Romney chooses...

[Tiger Wench]

Not sure why you think Ryan won't get the women vote.  He's a cutie until he opens his mouth - that Whis-KAHN-sin accent is a bit Yankee for my tastes.

Some of his positions on social issues will bother some women, at least those who vote with their uteruses - his pro life stance matters not to me since he has ZERO effect on abortion policy.  The bigger issue for me as a mom is finding a way out of this shitastic economic nightmare before my kids pay the price - whether now or later.  SS is DONE.  Yeah, I have to pay in, but I am not counting on seeing one damn penny back ever.  Anyone who is still naive enough to think they can retire on SS is nuts. 

I don't know if Ryan has THE plan, but he HAS a plan, one that cannot - CANNOT - be worse than the damage the current jackass has done. 

I like him.

[bottomfeeder]

http://janmorganmedia.com/2012/08/ryan-faces-obama-and-takes-obamacare-down-in-six-minutes/

[Tarheel]

I've read that the Romney/Ryan ticket will bring entitlements into serious play.  I don't like it.  Conservatives against entitlements and liberals for entitlements are already set.  The independent voter that is uneducated and swayed by the wind (most of them) will be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence that Obama will use to support entitlements. 

It's already easy for the left to vilify Romney as the rich overlord that wants to hurt people to get more money for himself.  Bringing entitlements into the game is going to reinforce that.

Well, I heard Debbie 'Blabbermouth' Schultz, DNC Chairman, on Fox News Sunday this morning.  She was mostly speaking in talking points regarding the Ryan pick but one thing really stands out to me and that's her specific argument saying that the Ryan Plan would be a return to Seniors having to deal with "the doughnut hole" again (which the Affordable Care Act supposedly corrects).  You may not be aware of this issue but I am keenly aware of it having had to help my Senior parents with needed prescription drugs when they went into the Medicare "doughnut hole".  There's validity to the Dems arguing about this issue because it is a big issue for current Seniors.

The trap that the Dems will set is getting into the weeds of entitlements.  Ryan is going to have to argue effectively against this campaign of mis-information against his Medicare reform plan and, I think, that he (and Romney) can then elevate the argument to entitlement reform in the abstract which is a winning tactic (and by repeating again and again that the Medicare Trustees have been warning again and again {even as late as April 2012} that the plan is out of money in 12 years or so).  Status quo (as the Dems seem to want by being derelict on a budget or an economic plan or Medicare reform or Social Security reform) is simply not a responsible option and neither is Obamacare for that matter.  America has GOT to wake up to this!  Ryan is well-equipped to speak coherently and cogently on all of these problems.

Beyond that I think they are going to have to keep the message simple: to borrow from Clinton/Carville "It's the Economy, stupid."  This was one of the most effective campaign strategies that I've seen and Romney/Ryan are going to have to focus on-message regarding this issue.  The Pharaoh has NO leg to stand on, his Economic 'plan' has been a disaster, it's lead to a consistent 8%+ unemployment for practically all of his first term (he owns this problem), he's been AWOL on a realistic budget for 1200 plus days, and he's at a virtual state of War with small businesses in this nation which are collectively the largest employer.

At the end of the day, the Republicans have actual reform plans and budgets...where are the Democrats' plans?  Where are their budgets?

Anyway, enough of my Sunday afternoon ramblings...I've got work to do.

[Tiger Wench]

Smart Democrats Should Be Worried


By John Fund

August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M.

Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,” has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice” because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.
 
No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.
 
First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.
 
Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”
 
Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”
 
Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.
 
Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.
 
Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:
 

We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!
 
Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.
 
Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.
 
Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.
 
Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.

[bottomfeeder]

Fuck those two parties.

I'm voting Ron Paul or libertarian

[Kaos]

Fuck those two parties.

I'm voting Ron Paul or libertarian

^^
Part of the problem -- and the reason Obama has a chance to win. 

[GH2001]

No, Bush did that I'm pretty sure.  i've been told that more times than I've been told about Bammer's 11, 14, 11ty3 championships. 

I also laughed my ASS off when I heard Boobama slam Reagan and say "we've tried that trickle down economy and it didn't work." 

It DIDN'T FUCKING WORK?  Are people really stupid enough to just buy that line from this stuffed shirt assclown without bothering to check? 

Reagan's economic policies turned around a country gripped by Carter's malaise and created an environment where we surged to unprecedented heights and amazing wealth.  We went from a country teetering on the brink of economic ruin -- remember gas lines? Remember 8% unemployment? -- and turned that shit around stat.  Unemployment was down to nearly 4% when Reagan was done.  Those policies paved the way for the US to survive a mild recession and then thrive like a motherfucker when Clinton was in office.

But no... we don't want to go back to those "failed" policies now.  We need hope!  We need change! We need forward!  We need gay rights! 

I am constantly amazed at just how stupid people are.  No reasonable, thinking human being could be fooled by this hot-air puffing, not even born in this country fraudulent poser.  And yet millions are. 

 

Strange too that they say that since it never got above 8% under Bush. It's never been below 8% under the Obama.

All Ryan's plan does is give people UNDER 55 a CHOICE.

Does not affect people over 55 at all. The guy has a plan. What the hell does anyone else have?

THS, getting the focus back on the economy and entitlements is a good thing. Most people are not happy with the economy and most people also oppose entitlements in the manner they are structured today. Not saying social issues aren't important, but we really need to get the discussion BACK on economics, and I think Ryan will force that hand. Very calculated (and good) move by Romney. Plus, he'll eat Biden's lunch in a debate.

[GH2001]

^^
Part of the problem -- and the reason Obama has a chance to win.

Yep

[AUChizad]

I like him.

There may be some positions here and there that I disagree with, but that's every major political player.

By and large, a self-proclaimed Ayn Rand Objectivist is gonna be ok in my book.

It's funny that the left is pulling the same bullshit the right pulled by trying to attribute each and every exaggerated controversial position of Saul Alinsky on Obama because he studied his works. Now the left is saying that Ryan is a Godless sociopath with great admiration for serial killers (William Edward Hickman).

It's like they're campaigning against Rand now because Ryan said that her philosophy was inspirational to him.

[AUChizad]

Yep

Nope.

I know this sounds idealistic and impractical, but if everyone actually abandoned the groupthink and voted for the politician they most agreed with whom they feel would be the best option for President, we wouldn't be in this "lesser of two evils" rut.

In my opinion, the "problem" is voting for someone you don't support most, or staying at home because voting third party "doesn't matter."

[GH2001]

I like him.

There may be some positions here and there that I disagree with, but that's every major political player.

By and large, a self-proclaimed Ayn Rand Objectivist is gonna be ok in my book.

It's funny that the left is pulling the same bullshit the right pulled by trying to attribute each and every exaggerated controversial position of Saul Alinsky on Obama because he studied his works. Now the left is saying that Ryan is a Godless sociopath with great admiration for serial killers (William Edward Hickman).

It's like they're campaigning against Rand now because Ryan said that her philosophy was inspirational to him.

Seriously, posts like these make me think better of you politically. I like Ryan much more than Romney. I want someone who has economic sense and he does! This will get the debate back on economics. If we don't get this economy right and reign in a good budget along with reforming entitlements, none of the other stuff will even matter (social issues) in ten years. Sad but true.

[GH2001]

Nope.

I know this sounds idealistic and impractical, but if everyone actually abandoned the groupthink and voted for the politician they most agreed with whom they feel would be the best option for President, we wouldn't be in this "lesser of two evils" rut.

In my opinion, the "problem" is voting for someone you don't support most, or staying at home because voting third party "doesn't matter."

Agree, but that's not gonna happen dude. I wish it would happen, it's just not going to. In the reality we live in with the 4-5 major news outlets controlling the election, it is what it is. In the field of play today, a vote for a write-in or 3rd party candidate is essentially a vote for Obama (since most people who favor Johnson or a Write-in are more moderate or libertarian, even conservative fiscally). Trust me Chad, I don't like it either but that's what it boils down to at this point.

[AUChizad]

Agree, but that's not gonna happen dude. I wish it would happen, it's just not going to. In the reality we live in with the 4-5 major news outlets controlling the election, it is what it is. In the field of play today, a vote for a write-in or 3rd party candidate is essentially a vote for Obama (since most people who favor Johnson or a Write-in are more moderate or libertarian, even conservative fiscally). Trust me Chad, I don't like it either but that's what it boils down to at this point.

Maybe I'm just idealistic.

Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.

Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.

However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.

It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.

[GH2001]

Maybe I'm just idealistic.

Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.

Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.

However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.

It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.

I think it will happen eventually. Just not this year. That's why I say here and now, in 2012 - a vote for 3rd party 80% of the time is a vote Romney/Ryan won't get. Just like Perot in 1992 which probably turned out for the better since Clinton did a better job than Bush would have done IMHO. The Bush's (and fellow Neocons) would have refused to work with Gingrich (since Newt wasn't part of the establishment) whereas Clinton was advised by Dick Morris to ride Newt's economic coattails (which he did to a successful Presidency). But Obama is no Clinton. That's the scary part.

[CCTAU]

However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant.

You really do live in some sort of bubble don't you. Do you think any significant part of the population uses the internet to research politics? They still get their political direction from the mass media. Not to mention that the majority of older people do not even use the internet much at all. Old people vote too. And there are more of them now than ever before at any time in history. And they sit in front of the TV (like they did 40 yeas ago) and get their daily dose of politics from the left.

They are far from irrelevant!

[GH2001]

You really do live in some sort of bubble don't you. Do you think any significant part of the population uses the internet to research politics? They still get their political direction from the mass media. Not to mention that the majority of older people do not even use the internet much at all. Old people vote too. And there are more of them now than ever before at any time in history. And they sit in front of the TV (like they did 40 yeas ago) and get their daily dose of politics from the left.

They are far from irrelevant!

I think a very significant % of the population gets info from the internet. I quit getting my info from the Big Networks LONG ago. While not the majority, a very good portion of the population does use the internet for research.

[CCTAU]

I think a very significant % of the population gets info from the internet. I quit getting my info from the Big Networks LONG ago. While not the majority, a very good portion of the population does use the internet for research.

I didn't say info. I said political info. A lot of older people know the internet exists, but just do not see fit in being bothered with it on a regular basis.  Very few(%wise) of the 50+ crowd use the internet regularly for political purposes. And those are the people that if they want political info, they turn to the TV.

We are the first generation (35-45) to really change to the internet. Everyone younger pretty much has ignored the TV for a long time. Everyone older has either accepted it as part of their job, or they just live without it. And like I said, we have more people living longer than ever before. And those people VOTE. And a lot of the old timers listen to the TV and vote DIM.

[Kaos]

Maybe I'm just idealistic.

Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.

Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.

However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.

It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.

Ross Perot my fucking ass. 

Perot was a dipstick.  Bush was really the first US President almost completely defined by SNL.  Perot didn't cost him the election, but he definitely didn't help. 

[Townhallsavoy]

I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.

But it's not going to happen.  In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike.  I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime. 

[AUChizad]

I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.

But it's not going to happen.  In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike.  I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime.

I agree with you completely.

Although your average Democrat or Republican refuses to recognize the crack dividing the two parties as anything but a profound chasm.

And that is exactly why "the lesser of two evils", to me, is voting Libertarian to contribute to a third party being taken more seriously, at the risk of letting 1b make it into office instead of 1a.