Post by basilosaurus on Aug 13, 2012 13:49:37 GMT -5
He's a career politician. He even worked for Brownback ( +o( )
Yet, I don't see more than 2 bills of his that have passed. One was to rename a post office. Another was some obscure excise tax on arrows (like the archery kind).
As far as I can tell, he's basically only been on 2 committees, budget being the main one. He's on a subcommittee on health which as far as I can understand is where he objects to medicare, medicaid, aca, etc. Has he been on anything else in the past?
This is a sincere question. If that's all he's done, what qualifies him to be VP? I know we don't expect they actually do all that much, but theoretically they should be somewhat prepared to be presidential.
Also, and I know this will come across as gotcha, but it's not my intent, hasn't the R line for the last few years that they don't want washington insiders? Isn't Ryan the perfect example of an insider, serving for 14 years and only otherwise working in politics? Or does his youth somehow negate that charge?
I think working in Congress itself is "experience" that will be beneficial and I think having a ticket of someone who has been a governor and worked in a business, plus having someone experience in Washington is a nice, balanced ticket.
In theory, Ryan should have experience working with Congress and should have contacts there, relationships with various people and should be a good helper for the president when it comes to negotiating and getting an agenda passed.
So I don't think he brings nothing to the ticket. I think being on the budget committee is a pretty good committee for him to have been on when the concern is the economy. He obviously knows the ins and outs of the budget. I think that makes him an asset.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a Washington insider. I dislike Congress as a whole, but that doesn't mean there aren't good people there, either (on both sides, FTR).
As for ready to be president... maybe not. IDK. But, again, in theory, as VP, he'll be learning some of that on the job. And I don't know if anyone is ever prepared to be President.
I appreciate the fact that he's been in Congress for so long. Unlike Bush and Romney both, no one can say that there is an "unknown" component here. Ryan's record on policies is pretty firmly established. It's sort of a horrifying record to me personally, but I guess if you're anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-healthcare, anti-environment, anti-education... he's your man. I'm just surprised at the number of conservatives on this pretty socially liberal board who are down with that.
Yup that's me! All hate all the time. I hope Romney and Ryan win so bad so we can send this country to hell where it belongs. *dean scream*
I appreciate the fact that he's been in Congress for so long. Unlike Bush and Romney both, no one can say that there is an "unknown" component here. Ryan's record on policies is pretty firmly established. It's sort of a horrifying record to me personally, but I guess if you're anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-healthcare, anti-environment, anti-education... he's your man. I'm just surprised at the number of conservatives on this pretty socially liberal board who are down with that.
This really does nothing for open discussion. He is not reunning for President. He was not chosen for his social views. Well, at least not per the Dems running (Mediscare anyone? Pushing Grandma off a cliff?). And education? Ok. Please explain as NCLB is something supported by the now gone Lion of the Senate, a non-conservative. Or, should people just end with "but, we're gross so forget it as we are running with the bigot"?
I appreciate the fact that he's been in Congress for so long. Unlike Bush and Romney both, no one can say that there is an "unknown" component here. Ryan's record on policies is pretty firmly established. It's sort of a horrifying record to me personally, but I guess if you're anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-healthcare, anti-environment, anti-education... he's your man. I'm just surprised at the number of conservatives on this pretty socially liberal board who are down with that.
Yup that's me! All hate all the time. I hope Romney and Ryan win so bad so we can send this country to hell where it belongs. *dean scream*
In a serious response, he's been in office more than 10 years. That's a lot of experience for someone so young. Obama was in office 3 years when he ran for Pres (little more than 11 if you count his state position). So it's fine IMO.
In a serious response, he's been in office more than 10 years. That's a lot of experience for someone so young. Obama was in office 3 years when he ran for Pres (little more than 11 if you count his state position). So it's fine IMO.
Amen, and, I don't think it is an R position as much as it is a TEa Party that they don't want insiders. And, they are not the same
I don't love his social stances, and I'm definitely interested to see what the campaign has to say w/r/t that. At the same time, it's not like I'm shocked by it either - he IS a Republican. I'd probably be more shocked if he was pro-choice, to be honest.
But, the first thing that comes to mind with Ryan is fiscal conservative, budget, etc. I have no doubt he was chosen for that reason - to put the focus on the economy and for Romney to say his focus is on the economy. And I like that. I like that very much. I think I've said on here several times that I find the social issues to be used as a distraction by both parties to rile folks up instead of actually addressing problems like the economy. It's not that I don't care about social issues - it's that I think the politicians don't either and they do this big circus to get people all riled up so we're distracted from the fact that the country might just implode and that they are a bunch of children who can't agree the sky is blue. I know that's unpopular to people and it makes my actions "gross," but I'm cynical about all politicians and the hoopla over these issues.
Or I hate choice, gay people and everyone but rich, white guys. Whatever!
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 13, 2012 14:11:18 GMT -5
So, in this case, it's the experience of being there and voting, not actually proposing passable legislation, that's the important thing. Is that a correct interpretation?
How much does voting record come into play when you assess experience? I think it's undeniable that his record is anti-gay and anti-choice (extreme anti-choice with the life at conception stuff). But do you weight it less because his primary committee is budget?
Yup that's me! All hate all the time. I hope Romney and Ryan win so bad so we can send this country to hell where it belongs. *dean scream*
You can be as defensive as you want, but this is what Ryan stands for, so if the shoe fits...
Defensive? I'm owning it. I'm busy writing "Poor People" on the bottom of all of my shoes right now so I can walk on them all day long. If I find more shoes I'll add "women", "gay", and whatever else I'm hating on at the moment.
I think its a legitimate concern that Ryan may try to influence social policies - most politicians do! I am a prime example of someone who could get behind *most* of his fiscal ideas (WAY less spending, but i'd trim the military too) but would be scared of his social agenda.
I'm not sure that mentioning this isn't legitimate discussion. I asked this in another thread too, but I got a few more articulate answers.
How influential is the VP in the US on social issues? Serious question, since thats not something I'm familiar with.
Post by soontobeka on Aug 13, 2012 14:13:31 GMT -5
I know that this might open the economy vs gay rights (social issues) thread but I agree with SBP. He does have some very conservative stances on social issues that do not jive with the social stances that many of the cons on this board hae expressed. I do wonder how/why there seems to be so much excitement about him being on the ticket. But I acknowledge that some may put (and not in a bad way) fiscal issues about social.
I still wonder when he became a fiscal conservative and what made him do so. His social stances are unsettling to me. While he was not chosen for his social views, I think that they are open for discussion esp in light of such bills as a personhood bill. I know he is not running for President but he is on the ticket and we should talk about what he has and has not done.
Oh my god, he was ABSOLUTELY chosen for his social views. The GOP is doing the whole "he's the budget guy" stuff, but really, how short do they think our memory is? This is 2010 all over again, "Did we say jobs? We meant abortion." He's there to fire up the base. Romney doesn't need to fire up the moderates. He is one.
What evidence do you have for this viewpoint? Ryan is known for budget stuff. I could name at least 10 potential GOP VP picks who would be better options if the goal was espouse social conservative values. He toes the social con line, sure, but where has he advanced it?
This really does nothing for open discussion. He is not reunning for President. He was not chosen for his social views. Well, at least not per the Dems running (Mediscare anyone? Pushing Grandma off a cliff?). And education? Ok. Please explain as NCLB is something supported by the now gone Lion of the Senate, a non-conservative. Or, should people just end with "but, we're gross so forget it as we are running with the bigot"?
Oh my god, he was ABSOLUTELY chosen for his social views. The GOP is doing the whole "he's the budget guy" stuff, but really, how short do they think our memory is? This is 2010 all over again, "Did we say jobs? We meant abortion." He's there to fire up the base. Romney doesn't need to fire up the moderates. He is one.
Then why are we only hearing about MEdicare from Axlrod and the campaign? Why? Not one word, that I have seen, on abortion outside of this board. Not one. For example:
Dem operative: "We've spent 18 months trying to make House races about their plan for Medicare and Mitt Romney just did it for us overnight" — @mpoindc via Twitter for Android (dailykos.com)
Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, described Romney selection of a Ryan as a dream come true for House Democrats. Israel says the move allows Democrats to pound the GOP proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid – issues where his party has traditionally had an advantage over Republicans – rather than the state of the U.S. economy.
Maddow also pointed out that Romney already appears to be backing away from the Ryan budget plan, which replaces Medicare with what he calls "premium support" — which the Democrats call a "voucher plan." Maddow got into a back-and-forth with the conservative editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, about that point.
Obama's adviser said Ryan is "a genial fellow, but his views are quite harsh," and he says "these Republicans don't like Medicare."
I don't love his social stances, and I'm definitely interested to see what the campaign has to say w/r/t that. At the same time, it's not like I'm shocked by it either - he IS a Republican. I'd probably be more shocked if he was pro-choice, to be honest.
But, the first thing that comes to mind with Ryan is fiscal conservative, budget, etc. I have no doubt he was chosen for that reason - to put the focus on the economy and for Romney to say his focus is on the economy. And I like that. I like that very much. I think I've said on here several times that I find the social issues to be used as a distraction by both parties to rile folks up instead of actually addressing problems like the economy. It's not that I don't care about social issues - it's that I think the politicians don't either and they do this big circus to get people all riled up so we're distracted from the fact that the country might just implode and that they are a bunch of children who can't agree the sky is blue. I know that's unpopular to people and it makes my actions "gross," but I'm cynical about all politicians and the hoopla over these issues.
Or I hate choice, gay people and everyone but rich, white guys. Whatever!
So if Im following you correctly, you dont think that he would actually be influencing/implementing social policies that would be detrimental to the gay/abortion/etc debates?
basically, that he will focus on the economy?
Because if thats true, then I do understand. I think he has some legitimate, articulate ideas WRT to the economy (I'd actually take his spending cuts further). Like i said, I'd just be worried about his social policies and the effect it could have on women and gays.
Oh my god, he was ABSOLUTELY chosen for his social views. The GOP is doing the whole "he's the budget guy" stuff, but really, how short do they think our memory is? This is 2010 all over again, "Did we say jobs? We meant abortion." He's there to fire up the base. Romney doesn't need to fire up the moderates. He is one.
What evidence do you have for this viewpoint? Ryan is known for budget stuff. I could name at least 10 potential GOP VP picks who would be better options if the goal was espouse social conservative values. He toes the social con line, sure, but where has he advanced it?
What evidence do you have for this viewpoint? Ryan is known for budget stuff. I could name at least 10 potential GOP VP picks who would be better options if the goal was espouse social conservative values. He toes the social con line, sure, but where has he advanced it?
Um, sponsoring a personhood bill?
CO-sponsoring, which is different, a pro-forma bill on personhood that gets voted on every year and never passes. This is evidence he toes the social con line. Not evidence he advances it.
Seriously, if you are the average American.average American voter and you know who Paul Ryan is, you know he proposed a budget and is on the budget committee. I ASSumed he was socially conservative too since he's a Republican, but it's not like I hear that about him from anyone or that it's reported on about him. So if you don't go searching for info on him, or you just have name recognition - it's that he's a fiscal con who proposed a budget.
I don't see how you don't conclude he was chosen because of his fiscal policy reputation from that, but I know I'm not going to convince anyone of it so I'll stop there.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 13, 2012 14:20:13 GMT -5
OK, another question. Let's go back to 2010, when it was all jobs jobs jobs. And who care about social positions because jobs.
And then we saw more anti-choice legislation than ever before. From the jobs people. Didn't gwb have a saying about fooling me once? Or are people really convinced that Ryan is a different situation?
I know that this might open the economy vs gay rights (social issues) thread but I agree with SBP. He does have some very conservative stances on social issues that do not jive with the social stances that many of the cons on this board hae expressed. I do wonder how/why there seems to be so much excitement about him being on the ticket. But I acknowledge that some may put (and not in a bad way) fiscal issues about social.
I still wonder when he became a fiscal conservative and what made him do so. His social stances are unsettling to me. While he was not chosen for his social views, I think that they are open for discussion esp in light of such bills as a personhood bill. I know he is not running for President but he is on the ticket and we should talk about what he has and has not done.
He does, and many have made mention of their issue with that, but to say he was called up because of these issues is ridiculous. OUtside of Andrea Mitchell and one commentator on MSNBC, I have not heard boo from the Dems about this being about women's issues, or even social ones, outside of one program...MEdicare. Which, imo, is more of a budget issue.
The Rs have an issue with social conservatives, I get it, but to preach like Obama is the savior of programs, such as education, is beyond me. We need to have a real conversation about entitlement programs, as well as taxes, and the Dem side isn't doing it. The R side hasn't either and my excitement is that it may happen now. I have to look at the whole picture, the debt we are leaving to kids LT's age, the education system, the medical system, etc so I need to look at all.
No candidate, heck no party, is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. None. It doesnt mean I roll arond in my money while crapping on the poor. That is just asinine. Completely...
CO-sponsoring, which is different, a pro-forma bill on personhood that gets voted on every year and never passes. This is evidence he toes the social con line. Not evidence he advances it.
Well, I would need it to be a bigger difference than the one that exists between sponsoring and co-sponsoring. I would need it to be the difference between co-sponsoring and NOT FUCKING SPONSORING.
Seriously, if you are the average American.average American voter and you know who Paul Ryan is, you know he proposed a budget and is on the budget committee. I ASSumed he was socially conservative too since he's a Republican, but it's not like I hear that about him from anyone or that it's reported on about him. So if you don't go searching for info on him, or you just have name recognition - it's that he's a fiscal con who proposed a budget.
I don't see how you don't conclude he was chosen because of his fiscal policy reputation from that, but I know I'm not going to convince anyone of it so I'll stop there.
Your first paragraph speaks to people's knowledge, and I would agree that since the talking point is he's a budget guy, people will think he's a budget guy.
But the 2nd paragraph is about decision making at a different level. I think it's entirely possible that they wanted the general public to hear budget while simultaneously hoping that the social cons who get riled up about gays and abortion are going to know Ryan's also a personhood guy. They hear those dog whistles, and I'm sure the Romney camp knows that and is counting on it.
So, in this case, it's the experience of being there and voting, not actually proposing passable legislation, that's the important thing. Is that a correct interpretation?
How much does voting record come into play when you assess experience? I think it's undeniable that his record is anti-gay and anti-choice (extreme anti-choice with the life at conception stuff). But do you weight it less because his primary committee is budget?
No and this post is yet another example of framing the argument your way and expecting us to agree that's a valid premise. Ryan proposed to reform the biggest clusterfuck program we have in this country -- one that no one wants to even talk about, much less plan for, even though its inevitable and necessary. And I mean on both sides of the aisle. His plan is meant as a starting point to negotiate and compromise and it took great guts. I love him for that. He's not just sitting in a chair twiddling his thumbs all day while other people make bills. Obama had a dismal record of passing legislation too, even voting on contentious legislation, but that doesn't mean he was staring at the ceiling while the real politicians got down to business. How much does a record come into play, I'd say a good amount. I've been researching his votes a lot the past 2 days. Some of his votes I outright oppose, like the gay adoption vote. But he seems to have moderated his stance over the years (that vote was in 1999). The personhood bills mean nothing to me b/c they were just votes to send a bill to committee to die. The same bill gets voted on year after year and always gets sent to committee to die. I don't take that as a serious attempt to rid the country of abortion. I'm still researching some other votes, but those are the biggies I've weighed already.
OK, another question. Let's go back to 2010, when it was all jobs jobs jobs. And who care about social positions because jobs.
And then we saw more anti-choice legislation than ever before. From the jobs people. Didn't gwb have a saying about fooling me once? Or are people really convinced that Ryan is a different situation?
Because Rs are just as bad at lipservice to get elected? Honestly, this is why I am not a registered R and why, locally, I will certainly vote for a D (I love me some Barbara Mikulski). It still is about jobs, imo, because more people working>more tax revenue collected>better for all.
I am not sure I am convinced about Ryan about jobs, but if he can start laying out the problems and unsustainability of programs, like Medicare, at their current levels/path, I am happy...even if he doesn't win. We need to get our head out of the sand.