Like any candidate, Ryan has his positives and negatives. On the positive side: he is one of the most intellegent people in Congress. He is someone who has demonstrated the ability to think beyond the box. He is a mainstream conservative and should be a good balance to Romney's more moderate conservatism. He will fire up the Republican base. He is from Wisconsin which is a toss up state, and could help Romney in that state. He can be expected to do well in his debates against Biden, who is something of an intellectual light weight. On the negative side he has become controversial due largely to the effective efforts by the Democrats to demonize him as a radical and an extremist. He is neither of these things, but the image is out there and he will have to convince the country of who and what he is. But because of the image the Democrats have painted of him, he may have trouble attracting moderates and independents. Ryan will have to convince them that he is not what the Democrats claim him to be.
If the pick was Beyonce the Dems would paint her as to ugly for the job, none of that matters. The only Republicans that haven't been demonized are the the one's that the democrats feel they can beat. Have you heard them flogging Sarah P lately beyond the amount needed to maintain standard daily chatter? If Romney has a reasonably competent campaign team this should change the debate. The stupid shit about tax returns, birth certificates, and Bain out sourcing of jobs should die a grateful death. (NOTE - I want everyone who hates job outsourcing assholes like Romney to take a hammer to your outsourced made IPhone right now. Go ahead, be a good American and hit it twice). There is a clear philosophical difference in these 2 men. It's an important choice and its a choice this country needs to make. How much control over our daily lives are we willing to concede to Washington DC? How much of a nanny state do we want? How are we going to pay for the amount of government we choose - including defense? Do we want government by Presidential edict? Do we want laws debated and passed in an open manner so we can actually know what the new law is before the bill is passed (anyone remember the sunshine laws)? Do we really want to be a space hitchhiker rather than the guys driving the car? What do I want to see? I would love for citizens to sign a petition that they will change the channel when a negative add airs. Then we ship all the the spin doctors on both sides to Antarctica for 6 months. That may allow us to have a real discussion about the future. And I think we would be more likely to unite behind the winner if we felt better about the campaign and election process. Because this house divided stuff just isn't working.
Told y'all last wk that Romney wanted to gut SS and Medicare. This will help him in Wisconsin and in the VP debates and no where else.
Discretionary spending down in 2011 and 2012. What's all this stuff about borrow and spend? Still bitching about ARRA? Most of that was tax cuts and was the largest tax cut in US history.
Discretionary spending is down because entitlements and sacred cows are eating up the budget. Ryan has had the courage to think outside the box and carry his convictions to legislation. A contrast to BHO who won't endorse any action even his Simpson-Bowles commission's. He hides behind Dirty Harry Reid's obstruction and kowtows to Pelosi and the radical left in congress. Finally he whines and has led in negative ads both now and 2008. He has run the most negative campaigns in recent memory.
Obamacare will gut over $750 billion from Mexicare over ten years. That's a pretty good gutting right there.
Right. The problem with the healthcare discussion has been that it has concentrated on how to divide the spoils. Big Pharma, Big Insurance, AARP made a deal with the devil to protect themselves in Obamacare. The issue is to find a way to improve the health of individuals, make the delivery of care more efficient and reasoned and by doing that reduce the burden on society. The debate has ignored these issues in a war for the $$$ available. The fact that costs/procedure go up and the overheall health of society declines meant nothing to the debaters. Each side played to it's constituantcy without regard to the over all health and future of the US economy. They blithely assume tapayers or lenders will continue to pay. Most of us aren't willing to think about anything but getting whatever we want at no out of pocket cost. It seems we do believe in the toothfairy. If we con't it will all crash down on our heads sooner than you think. Obamacre does NOTHING to change that. If you think the government will save money on health care look at ANY government program in history. Medicare/Medicade are the best examples in health care. Read the history and weep. In it you see the future with Obamacare.
