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.
I don't know re: social policies, but I'm willing to wait and see what comes from the campaign. I absolutely believe he was chosen for his reputation as a fiscal guy, which leads me to believe that his influence, his speeches and his talking points will be focused on the economy.
As for what happens if Romney/Ryan win, I don't think we can know for sure. I think Romney is moderate and I think he'll focus on the economy unless there is something in the air in Washington that makes people rabid about abortion laws, but I also don't trust politicians at all. Any of 'em.
I guess my short answer is - I'm willing to give them a chance, and yes, when I hear Romney picked a guy with a fiscal con rep above anything else, I am excited by it.
But, if the campaign talks a lot about social issues (which I doubt will happen) and seems to focus on it, I'll probably vote 3rd party. If, they talk economy and I like what they're saying, fuck yeah, I'm excited.
Post by soontobeka on Aug 13, 2012 14:27:13 GMT -5
I get looking at the debt and I agree that we need to...but Ryan is part of the reason that we are dealing with this debt that he suddenly has the solutions for. Voting to repeal key parts of Glass Stegall, the war in Iraq, etc.
The MediScare card is being played by both tickets and I think it is stopping an honest issue from being discussed. Obama is not the savior of anything. Shit he is part of the problem too. We are not going to have a honest conversation about taxes anytime soon because Romney runs from that topic like a no other.
But, if the campaign talks a lot about social issues (which I doubt will happen) and seems to focus on it, I'll probably vote 3rd party. If, they talk economy and I like what they're saying, fuck yeah, I'm excited.
I probably still will, but I will be much happier if the focus stays here (plus, it drowns out the social conservative wing/agenda).
The MediScare card is being played by both tickets and I think it is stopping an honest issue from being discussed. Obama is not the savior of anything. Shit he is part of the problem too. We are not going to have a honest conversation about taxes anytime soon because Romney runs from that topic like a no other.
That's exactly why I am so excited Ryan was the pick. There really aren't any other politicians that I know of on either side of the aisle willing to talk about what needs to be done. Romney could have easily joined them, picked someone a lot less controversial, and done nothing but criticize Obama's record. That's what the old stalwart consultants want him to do. That he didn't tells me he might actually willing to pursue necessary reform.
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.
I don't doubt that his socially conservative stances (or toeing the Republic social con line) made him an attractive option since the base isn't "rah rah Romney," but I still think that he was chosen because of being known as a fiscal guy. Yeah, if the social cons/base look at his record, they'll see that he's been more conservative/less moderate than Romney and that might make them happy and get them out to vote. But I think if Romney wanted to appease the base, he would have chosen someone who was more obviously a social con. I think he wants the discussion to be about the economy.
I also think that as long as Romney chose a well known Republican as VP that would satisfy most of the base, and they would get out to vote for him against Obama. Hell, I think they'd do that anyway.
But, like I said... I'll be interested to see/hear what the campaign talks about and where their focus is. If they talk non-stop about abortion and gay marriage, then they lose me. And maybe they will fool me and talk about the economy, get in office and outlaw abortion and I'll be ashamed. If they do, I'll report back for my mea culpa and lashings.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 13, 2012 14:33:23 GMT -5
caden, I'm not actually attempting to frame to get people to agree with me. I actually am kind of that clueless about the work that congress does. In my head it looks a lot like twiddling thumbs and staring at the ceiling, even if I know that's not at all accurate.
So while I get that it's more than just proposing and passing legislation, I still thought that, along with sitting on important committees, is something people ambitious for a different office try to do to shore up their credentials. Like Bachmann on foreign affairs or Rubio co-sponsoring PIPA.
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.
I don't know re: social policies, but I'm willing to wait and see what comes from the campaign. I absolutely believe he was chosen for his reputation as a fiscal guy, which leads me to believe that his influence, his speeches and his talking points will be focused on the economy.
As for what happens if Romney/Ryan win, I don't think we can know for sure. I think Romney is moderate and I think he'll focus on the economy unless there is something in the air in Washington that makes people rabid about abortion laws, but I also don't trust politicians at all. Any of 'em.
I guess my short answer is - I'm willing to give them a chance, and yes, when I hear Romney picked a guy with a fiscal con rep above anything else, I am excited by it.
But, if the campaign talks a lot about social issues (which I doubt will happen) and seems to focus on it, I'll probably vote 3rd party. If, they talk economy and I like what they're saying, fuck yeah, I'm excited.
that makes sense to me. i hope you're right. but i also think sibil raises a valid point too (fool me once) because we hav seen a LOT of social issues become the focus lately.
caden, I'm not actually attempting to frame to get people to agree with me. I actually am kind of that clueless about the work that congress does. In my head it looks a lot like twiddling thumbs and staring at the ceiling, even if I know that's not at all accurate.
So while I get that it's more than just proposing and passing legislation, I still thought that, along with sitting on important committees, is something people ambitious for a different office try to do to shore up their credentials. Like Bachmann on foreign affairs or Rubio co-sponsoring PIPA.
Thanks for explaining. I actually joke all the time that politicians do nothing, even when they're passing legislation. I also picture Joe Biden locked in a closet most of the day so I'd probably think even a state rep would qualify for that job.
But, like I said... I'll be interested to see/hear what the campaign talks about and where their focus is. If they talk non-stop about abortion and gay marriage, then they lose me. And maybe they will fool me and talk about the economy, get in office and outlaw abortion and I'll be ashamed. If they do, I'll report back for my mea culpa and lashings.
Lol. I'll hold you to that
I do think you make a lot of sense, eclaires. I can understand where you'd be optimistic but still cautious.
The MediScare card is being played by both tickets and I think it is stopping an honest issue from being discussed. Obama is not the savior of anything. Shit he is part of the problem too. We are not going to have a honest conversation about taxes anytime soon because Romney runs from that topic like a no other.
That's exactly why I am so excited Ryan was the pick. There really aren't any other politicians that I know of on either side of the aisle willing to talk about what needs to be done. Romney could have easily joined them, picked someone a lot less controversial, and done nothing but criticize Obama's record. That's what the old stalwart consultants want him to do. That he didn't tells me he might actually willing to pursue necessary reform.
ITA that it will be nice to actually start this discussion.
I get looking at the debt and I agree that we need to...but Ryan is part of the reason that we are dealing with this debt that he suddenly has the solutions for. Voting to repeal key parts of Glass Stegall, the war in Iraq, etc.
The MediScare card is being played by both tickets and I think it is stopping an honest issue from being discussed. Obama is not the savior of anything. Shit he is part of the problem too. We are not going to have a honest conversation about taxes anytime soon because Romney runs from that topic like a no other.
Well, to be honest, it is not MediScare on the R side, outside of it being unsustainable. The Dem side is running it like "DeathPanels" and I think we can all agree that is bunk.
As far as GS, he is on record as needing to reinstate it. I still get annoyed when CLinton is glorified. Yeah, um, he was one of the biggest proponents of its repeal. But, okay. He needs (Ryan) to shore up this statement and actually work for it. My hope, though, is he realizes it was a big mistake and wants to correct it.
Thanks for explaining. I actually joke all the time that politicians do nothing, even when they're passing legislation. I also picture Joe Biden locked in a closet most of the day so I'd probably think even a state rep would qualify for that job.
I picture most politicians not in a closet (well, some, but it's a different kind) but wandering around, shaking hands, saying hihowareyou? and that's about it. Maybe they'll sit down to play some solitaire, or surf the internet for some new ties and flag pins.
Oh, and then they go to The Palm for lunch and make old man jokes.
Thanks for explaining. I actually joke all the time that politicians do nothing, even when they're passing legislation. I also picture Joe Biden locked in a closet most of the day so I'd probably think even a state rep would qualify for that job.
I picture most politicians not in a closet (well, some, but it's a different kind) but wandering around, shaking hands, saying hihowareyou? and that's about it. Maybe they'll sit down to play some solitaire, or surf the internet for some new ties and flag pins.
Oh, and then they go to The Palm for lunch and make old man jokes.
And I am fine with that, but I have two questions/issues?
1) How did those that vote for Obama justify voting for him based on his separate but equal vision of gay marriage in 2008 with his civil union speak?
2) I get the argument that money is not more important than people. I think the focus on the economy is so that we can fund social needs, like education, like CHIP, like medicaid, etc.
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)
Yes. Romney also bolted himself to the House Republicans at a time when Congress is less popular than Fidel Castro. He should have run far, far away
And I am fine with that, but I have two questions/issues?
1) How did those that vote for Obama justify voting for him based on his separate but equal vision of gay marriage in 2008 with his civil union speak?
I don't think this will really matter to be honest. Everyone is making a big deal like Black Dems won't vote for him. Oh yes they will. They may be made at him for saying he's ok with it, but there will still be the nostalgia that he is the 1st Black President. And the R's still haven't done enough to court black voters. Newt saying inner city kids need work ethic and Mittens saying if you still want free stuff vote for the other guy aren't exactly charming the socks off of anyone.
But, like I said... I'll be interested to see/hear what the campaign talks about and where their focus is. If they talk non-stop about abortion and gay marriage, then they lose me. And maybe they will fool me and talk about the economy, get in office and outlaw abortion and I'll be ashamed. If they do, I'll report back for my mea culpa and lashings.
Lol. I'll hold you to that
I do think you make a lot of sense, eclaires. I can understand where you'd be optimistic but still cautious.
I guess my excitement stems from how this looks - on the surface it looks like it makes the economy the focus because of Ryan's rep. And that's where I want the Republican party to head, in general, so if it looks that way, I feel less "why bother voting" you know? I feel like eventually there may be an end to my long suffering . I'm certainly not sure of it, but it is a nice, bright spot for someone who has felt pretty ignored by the R party.
Now I could be being fooled by Romney's secret agenda to make the US a theocracy run by Mormons. If so, I'll be sure to help everyone leave the country with me or stage a revolt after my lashings.
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)
Yes. Romney also bolted himself to the House Republicans at a time when Congress is less popular than Fidel Castro. He should have run far, far away
Eh, big deal. Biden was selected when Congress was not popular either.
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Aug 13, 2012 15:00:07 GMT -5
Reading these very heated debates has made me realize just how jaded and apathetic I really am. I can't even get worked up over Romney/Ryan because they're the most stereotypical rich white republican team I can imagine. How anyone actually takes campaign talk seriously confounds me. I may need to sit out until Mid November....
Now I could be being fooled by Romney's secret agenda to make the US a theocracy run by Mormons. If so, I'll be sure to help everyone leave the country with me or stage a revolt after my lashings.
If he were a Scientologist, there would be more truth to that.
1) How did those that vote for Obama justify voting for him based on his separate but equal vision of gay marriage in 2008 with his civil union speak?
Because while it's not good enough, it's certainly better than demonizing gays and trying to further curtail any rights they may have. I don't think that's a difficult position to understand. What's the alternative? The guy who put scare quotes around women's health? I wasn't about to vote 3rd party in a swing state.
Reading these very heated debates has made me realize just how jaded and apathetic I really am. I can't even get worked up over Romney/Ryan because they're the most stereotypical rich white republican team I can imagine. How anyone actually takes campaign talk seriously confounds me. I may need to sit out until Mid November....
Ha, I still plan to vote 3rd party at this time, but Ryan intrigues me, honestly, for his fiscal ideas and the conversation I hope will happen, though likely won't because Americans are blind to most issues.
1) How did those that vote for Obama justify voting for him based on his separate but equal vision of gay marriage in 2008 with his civil union speak?
Because while it's not good enough, it's certainly better than demonizing gays and trying to further curtail any rights they may have. I don't think that's a difficult position to understand. What's the alternative? The guy who put scare quotes around women's health? I wasn't about to vote 3rd party in a swing state.
I can't believe you care more for that specious argument about your vote counting than you do about equality. That's so gross.
I don't have an issue with his resume. I think he's perfectly qualified.
I do however think the personhood bill is relevant though, even though it's just some kneejerk bullshit move done periodically while knowing the bill will die.
Often we hear people (both on this board and elsewhere in the general public) say that they wish that the party was not so beholden to social conservatives. The solution to that is to stop making excuses for politicians that do this sort of shit, and start taking them to task on it. Small government conservatives criticize the shit out of the constitutionality of Obama's health care legislation, but then they turn around and propose all sorts of abortion legislation using the same constitutional basis as Obama's health care plan.
The only reason social conservatives have a hold on the Republican party is because the Republican party is willing to go against their own principals and suggest to them and the country that the pro-life legislation (or DOMA or other pet legislation of the social conservatives) that they propose is both appropriate and constitutional. Sure, maybe this bill was written to die, but the fact is he was willing to betray his small government philosophy by signing on as co-sponsor (and presumably voting for it if it every got to that point). It would be easier to believe that people were truly passionate about wanting the GOP to stop caring so damn much about social issues, if the GOP's support of bullshit bills that they'd otherwise call unconstitutional, were met with slightly more anger and disgust than a "well it wasn't a real bill and he only was a co-sponsor, so NBD."
In essence, Ryan's support of that bill tells social conservatives that he believes their agenda is compatible with a conservative small government agenda. Make excuses all you want, but that's the position he has taken. GOP supporters can either accept the social conservative stranglehold (and stop arguing about how so many liberal bills are incompatible with the constitution), or they can stop making excuses for this bullshit.
1) His track record is not great in this regard, but he's gone a step further than his predecessors.
2) Except that Romney, in order to avoid cutting Social Security, as he's promised, will instead make cuts to food stamps, SSI, child nutrition programs, food stamps, welfare services. What good is an economy in balance if millions are driven further into poverty?
I thought the 2nd was Ryan's initial budget, not Romney's (who has said it is his plan, not theirs)? I see a percentage cut, but that doesnt seem to exclude SS...at least per his website
Post by soontobeka on Aug 13, 2012 15:12:58 GMT -5
Tef- honestly for me re: Obama and gay marriage it was Biden's comment in the VP debate and Obama's evolving view on gay marriage. I admit because it was evolving towards the side I agree with. His promise to repeal DADT spoke volumes even when his view on gay marriage did not match mine.
Post by mominatrix on Aug 13, 2012 15:16:47 GMT -5
I think, honestly, that our eyes are not on the ball on this one.
I could give a shit about this or that proposed piece of legislation, and who voted for what.
I think this nomination shows that, yes, the R's want budget conversations out there. But, you know,Mitt is supposed to be a budgeting guy, so I guess they're doubling down on that.
Fine.
In a year, or two, or three... When a supreme court justice needs to be replaced, is it going to be by somebody who's fiscally conservative / socially liberal?
Or, do the social conservatives have both these candidates privates in enough of a vice that we're looking at more scary cons on the court.
...and the circuit courts. And the districts.
Because while congress can pass personhood amendments from now till hell freezes over it's the courts that will allow them to stand or strike them down.