Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Why Ryan – oops, Romney – might win

Letter by Mark H. Harrison, Tacoma on Aug. 13, 2012 at 11:58 am with 18 Comments »
August 13, 2012 6:14 pm

Paul Ryan is in the race, and Democrats are delighted. They think they will be able to successfully demonize him for his proposal to make radical cuts to entitlement programs along with giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

In reality, a victory will be difficult for Democrats to pull off. Two reasons:

First, Ryan is intelligent and passionate. He can make outrageous policy sound sane. That will pull in some independent voters and solidify wavering Republicans.

Second, pundits are failing to credit that vast group of ill-informed Americans whose vote is relentlessly determined by their longing to be associated with a winner.

Paul Ryan is that winner. You can feel it; he’s confident, likable, funny. He’s a decent man, and in spite of questions raised by Democrats, yes, he is ready to step in as president if necessary.

Name the last presidential election where charisma didn’t win the day.

Some suggest Ryan may be a problem by outshining Romney, or simply become less of a factor in the November election as vice-presidential candidates tend to do. So we’re in pretty good shape, say Democrats.

Maybe not. Romney and Ryan have great chemistry, and it shows. Somehow, around Ryan, Romney feels more like a winner. They are a team. Somehow, Ryan makes Romney’s awkwardness OK, almost endearing.

Beware of “winner syndrome,” Democrats. It usually prevails. It did for Barack Obama in 2008.

Leave a comment Comments → 18
  1. philichi says:

    Romney is a Private equity manager that went to Stanford and Harvord. Ryan is very smart on the US Budget. He reads it and studies it for recreation. They will run a campaign against Obama and Biden, who would have trouble holding mid level managment positions at real companies. I like the Romney/Ryan odds

  2. The dems want to attack Ryan for his Medicare plan, ignoring for convenience two BIG elephants in the room:

    1) The so-called Ryan Budget was co-written by liberal oregon democrat Ron Wyden, and,
    2) The dems – and especially 0bama – have no plan to save Medicare.

  3. RegisteringFool says:

    There is now a new definition for RINO – Randian In Name Only. Ryan may have karma, but he is no Objectivist ideologue. His voting record proves that.

  4. Clamat0, and here is what Wyden says about yours (and Romney’s) lies about his support of the Ryan budget:

    Wyden was quick to push back on Romney’s version of events.

    “Gov. Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.'” Wyden said. “I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out, I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget.”

    Why does Romney lie so much? I guess otherwise he’d have absolutely nothing to say.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/Ron-Wyden-Takes-Issue-With-Mitt-Romney-Linking-Him-to-Paul-Ryan-216838-1.html

  5. There is now a new definition for RINO – Randian In Name Only.

    Well, considering that to to the Left, a “Randian” is a social darwinist capitalist who would slaughter the poor if he could, I would think you thankful of your conclusions.

    And no need to go all philosophical on us, we know what you mean by “voting record”, and you’re wrong on that too.

    As for the latest liberal meme “Ryan worships at the altar of an atheist, libertine libertarian”, you should also remember that, above all else, she was a fervent and vocal anti communist/ anti socialist.

    As for Ryan’s quote on the matter, I can definitely relate. For emerging conservatives, Rand often represented an escape vehicle from pervasive liberalism. Reading a Rand character in Atlas was like getting splashed with cold water. When I read Rand’s novels, I was put off by her atheist allusions and bored by her tough-read plots, but very much inspired by her dissent from accepted leftist norms. For myself and contemporaries who were beginning to question their liberal upbringings way back in the 70’s, Atlas Shrugged was passed around like a football, and for many emerging conservatives reading Rand was part of the rite of passage out of liberalism.

    But the larger point is that when Ryan said:

    “… the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

    I knew exactly what he meant.

    I think the libs who are pumping this new meme do too. And anyone who laps up that tripe is just a “second-hander” (that would be a Randian lexicon).

  6. Clamat0, and here is what Wyden says about yours (and Romney’s) lies about his support of the Ryan budget…

    Guess Oregon Live is “lying” too:

    As expected, the new House Republican budget framework differs from last year’s plan in one significant detail: it adopts the framework for Medicare reform worked out by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/03/republican_budget_plan_adopts.html

    Or Time:

    http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/15/where-the-ryan-wyden-medicare-plan-leaves-the-entitlement-debate/

    Really, the list is endless. Not followin’ you down rabbit holes anymore, tudds. Believe what you like, but don’t call me a liar.

  7. Clamat0, so you take a journalist’s word over Wyden’s? I thought you attacked me endlessly for using journalists as a source.

    Wyden voted against it, came out against it and has been very public about his opposition to the Ryan budget. Its all on the record, which no amount of lying by Romney will change.

    If he co-authored it, why isn’t it the Ryan-Wyden resolution? If he co-sponsored it, where is his name? If he was for it, why is he listed as voting against it?

  8. He got push back from his party and had no spine. He would rather watch entitlements bankrupt us then lose out on a dollar from the DNC.

    What is your next question? While we are talking about spineless dems, what ever happened to Simpson Bowles? And the jobs council?

    Take your head out of the sand. You must realize the rhetoric, the spending, and the power grab by this admin is terrible for the Nation.

    Grow up and admit you were sold a lemon.

  9. So, you deflect, as usual. Adults can see things in colors other than black and white.

    On the whole, I’d rather have a moderate president and a moderate Congress than what we have. What we have is the most far-right congress ever and a right-center President who tried to compromise with the far right so much that he almost lost his compass.

  10. RegisteringFool says:

    Clam8o

    You think you know a lot about how the left thinks. Assuming you are a rightie, I’m not sure how that works, but I will not disabuse you of that belief now. And it appears you think I am a leftie. There, I can definitely tell you that you are wrong.

    I happen to think Rand was right about a lot of things, not everything, but a lot. In many ways Atlas Shrugged provides the script for what is happening right now. The problem is, for all of the hoopla about Ryan’s “homage” to Rand, his track record demonstrates otherwise.

    As to Ryan’s voting record, you say I am wrong but you leave it there without explanation, which is really just a cheap shot. So, I’ll give you a second chance.

    He voted for the bank bailouts three times, which has only delayed an eventual crash and saddled the taxpayers with a humongous tax bill to boot. Rand had no patience for those who would use government to interfere with capitalism in any way.

    Ryan has been on the wrong side of almost every important vote involving basic Constitutionally protected rights. He voted to extend the PATRIOT Act, for CISPA, for DOMA, for the NDAA (three times), to expand the Department of Homeland Security, to extend troop commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and to give the President the power to appoint department heads without Senatorial approval.

    I could extend this post ad nauseam by explaining why each of these latter votes would be a problem for Rand, but in the interest of space and time will say generally that Rand hated police states as much as she hated communism. Each of these votes led us further into a police state.

    Put simply, Ryan is just another beltway hack in a new suit of clothes. Reference to Rand may make for interesting and topical discussion, but her philosophy has nothing to do with what Ryan did on the floor of the House or is likely to do as VP.

  11. BigSwingingRichard says:

    The Romney/Ryan ticket offers America what it needs: Hope and Change.

  12. You think you know a lot about how the left thinks. Assuming you are a rightie, I’m not sure how that works, but I will not disabuse you of that belief now. And it appears you think I am a leftie. There, I can definitely tell you that you are wrong.

    First, let me say I kind’a like your typo job on my moniker (assuming here, again), I may have to save that variant for future use elsewhere.

    What “I think” I know about the left stems from my own very-left wing upbringing. I very much subscribe to the old axiom that “experience is the best teacher”. I think Rand would very much agree with that. You?

    As for your left-leaning denial, I’ll be more convinced when I see a bit more balance in your commentary. In the mean time, for the sake of argument, I’ll be glad to take you at your word.

    I happen to think Rand was right about a lot of things, not everything

    Obviously, you read my post and are aware we agree on this point. But you go on to say this:

    The problem is, for all of the hoopla about Ryan’s “homage” to Rand, his track record demonstrates otherwise (after having also negatively referenced his voting record in you previous post without citation(s)).

    Immediately followed by this:

    As to Ryan’s voting record, you say I am wrong but you leave it there without explanation, which is really just a cheap shot.

    Uhmm, do you not see the irony there? I just threw your unsupported opinion back at you. Not a cheap shot, just a bit of tit-for-tat from which I expected more clarity… example(s) which you now have given.

    He voted for the bank bailouts three times, which… saddled the taxpayers with a humongous tax
    bill…

    No disagreement there, and Ryan has many times since expressed regret over being “duped” by Bernanke and the Treasury Department under 0bama, and accusses them of having diverted TARP from its original purpose of “providing targeted assistance to unlock credit markets” and turning the program “into an ad hoc, opaque bailout and a slush fund for large private institutions.” Although in Ryan’s budget he acknowledges that TARP “succeeded in halting a systemic panic,” the budget also concludes that TARP has “morphed into crony capitalism at its worst.”

    And given that the urgency of the situation in October of 2008 resulted in congressional votes which many who voted in the affirmative would have difficulty justifying today, I can’t say with certainty that I wouldn’t have reacted the same – even though clearly Rand’s famous quote would indicate she would not have:

    “When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez faire capitalism, with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

    Couterintuitive to Rand? Yes. Wrong? Time will tell. Your and my opinion do not equal fact.

    As to your other examples, again, they may seem counterintuitive to Rand’s general anti-statist philosophy. But remember, she was first and foremost a capitalist. I can remember nothing specific in her writings (again, it’s been a lonnnng time) that ever indicated her ideal of separation of state and business extended to matters where preservation of a free, capitalist state was in question. You may feel Ryan’s votes were wrong, but I’m not remembering the clear confirmation Rand.

    Put simply, Ryan is just another beltway hack in a new suit of clothes.

    Ahh, the Randian cloak comes off. Let’s face it, Ayn Rand aside, this is what you believe – it’s all you really need to say.

    Reference to Rand may make for interesting and topical discussion, but her philosophy has nothing to do with what Ryan did on the floor of the House or is likely to do as VP.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    As for your reference to Objectivism, Rand summed it up in 27 words:

    1) Metaphysics: “Wishing won’t make it so.” (Objective Reality)
    2) Epistemology: “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”(Reason)
    3) Ethics: “Man is an end in himself.”(Self-interest)
    4) Politics: “Give me liberty or give me death.” (Capitalism)

    I think Ryan would agree with three-out-of-four.

  13. close italics

  14. From the previews on NBC, it looks like we will have a good depiction of Randian economics in the new show Revolution.

    No government infrastructure, no regulations, each person out for him or her self. Eat or be eaten.

  15. philichi says:

    RegisteringFool: you are wrong about Tarp. It was actually one of the greatest ideas that our government has ever come up with. It worked.

    You see, hedge funds were shorting banks and driving their stocks down. They were spreading rumors etc. I worked at one of those big banks. The treasury called everyone in the room and forced them to borrow huge amounts of money. The shorts had to stop. The rumors didn’t work anymore. The banks have paid them back with interest. Yes, we made money on the deal.

    Obama than had to mess the program up and use it to prop up the united auto workers. That was a dumb idea. GM could have shed this group and been in business today without them. Too bad.

  16. Matt, if Ryan had been among the 90 members of Congress who voted against TARP I, democrats (not sayin’ you’re one, RF, just sayin’) would have labeled him an “obstructionist” who is unwilling to compromise for the sake of the union.

    Sound familiar?

  17. philichi says:

    I am learning that the left, in many cases spouts off about things like finances and business that they know nothing about. The person that engineered TARP was Neal Kashkari. He now works for PIMCO. Before the policy was inacted we were starting to see one financial firm after another go down. It was all avoidable. Even Washington Mutual could have been saved. The fear caused people to withdrawl their funds. As assets went down, the stocks continued to fall. A simple loan by the treasury worked.

    Yes, a GM bankrupcy would have worked. They could have shed the union and started over. Obama kept that from happening. Now we have a mess there. Too bad. We will loose at least $25 billion on that move. Kashkari and other adults were not involved in making that decision.

  18. C0 – The GOP have no plan to save Medicare and have been trying since Newt was in the House to do away with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc.

    RF – what Ryan’s voting record proves is that he is a good little lock-stop GOP foot solder.

    After 14 years in Congress Ryan has:

    Voted with GOP 93% of the time.

    Sponsored 7 bills (ranks 373 out of 440), none of which made it into law (ranks 141 out of 440)

    Co-sponsored 75 bills (411 out of 440), 5 made it into law (ranks 406 or of 440)

    BSR –RnR offer a hope and change that he rich and big business will pay no taxes.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0