do believe Obama has tried to disqualify his ideas because of what Paul is speaking in favor. There is definitely a lot of mud slinging going on (Note Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity are outspending all other Super Pacs combined).

I know Obama commissioned Simpson-Bowles and has ignored their suggestions since they made their report. I know he promised to cut the deficit in half by 2011 (and it's 2012 now). No end of ginormous deficits, as far as the eye can see.

So yeah, I assume the guy who wrote a bill to cut $4T in spending and deal with the entitlement program issues (not gut them, fix them) and who got his bill voted on is the only one in the race trying to address the issue. In fact, I'm quite sure Romney picked him so there'd be a clear cut decision: Continue living far beyond our means or spend within reason to what the govt. takes in.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I know Obama commissioned Simpson-Bowles and has ignored their suggestions since they made their report.

Who rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan? Oh yeah, the Republicans.

Revisionist history is fun, huh?

Plus:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was the only lawmaker to speak against the plan, saying it relied too heavily on tax increases and not enough on spending cuts.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'm appreciating Denny's words and honesty.

And I can't help but be disgusted by this tone from Westnob. Particularly the highlighted words. Your retirement will be rotten if you vote Republican? That's exactly the type of silly fear-mongering that's wrong with politics.

The reality is that our system takes in not enough, and has spending commitments for too much. Something has to give. Whether it's increasing taxes or decreasing disbursements or some combination, something has to change. The Democratic approach seems to be about rejecting any proposal from the other side as 'destroying Medicare as we know it' or threatening retirement. I've actually never seen a serious proposal from Democrats on how to correct this clearly wrong direction we're going.

Plus, I was raised on the concept of working hard, saving my money by living below my means, and to take care of my own retirement. Who in their right mind plans on retirement being fully dependent on the government. Yet, look at Westnobs comments and you see a fairly common attitude. 'Vote for us because we're going to pay you money from the public coffers and the other side will not pay you.'

Disgraceful.

So you say Westnob's attitude is exactly the type of silly fear-mongering that's wrong with politics.

Then in the same post you say "the Democratic approach seems to be about rejecting any proposal from the other side as 'destroying Medicare as we know it' or threatening retirement. I've actually never seen a serious proposal from Democrats on how to correct this clearly wrong direction we're going"

The fact that you say democrats seem to be about rejecting any proposal from the other side and has never made a serious proposal on the topic seems to be the exact political fear mongering language you accuse westnob of dong, IMO.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I thought Ryan was a good pick to help bond the republican party and bring excitment to the Romney ticket, but I don't see Ryan affecting the independent vote and unltimately not having much of an effect on the election (maybe the $$$ he can bring in might have an effect)

 

[Denny Crane]

Who rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan? Oh yeah, the Republicans.

Revisionist history is fun, huh?

Plus:

The vote was 382-28. There are 382 republicans in the House? News to me! (and that there's not is news to you?)

On the other hand:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...lains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson


Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles.

Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts.

Fiscal conservatives, including many Democrats, have for the last year lamented that Obama did not seize the Bowles-Simpson report and try to build bipartisan consensus around it. The administration instead pursued secretive talks with GOP leaders that hit the rocks last July when the GOP could not back an approach that included higher taxes.

 

[Eastoff]

I thought Ryan was a good pick to help bond the republican party and bring excitment to the Romney ticket, but I don't see Ryan affecting the independent vote and unltimately not having much of an effect on the election (maybe the $$$ he can bring in might have an effect)

I think Ryan will actually polarize a lot of independents.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...aul_ryan_favorably_43_say_he_was_right_choice

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan’s favorables are up after the first blush of national media exposure following Mitt Romney’s selection of him as his vice presidential running mate. But as is generally the case with running mates, Ryan gives only a slight boost to Romney.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of Ryan, while 32% view him unfavorably. This includes 29% with a Very Favorable view of Romney’s vice presidential pick and 13% with a Very Unfavorable one. Only 13% are now unfamiliar with Ryan, and five percent (5%) are not sure about him. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just prior to being picked as Romney’s running mate, only 39% viewed Ryan favorably, while 25% held an unfavorable opinion of him.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters think Romney made the right choice when he chose Ryan to be his running mate. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree and think it was a bad choice. A sizable 35% aren’t sure.

But 36% now say they are more likely to vote for Romney with Ryan as his running mate. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say they are less likely to vote for the Republican, while just as many (30%) say the vice presidential selection has no impact on their vote.

 

[Eastoff]

But 36% now say they are more likely to vote for Romney with Ryan as his running mate. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say they are less likely to vote for the Republican, while just as many (30%) say the vice presidential selection has no impact on their vote.

I think this supports my statement about him being polarizing.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think it's relevant at all. What I'm seeing is Republicans are even more energized than Democrats because of the pick, and were beforehand. The 36%/29%/30% numbers might actually favor Romney because the 36% vs. 29% is a significant swing from party registration figures.

If history repeats itself, independents may well bolt Obama at the end, like they did Carter.

Plus, I do feel the debates and conventions will have a much bigger impact than in recent elections. With the ads being all negative, the debates are going to be Romney's chance to raise the economy as an issue, right to Obama's face and in front of a huge TV audience. I do think that Cheney helped Bush win in 2000 with his debate performance, and the VP debate this time will feature a bright young guy vs. a really old gaffe machine.

In the debates, the personal attacks are easily deflected ("there you go again" and Gore's sighing and crowding Bush), while the "are you better off now than 4 years ago" question hits home.

I think it's really easy to make the case we've seen almost 4 years of failed policies and easy to defend the retort that Romney's plan is going back to Bush policies. Romney isn't Bush, his economic plans are not Bush's, and we haven't seen what he can do as president. It's all scare tactics and trivial to point out they are.


Obama would be bucking the odds on many fronts.

The unemployment rate is higher than for any president reelected in recent times.

Few Democrats actually win reelection - since 1900, only Clinton, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson were reelected and two of those (Wilson & Clinton) won both times with less than 50% of the popular vote. Oddly, since some people claim people vote against their own interests, all republican presidents since 1950 have been reelected, except for GHW Bush (Ike, Nixon, Reagan, W).

Obama's signature achievement is an unpopular health care plan. Not only did the people revolt against this kind of agenda by electing republicans to control the house and a huge swing in the senate, too, but they similarly punished Clinton in 1994 for an equally unpopular (but failed) program.

Obama is not polling above 50% in the national polls. This is not good news for any incumbent.

Democrats just aren't as enthusiastic this time around about voting, at all, as republicans. The opinion polls don't matter if your side stays home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/voter-enthusiasm-2012_n_1703127.html