Romney/Ryan Ticket

1. 78

   Credence2posted 11 years ago

   While Romney is to be commended for taking a bold course  with the choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate on an otherwise bland  candidacy, this course is fraught with risks of its own. Ryan is being portrayed as a fix it guy providing a clarion call to fiscal disaster unless his Plan is adopted. Allowing tax breaks for the wealthy and a relatively small sacrifice by the defense establishment while proposing draconian cuts on the social compact is cause for concern.
   
   How much of this is â fix it verses application of pure right wing ideological dogma?
   
   I believe that the American people are not ready for the 'hard truth' proposed by Ryan. Privatizing Social Security was savaged when GW Bush even suggested it.  The clear course now set by the Romney team makes them all the more visible a target for the Democrats. You just as well touch God's eyeball as to even mention dismantling of the New Deal compact for todays seniors. That is fundamentally what Ryan proposes to do.
   
   Will reliability of the senior vote doom the Romney/Ryan team to defeat over these issues next fall?
   
   What are your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 55

      PETER LUMETTAposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Creadence, I haven't said much lately but when Ryan was selected to run with Romney I became motivated to reply. This move has crystalized the Republican goals to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, regulations on banks, taxes on the rich and the total destruction of the middle class in the U.S. The Romney/Ryan ticket has made our choice very clear, a step back to the 1930's or a step forward to the 21st century. The Obama presidency has been less than we all had hoped but at least we are moving forward although slowly. Obama is characterized as a socialist but to me I prefer it to Facism. Stay well my friend,
      
      Peter

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         +++ from a fellow Detroiter. We'll have to get together for a beer one of these days, Peter.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            PETER LUMETTAposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm ready anytime you are Ralph. I'm in Alaska right now, where are y

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I'm in a Detroit suburb. Let me know next time you're in town.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Nailed it.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            PETER LUMETTAposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks Josak

            replyreport
      3. 78

         Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Nice to hear from you, Peter. As for the period before the Depression, been there and done that, I would rather move toward a scoeity that has learned from past mistakes, not to rely on unfettered and laissez faire capitalism as controller of our destiny. With that, we introduce an inherently unstable element.
         
         Dont be a stranger, see you around the hubs!

         replyreport
   2. 39

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just when I thought there was absolutely nothing that could ever incline me to vote for Obama the Republicans come up with this pair.
      I don't see a single thing in the Republican camp that I wouldn't call evil and considering that I see the same thing in the Democrats we once again are left with a choice between really bad and terrible.
      Sadly we have a system that is played to have only extremes rather than a good moderate from either side.
      The only party I support, and will most likely vote for, isn't going to win and the country is going to suffer four more years of the SOS from one side or the other.
      I think we need to change the national anthem to "Sympathy for the Devil"!

      replyreport
      1. 71

         drdspervezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Borsia  you are right yes of course before voting we must think about our country and our future. God help those who help them selves.
         
                                                                  DR.DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for dropping in Borsia, As a libertarian, you can't be particularly pleased with either choice. Short of revolution, it is unlikely that the American electorate would ever embrace Libertarian ideals. So, I guess that you have to go with whatever the lesser of the evils are in your analysis. The political and ideological poles are polarized to extent that we really have not seen since the Civil War. Under the current circumstances, even if one executive candiate wins over the other, the victor will more than likely have to deal with contention from the other branches of Government. So what's new?

         replyreport
         1. 39

            Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Stalemate is the best we can hope for.
            The American public won't realize or accept the radical changes that have to take place until the glass ball hits the floor and shatters. Then it may well be too late, just as it was for the USSR.
            The US may well end up being a number of minor republics. But the "too big to fail" mindset will continue until it is too big to succeed. Of course it already is much too big.
            We see this all around us as the giant financial institutions old placards are sold at auction to the curious few but still the fingers are in the ears and the eyes closed tight.
            But the day is coming when it will all come crashing down. The only thing saving the US now is that the rest of the world already has the fork in the toaster.

            replyreport
   3. 60

      twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Whether or not it's true, there is the perception that Ryan is part of the problem. He appeals to the right wing, but they would have voted for Romney anyway. A better strategy would have been to appeal to the middle. Rubio would have been a better choice.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I would have preferred Michelle Bachmann.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm grateful it wasn't Rubio or . . .
            
            

            replyreport
      2. 78

         Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi twoheads, I would have said that until recently as the Romney camp is now blaming Obama for medicare cuts and making the Dems the boogey man. As people are not likely to delve into the fine details to determine the truth, the molotov cocktail is always more effective. Romney was losing ground by merely pointing out where Obama failed. He needed to tell us what he was going to do to improve things. Teaming up with Ryan forced him to take a stand. From what I heard, the risk averse Romney was worried that Rubio had to many skeletons in his closet. Thanks for weighin in......

         replyreport
   4. 39

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If I can add one more bit of fat to the fire,, that of course would  be pork fat.
      I really didn't / don't know much about Ryan and being an expat I see very limited coverage.
      But I was watching Jon Stewart on the CC site and he brought up something interesting.
      For his entire time in office on every issue that Ryan claims to oppose he voted FOR them. or in the case of cutting any defense spending against them.
      So I would say that he is at the very least two faced in his voting record.
      I've always believed that it doesn't matter what any politician says it only matters what they do and how they vote. So Ryan is just as much a pork merchant as any of the others.
      Certainly not someone I would ever trust to guard my freedom or my money.

      replyreport
2. 90

   GA Andersonposted 11 years ago

   whew! Glad you posted that Peter - I have not received my "talking points" memo yet so I did not know what I was supposed to think. But with that concise evaluation - obviously you did.
   
   GA

   replyreport
3. 90

   GA Andersonposted 11 years ago

   @Credance2 - for a more serious reply...
   
   I too think Romney has taken a bold step, I see Ryan as a dangerous but brave choice. I agree that the American public is not ready for hard truths - and that is what Ryan stands for. We, the public derve the truth, even if we don't want to hear it, and, yes, even if it sinks the Romney ticket. Better to lose via honest effort than to win by obfuscation. (ps. that was pointed at both parties - not just the Dems)
   
   It would have been much worse, (and much too obvious),  had he chosen a VP to pander to a voting block, ie. Rubio or Rice.
   
   I applaud his selection as a statement of specific intent, (although I disagree with the Dems characterization of that intent), rather than a vague platform of platitudinous promises. Of course that will give the opposition plenty of juicy targets - but that is as it should be, now it is up to the Romney/Ryan ticket to defend those targets with facts - not demagoguery.
   
   As for "draconian cuts to the social compact" - care to be more specific? Or is any cut draconian?
   
   I am hopeful that the senior vote is too intelligent to follow the anti-Ryan rhetoric blindly, because if facts matter - then Ryan's proposals are not as they are portrayed to be, ie. Peter's characterization.
   
   Alas, hope springs eternal
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, GA, maybe Ryan will not be so dangerous a choice after all as recently I read that the Romney people are accusing Obama of cutting the Medicare funding as part of the AHA. So the designated boogey man could well be the Democrats. Pretty clever, those pachyderms, for taking the Obama cuts designed to make the PROVIDERS more efficient rather than reduce services to the beneficiaries and simply confuse the masses over that substantive difference. The entire theme of the GOP, I find draconian, Medicare is just a small part of that. The problem is that when Obama was willing to make large cuts last year, the GOP took the role of the stubborn mule and refused to compromise on revenue enhancements and the elimination of fat-cat subsidies against the current tax code. In the current international climate, why the bloated military requirement and continued tax breaks for the well healed? Why can’t we ask for the concept of shared sacrifice from all parties. Does that seem foreign to the GOP? If we did, no one aspect of our economy needs to bear the full brunt of deficit control
      I do find it interesting that Romney is willing to gut the heart and soul of the Ryan proposal, promising to restore the 700 billion dollar cut to medicare. The Ryan Plan, like any cybernetic organism cannot function without its organic components…..
             How was that concession and compromise possible? This minor adjustment according to Romney seems like anything but in my opinion, Ryan is a rightwing ideologue disguised as a ‘problem solver’. He is loved by the Tea Party and given a 100% thumbs-up by his rightwing base because his extreme rightwing views on virtually everything that moves. I could never support such a fellow.  When the women are ready to have their private parts registered to the state, this is the guy to vote for and the tragedy is his acceptance of 19th century attitudes with his being  so relatively young. But to the GOP’s credit, he is not a Sarah Palin!!!
      
      The GOP propaganda machine have put the democrats in the same place where we once though we had them. And in the real world, where people would rather react then think through the ramifications of things, this puts us on the defensive.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "I agree that the American public is not ready for hard truths - and that is what Ryan stands for."
      
      The American public won't get truths, hard or soft, from Ryan. His numbers don't add up, and his claims are misleading. He says he worries about bequeathing debt to our grandchildren but proposes to do away with their Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Plenty hard, little truth. And Romney is the most two-faced candidate in my memory.

      replyreport
4. 73

   lorlie6posted 11 years ago

   Ryan's position on women's rights terrifies me.  He is hopeful that Roe vs. Wade will be discarded, leading to abortions in dark, dangerous places, needless to say, illegal. 
   Vote Democrat, Obama's health care move WILL help in 2014-people, be patient!!

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, Lorlie, it terrorfies me too. These are all hard core anti-choice people. The GOP, in order to get votes are going to carefully play down this Frankenstein aspect of the Ryan "boy next door" persona. I trust Obama instincts and his intent against unbelievable opposition to do the greatest good for the greatest number....
      
      Check out my article of the GOP designs on women's reproductive choices at
      
      http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/One-P … e-12282011
      
      Thanks for your imput

      replyreport