web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Paul Ryan"
It’s almost as though Paul Ryan really, really wants to be Speaker and is willing to give the nuts what he needs to in order to make it happen. While I’ll give him credit on delivering a very elaborate and effective performance designed to increase his leverage, it wasn’t fully successful and he ain’t walking away (I tend to find this affected humility, this “Who, me? Oh no no no!” act, to be intolerably phony on its own, but anyway). My guess is that he has a year before the crazies dump him.
Lev filed this under: ,  
A broken clock
{ 1 comment }
Metavirus filed this under: , ,  

TPM quotes the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver trippin’ balls again:

“We have an increasingly lawless presidency where he is actually doing the job of Congress, writing new policies and new laws without going through Congress. Presidents don’t write laws, Congress does,” Ryan said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Jonathan Bernstein rebuts (this flavor-of-the-month argument, if not Ryan specifically) in Obama’s Radical Adherence to the Constitution:

[…] at least so far, nothing that Barack Obama has done even hints at significantly upsetting the normal balance. Which doesn’t mean that he’s colored inside the lines every time; if he hasn’t, however, that’s what the courts are for (although Ornstein wonders if conservative judges will just wind up acting as partisans).

Still, as Ornstein says, overall “Obama is well situated in historical precedent to use his executive power.” Basically, it’s pretty simple. In broad outline, Obama can use executive orders and other executive action because presidents have always had the ability to do so. Claims to the contrary are either ignorant of the Constitution as it is written and as it’s been lived for over two centuries, or (in the case of those who clearly know better) just plain dishonest.

I don’t know why this lie, the lie of the Lawless Obama Presidency, pisses me off more than anything else that comes out of the Wurlitzer. Maybe because Cheney’s shadow government is still so fresh; maybe because it just plain sounds like incitement to violence, to revolt.

Either way, I’m calling bullshit.

{ 1 comment }
Anyone think this will generate more than a relatively minor chirp amongst our esteemed pundit class?
A new study [] by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation confirms [that] the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan would result in six out of ten seniors paying substantially more for the same Medicare benefits they receive today.

A pretty clear win for Biden, IMO, and one that effectively sewed seeds of doubt about Ryan’s readiness on foreign policy. Biden seemed to be full of facts–I wouldn’t be surprised if one of his goals was to simply rattle off more numbers than Ryan, which I would guess he accomplished quite easily. He was both tougher and more sensitive than Ryan, funnier and more aggressive. Damn near a command performance, really.

Ryan was…not nearly as bad as Obama was last week, to be fair. Very flat, I think. Biden, though, was much better than Romney was last week. And the format really revealed the limitations of Ryan’s communication skills. I kept noticing how aptly Biden was able to switch tone, pacing, and approach depending on the topic. Ryan, however, was monotonous. His tone was the same no matter what the subject was, whether he was talking about taxes, contraception or Iran, even when he was getting “personal” at certain points. Biden’s attacks on the “47%” comments were delivered in a very different manner from his discussion of his religion, while Ryan’s act was more of a drone (though my wife listened to the thing on radio and had a higher opinion of it than I did, for what it’s worth). The clenched jaw and occasional bug-eyes really didn’t make him look terribly composed either. Republicans desiring Ryan to be a future presidential candidate ought to be deeply concerned by this debate, which showed him to be an uncertain communicator outside his metier (fawning journalist interviews?), though these sorts of problems ought to be fixable with experience I suppose.

In any event, I must confess the thing was just what the doctor ordered. Let’s hope O can keep it up…I have a good feeling about the town hall meeting format.

{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under: , , ,  

Good post by Noah Millman, who asks what Republicans have to do in order to become a legit governing party again. He identifies some things that would genuinely augur improvement: the existence of a foreign policy debate, and a rejection of the “no new taxes” pledge for every single conceivable occasion.

I was thinking about this question, but the one I’m more interested in is a similar but different one: at what point does the GOP go from walking disaster to an entity that wouldn’t make me fear for the nation lest they win the presidency? What do they have to do just to merely suck, as opposed to having gone ’round the bend? And a few things occurred to me:

  1. Ryanism has to end. Let me be clear what I mean by this. I don’t mean Republicans have to support social programs forever to remain at their present funding levels and ways of doing business. I mean that Republicans need to stop with the bad faith that Paul Ryan has exemplified in his time as a national figure. Specifically: proposing a plan that would “end Medicare as we know it” by turning it into an unrecognizable system of diminishing-return vouchers while insisting that this would be essentially no different than the current system for the user. That is more than just “politics as usual,” more than mere shading or deception. That is misrepresenting your own views to pretend that they match with those of your target, i.e. bad faith. Other examples include bashing the president for having the same Medicare cuts as you have in your budget. Or bashing the president for not publicly backing the Simpson-Bowles budget plan that you personally vetoed as a member of the committee. This goes beyond fuzzy math or basic political word games and distortions–it is evidence that the party sees no particular need to be honest with the electorate or even with the interests in its own coalition. One could argue that Ryanism comes out of an inability to reconcile the demands of those interests. But the simple fact is that a party that acts in bad faith so regularly is one that cannot be trusted with power, and that tactic won’t take long to be self-defeating either. If other polls show Romney-Ryan tanking with seniors as this one does. People came to hate insurance companies in no small part because of bad faith practices that sought any possible loophole to avoid paying out claims. This one is a no-brainer.
  2. Major New Deal and Great Society programs must be accepted by the GOP on a fundamental level. Reforms of these programs can and should be offered by Republicans, but those ideas must be focused on making Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, TANF, etc. (and eventually the Affordable Care Act) better, more efficient programs. That might well entail cutting spending–certainly, Medicare cuts need to happen if the system is to remain viable, and much waste has been removed from the program already. But cutting, say, excess Medicare Advantage payments makes the program more efficient and thus stronger. Vouchercare makes it weaker, less robust, less useful. Reforms offered by Republicans need to be conceived of with the mission of these programs as the top consideration. Which is to reiterate point 1–no more Ryanism.
  3. A rejection of some hard-line social issue positions because of their impracticality. I figure gay marriage will be an entirely unremarkable position to hold for a member of either party in ten years, with anti- sentiment confined to some pockets of the Deep South and Interior West. Abortion, probably not. I don’t expect Republicans to renounce the pro-life position, but I need there to be some nuance to their position on this. We couldn’t just ban all abortions, few want to and it would be bedlam. Women’s rights and health have to figure into the equation. And so on. Again, I’m not looking for an ideal party here, just some sense that they wouldn’t try to ban everything they don’t like if they got power.

There are others I could come up with, but those are the first that come to mind. Anyone have another?

{ 1 comment }
Still on break, but I had the chance to see some DNC coverage, and the Paul Ryan marathon lie is getting a lot of media attention. Which is annoying on one level because it’s trivial compared to most of his junk, but the marathon thing can’t really be dismissed with he said/she said rhetoric (and it’s unrelated to policy), so it’s making the dishonesty charge stick better. Also, you have to figure it’s hurting him because it’s pathetic. Exaggerated bragging, especially when called on it, is an immediate gravitas destroyer. It sort of makes me wonder if the reason Ryan did it is that he just needs people to gush over him. Saying he ran it in four hours would be a damn good time, but not an amazing one. Nobody would gush over that time. Three hours, though… That’s incredible. Expanded outward, this would explain why he so assiduously courted the mainstream press as he did, in a way few Republicans bother to, as well as the Ayn Rand obsession. Perhaps deep down, all there is to Paul Ryan is a rich kid who needs to feel like a special snowflake. Nothing badass about that. In any event, the VP debates ought to be entertaining. I hope Biden pummels the guy. Absent his media spinners, it should be short work.
Lev filed this under: ,  

Your Vintners