When Congressman Paul Ryan’s name surfaced as a potential running mate for Mitt Romney surfaced I thought to myself “that would end Mitt Romney’s chances at becoming president.” As many of you may know, I am a harsh critic of Ryan’s record.
Lest you think I am alone in this conclusion, when he was introduced as the GOP Vice Presidential nominee, Facebook immediately lit up with commentary blasting the choice (for a great many excellent reasons). One such person was Roger Stone, a political consultant who has worked with every Republican presidential candidate from Nixon to McCain (he has given up on the GOP as hopeless)—and in every Republican administration during that period:
Paul Ryan. Smart guy. Too easily caricatured. Not electable. GOP death wish.
The main reason Ryan is such a poor choice is he was a reliable “yea” vote for George W. Bush, voting for every policy disaster from the administration. We’re just 4 years out from “anybody but Bush,” and Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and even many Republicans view the Bush years with disdain. Now Romney critics—many of whom already suspected he would be Bush III—have strong evidence that the Romney/Ryan ticket is an extension of the Bush years so loathed by many.
Thus, I wasn’t surprised when I stopped by MSNBC in search of Olympics coverage, and instead found a pundit (I do not know his name) who said the following after reviewing Ryan’s voting record:
[Ryan’s] the one who burned down the house . . . and now is complaining there’s no house.
And though I suspect the pundit is a liberal Democrat, he’s absolutely right.
With Paul Ryan, the ticket will be (accurately) labeled “Bush III,” and Bush III will not win the White House, period. Maybe twenty years from now, but not while Bush’s brand name is in serious disrepute.
So what was Paul Ryan’s voting record? Let’s review.
* Turned a balanced budget into massive deficits
* Supported a new underfunded entitlement—Medicare Part D
* Supported a massive anti-growth regulatory scheme—Sarbanes Oxley
* Supported an unpopular Iraq War
* Supported bank bailouts—TARP
* Supported auto bailouts
* Supported the individual liberty-trashing Patriot Act
* Supported further intrusion to states’ exclusive jurisdiction over education—No Child Left Behind
* Supported economic “stimulus” plans
And that’s just a list of some highlights. Summoning Rick Santorum, I suppose that’s what you call being a “team player.”
And has Congressman Ryan gotten any better? Well, he voted for the recently-passed Highway Bill that massively increases highway spending, is “funded” with the same accounting gimmicks as ObamaCare, and inexplicably includes an unfunded extension of student loan subsidies. He continues to vote for reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and voted for the even more intrusive NDAA. And, he is head of the House Budget Committee (the House controls the nation’s purse strings)—and we will have a near-record deficit this year.
And the much-discussed Ryan Budget Plan? It reduces the 10-year deficit from $9 trillion to $7 trillion, and uses accounting gimmicks and overly optimistic assumptions to arrive at that much reduction. At no time does it reduce spending—it only slows the rate of spending growth, and not by much.
At some point Ryan should have had some real accomplishments before he could have credibility as a legislator, much less a VP candidate. The best that can be said about Paul Ryan is he has gotten marginally better than during the Bush years, and that’s not saying much. But in the end it’s his record of reliably voting with Bush that dooms the Romney/Ryan ticket (and probably is why the establishment chose him).
Paul Ryan may turn out to be the most important Vice Presidential candidate in history, because he finally gives the Democratic media substance to chew on. The lead man, Mitt Romney, is an open slate. As Republican commentator Peggy Noonan noted last Saturday, voting for Romney is voting for “nothing” because he hasn’t given a vision for America, or a plan as to how he will implement that vision.
Similarly, Romney’s Governorship has gone almost completely unvetted. The Democratic media hasn’t touched it because Romney was arguably the most liberal Governor in the nation at the time, and frankly, he didn’t do anything a liberal would criticize. The Republican media can’t go near it because there’s nothing in his record that a conservative should support. The election so far hasn’t had any political record being discussed on the Republican side.
Until now.
I expect Paul Ryan’s voting record to become the focal point of the Obama campaign and the Democratic media—and it should be since actions speak louder than words. No more need to discuss Bain Capital, which wasn’t going anywhere for Obama anyway. Romney will be tied to Ryan’s Bush-era voting record because he’s the man who selected him (not really—he had to take what the establishment gave him, but that’s how it will be portrayed). And just like that, the election becomes Obama v. George W. Bush v. Gary Johnson.
The Republicans will not win the White House in that three-way race.
The only way Romney survives his VP selection is if the Democrats focus on Ryan’s “reform” proposals instead of his real track record, since most Americans understand America needs reform. But the whole notion of “Ryan the Reformer” begs the question: Why is he so keen on “reforming” fiscal policies he supported in the first place? Thus, even that discussion should loop back to his record.
The bottom line is when most Americans see his track record, they will not vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket when they see what Ryan has done to this country. They will see the formula of Mitt Romney + Paul Ryan = Bush III. And that puts Barack Obama back in the White House unless Gary Johnson can pull off a miracle come-from-behind victory.
I suspect Republicans will see the error of choosing Paul Ryan in the polling numbers by the end of the month. By then it will be too late to change course.
End Note
A question for Republicans: Did you vote for Paul Ryan to be Vice Presidential candidate? No? Did the GOP call and ask you your opinion? No? What kind of system do you call that, anyway?
As for me, I proudly cast my vote for my party’s Vice Presidential nominee, Judge Jim Gray.
This article is also published at The Country Thinker.
Related Posts
Monday, August 20, 2012 -- Paul Ryan – Five Biggest Lies From Liberals Unspun
Monday, August 13, 2012 -- Paul Ryan Changes Presidential Race Dynamics
Thursday, August 9, 2012 -- Paul Ryan For Vice-President
Thursday, August 23, 2012 -- Dealing With The Political Hurricane Of Todd Akin
Thursday, August 30, 2012 -- Paul Ryan on Mitt Romney and Barack Obama
Saturday, August 11, 2012 -- Paul Ryan Videos
Disappointing. It seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. I met Gary Johnson and he is sincere, but too wacked out over one issue, in my view. I really don’t give a damn about pot or pot-heads. But I’d not make it the centerpiece of my philosophy, either.
As for spouting liberal talking points on Ryan, you do a great job.
For me it (sadly) boils down to this:
- Can the country survive 4 more years of Obama? (no)
- What happens when Obama appoints the next several supreme court justices? (all three branches lost for years to come, if there are years to come.)
- Is Romney/Ryan better than Obama/Biden? (yes – not as much as I would like, but yes)
- Pragmatically, is there any other choice? (no)
Now, I am all for supporting the best candidate and fighting for them in the primary. I relish voting against establishment politicos – I have voted against many. I’ve even voted for some libertarians. However, when push comes to shove, we have to do the best we can. It sucks as an answer. But an Obama victory will mean immediate catastrophe.
Again, very disappointed in you. I enjoy your view points, but you’re dead wrong on attacking Ryan.
Which of the points of his record do you support? I think I made it clear that I don’t support any of them, from record deficits to the insane highway bill.
Okay, let me phrase it a different way. In his 13 years in Congress, point to his best accomplishment.
He’s going to be an easy target for the Democratic media. Romney should have chosen a Governor or anyone else without close ties to the Bush administration.
Ted, I wonder if you are misread the majority of conservatives that support the Romney-Ryan ticket? Most of us know full well all of the warts of both men. Yet we believe they will be infinitely better for America than another term of Obama. I know you don’t agree that assessment. I have read your posts on the subject. Also, I hope you know that I respect you personally and your libertarian ideology. I am almost a libertarian myself. But, I wonder if your ideology is is over-ridding your reason. My point is this. If I and my fellow conservatives are wrong and we succeed in electing Romney-Ryan to office and they still drive us over the fiscal cliff, that means the country was too far gone and neither Party was going to try to fix the problems. I can live with that error in judgement. But, I wonder if libertarians like yourself even entertain the possibility that you may be wrong; that Romney-Ryan might stop us from going over the fiscal class, but because the Libertarian Party took enough votes from Romney to make him lose and we go over the cliff with Obama. I know your argument that you all are likely to take as many or more votes from the Democrats. What if you are wrong? Can you live with that possibility?
Jim, absolutely. First, you may not know, but I would vote for Obama before Romney, if for no other reason than he can only get 4 more years.
But two points about the GOP ticket. First, Paul Ryan is as responsible for putting on on htis track as anyone through his votes in the Bushe years. Second, Romney is proposing more spending increases than Obama, primarily in defense and Medicare.
But the reality is, if it were a two-horse race between Romney and Obama, I would vote NOTA. I have zero confidence in either.
Martin,
Isn’t the “talking point,” tactic getting a little worn out? Instead of debating Ted on the *blatant facts* that he pointed out, you simply deride them as “talking points.” That’s American Politics code for “I don’t have anything to rebut what you’ve said, so I’m simply going to assert that what you’ve said is somehow false and/or meaningless, and not address your facts in a reasoned, intellectual manner.”
Ted,
I had nearly the same reaction when I saw that he picked Ryan. His budget proposal was very divisive, and picking him seems like the Romney camp is simply praying that their base is bigger than the Democrats’ base. Seems like a poor way to run a campaign, IMO, but what do I know.
Of course I’m speaking about this as an outside observer, as neither Obama nor Romney will be getting my vote in November.
Jim,
It doesn’t matter if you vote for Obama or Romney. Both candidates represent more of the same. Although I don’t believe as Ted does–that there is little difference between them–what I do believe is that both candidates represent a political class in America that seeks to use votes as a career path.
Both parties have benefited from things being almost irreparably damaged, and they will work really hard to keep it that way. What I think you and many Americans are missing is the fact that NEITHER party will destroy America. They will simply keep it broken and scarred, they will keep it perpetually on the brink so that they can reap the benefits forever.
And they’ll keep you in chains, making you believe that the “opposition” will destroy America. Neither party benefits from destroying America, and they are smart enough to know this.
Real change will only come from candidates who are actually advocating real change. Ron Paul was the last, best hope for redeeming the Republican Party. If you want real change, then your next best hope is Gary Johnson.
Well said, Jack. The piece was more about strategy than anything. That’s why Condoleeza Rice would have been a poor choice as well.
Romney needed to choose someone without close ties to the Bush administration, such as one of the Governors whose names were being tossed around.
Country Thinker, I don’t agree with you at all. I think that Ryan will be a positive good for Romney’s chances. People who look for ideological purity in a particular candidate will be ruled by the Left.
Again, this is mostly a piece about strategy. Unless the Democratic media really falls asleep at the switch, they’re going to frame the Romney/Ryan ticket as Bush III, and that’s a loser.
I’m not necessarily looking for ideological purity. But I would like someone who has at least some principles and is willing to stand by them. If Ryan is such a fiscal conservative, how could he cast votes that have put our nation at peril? Even though he was relatively new to Congress, couldn’t he have voted no? He has to have known the Baby Boom generation was going to retire and stress our nation’s finances even if we ran balanced budgets then. But he voted yes for budgets that have put our nation on a fiscal trainwreck.
This could have been written by Rachael Maddow. At the end of the day, it’s no surprise that libertarians don’t like Paul Ryan. You guys aren’t going to like any Republican not named Ron Paul. But to declare the Romney campaign finished because libertarians and liberals don’t like Paul Ryan is just ridiculous. I can’t decide if it’s the result of political ignorance or arrogance.
At the end of the day, Paul Ryan isn’t going to lose the campaign for Romney. Outside of Wisconsin and maybe Iowa, no one is going to care about Ryan unless he delivers a horrible performace at the VP debate. He might help in a few states but he isn’t going to hurt. Even if we boil down the option to Bush III vs Obama, I’m here to tell you Bush III has a chance especially since the candidate isn’t Bush. The Bush years were far better than the Obama years have been.
I’m fairly certain you didn’t read the entire article based on your comments.
First, if Roger Stone agrees with me, you should be concerned. He’s been in this game for a very long time at high levels.
Second, the VP candidate matters if he/she is put up as the example of the direction the presidential candidate wants to go. It’s already happening, so you can’t deny it. That’s why I said he will probably be the most important VP pick in my lifetime, since Romney has been too generic to pin anything on him.
Third, your comment regarding Ron Paul is both silly and ignorant. If Gary Johsnon hadn’t been shut out of the GOP and was still running as a Republican I would vote for him over Ron Paul. Second, I like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, James Inhofe, Mitch Daniels, and Justin Amash. All are somewhere in between conservative and libertarian, and I am not a purist.
Fourth – and I won’t repeat your mistake of claiming to know that which you do not, such as someone else’s opinion if you haven’t hear it – I suspect that you will vote for anyone or anything with an R beside its name.
Ok, then you’re a Gary Johnson ideologue rather than a Ronulan. The point here is that your libertarianism is clouding your view of Romney’s strategy.
As for voting for anything with an R next to the name, I didn’t vote for Dole or McCain. I also will not be voting for Justin Amash this November.
Well enough. Note that I didn’t take a fixed firm position on where you landed. Thank you for the clarification.
If stick your finger into the wind is a strategy, then so be it. It worked for Clinton, and maybe it will work for Romney.
Since few seem to be reading the piece before reflexively defending an R, let me distill this down into a short list.
1) This piece is more about strategy than substance, but substance is the foundation of the strategy.
2) Paul Ryan is a very important Vice Presidential choice because Mitt Romney has been so generic that he’s been hard for the Democratic media to criticize, and Ryan gives them the substance they’ve been looking for.
3) Paul Ryan was a reliable vote for all of the Bush policies – the very policies that discredited the Republican Party and paved the way for the bludgeoning they took from Obama and Democrats in ’06 and ’08.
4) With the exception of a few Republican loyalists, George W. Bush’s name is still in disrepute.
5) Because Ryan was a Bush loyalist and Romney has no identity, the Democratic media will – and already is – framing the Romney campaign as Bush III.
6) Bush III loses in November.
While I myself am being attacked for my “attack” on Paul Ryan (which is fine, I don’t mind), I want to note that I gave specific examples of policies he has supported that are trouble for him. Other than to defend a fellow R, no one yet has attempted to defend Mr. Ryan’s record or to give an example of a policy accomplishment on his resume that you admire.
I’m glad you pointed that out, Ted. I called out Martin on that very thing yet we don’t see any rebuttal.
It just goes to show that the presidential race has degraded into a mere trip to Scioto Downs where everyone cheers for their favorite horse to win, rather than a contest in which the judges do their research and come to an informed decision.
They’re not rebutting your facts because they know they can’t, short of calling you a liar or claiming that the facts you’ve presented are completely made up.
These seem like relatively safe waters for a moderate to enter since I don’t think you could be any harder on me than you’ve been on Ted. The votes of moderates will decide this election and for me the selection of Paul Ryan is unfortunate. Ted has done a great job of detailing all the luggage Ryan brings to the ticket while noting the lack of plusses. Ryan’s comments about dealing with representatives on both sides of the aisle rings hollow when it comes to accomplishments. Ryan had an opportunity to make a real impact with his position on the Simpson-Bowles commission but he walked away from the final proposal even while Tom Coburn took a deep breath and signed on (of course the real culprit in killing S-B was Obama). His Medicare proposal is a vote killer and his social conservatism is rather pronounced.
I think Sarah Palin will forever and always be the most important VP candidate ever selected; but Ryan may be one of the most interesting. He’s clearly a very smart guy and he isn’t afraid to rock the boat; but I don’t see his inclusion on the ticket getting the country any closer to solutions. I completely agree with Ted that any number of the governors once mentioned for the slot would have been considerably better choices; but my thinking is that they’re more likely to support a negotiated position that will allow budgets to be passed while holding the line on spending.
I’m still not sure which way I’ll go on this election but the Ryan choice hurt my view of Romney.
Before I begin, let me say I believe I understand where Ted is coming from. I read this post last night, after he had it scheduled for this morning, and I have been mulling it over all day. I have been unable to comment because of work, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been thinking about what Ted wrote.
Paul Ryan does have a voting record to contend with. Clearly, there are questions about his votes during the Bush years. Yes, he did vote fairly reliably for the Bush agenda. In retrospect, much of that was a mistake. I haven’t read an explanation of those votes, but I have read his reasoning on TARP and the bailouts for the auto companies. I can’t say as I agree with Ryan on that, but I do see where he bases his reasoning for those latter votes.
Having said that, can I say Paul Ryan is as fiscally conservative as I would like? Sadly, I can not. Looking back on the Bush years, I wish a lot of things had turned out differently, but they did not. What we see is what we have to deal with.
Is it fair to place some of the blame for our country’s fiscal condition on Ryan? Possibly, although I would argue much of the blame lies in the fact the leadership of both parties have been sorely lacking in their resolve to tackle the issues we are facing. If Ryan had joined Ron Paul in trying to vote against the spending, his credentials would be better. I don’t believe that precludes him from being considered as someone who would like to solve the problems.
Paul Ryan is not perfect. Ted has outlined why he holds that opinion and I agree with him on much of it. However, Ryan does show a willingness to have a debate and a conversation about solving our problems. That is much more than I can say for many members of Congress, from both political parties. Because of that willingness, I believe the man deserves some consideration. I also do not believe his candidacy for Vice-President will destroy the Romney campaign. That’s not to say he guarantees a win for the Republican ticket, but he is, at the very least, changing the narrative of the campaign. That is a positive thing, in my opinion.
Turning to the point Ted was trying to make about the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, let me say this. I have read many times where Ted says Romney would be worse for our country than Obama. I have had questions about him from way back, beginning in 2007-2008, when he ran in the GOP primary. There is no question, he was not my first choice, then, or now. However, can I honestly say he would be worse for American than Barack Obama? I can not.
To those who believe that to be the case, consider the previous three + years since Obama took office. Do you think he has moved our country in the right direction? Think back to how he has stifled energy production, unless it has something to do with “clean” energy. Stop and remember how he has used class warfare rhetoric to convince many Americans of how bad rich people are. Look at his record on immigration and his use of executive orders to bypass our current laws on immigration. Take a look at how he has used policy directives to create changes in our welfare law, without consulting Congress. These are just a few of the things I could mention.
After looking at those things, look at Mitt Romney. No, he is not perfect and he almost certainly is not a true fiscal conservative, but do you honestly believe he would do more damage to America than Barack Obama in his first term? If your answer is no, consider what our country will look like if Obama wins another term, with no worry of having to win another election. How far will he be willing to go then? Compare that to how Mitt Romney would possibly conduct himself as President. As much as I believe in the principles of fiscal conservatism, there are other things to consider. I believe I have outlined some of them in this comment.
Ted, I am sorry for such a long comment. I possibly should have put this in its own post, but I wanted to keep the discussion together.
No, it is an excellent comment, and I read it thoroughly. What I’m trying to get at is how the non-Republican voting public is going to respond to Ryan as VP. I’m glad you brought up Sarah Palin, but I think it’s pretty clear she was badly charicatured and her nomination put an end to whateve hopes McCain had – which were low. If the Democratic media successfully ties Romney/Ryan to Bush, they’re done. I really don’t think that’s as radical of a conclusion as some suggest.
And Ryan does seem like a good guy. Get me some track record and I will adjust my opinion accordingly.
I don’t believe Ted’s analysis is an objective assessment of Ryan’s selection as it pertains to strategy.
First, I disagree that Romney is a generic target that Dems are reluctant to criticize. The Dem ad hominem attacks on Romney have been numerous and vicious, from his dog on the roof, to Bain, to his wife’s horse, to his tax returns, etc. etc. etc. Dem’s seem to have found plenty about Romney to glom onto.
Second, Ryan is generally an unknown quantity among the general voting public. Half the country never heard of him. Since is nomination, his approval rating has risen substantially.
Third, Ryan’s likeable personality, good looks, free market rhetoric, and midwest background and folksy speaking style will sway more independent voters than his voting record, which is inside the beltway baseball. Let the Dems focus on explaining why voting for TARP or prescription drugs or the stimulus or taxes on AIG executive bonuses is a bad idea. These are Democrat positions. Thus, they won’t go there. Yes, his voting record won’t win the libertarian vote, but he’s lost that already.
Fourth, let the Dems try to connect Ryan to Bush. It won’t work. This too is policy wonk inside baseball. The general public won’t make the connection. If anything, Ryan is tied to Boehner, not Bush. You can’t get choice committee assignments without playing ball with Boehner. The Bush tie-in will be difficult to pull off.
Fifth, the Dems would attempt to crucify ANY GOP VP candidate. Ryan’s treatment will be no better or no worse than if the nomination had gone to Christie, Rubio, Pawlenty, etc. Because Ryan is likeable and easy going, demonizing him is going to be a real challenge, as opposed to, say, Rubio or Christie.
Sixth, you neglect to mention that any attempt to paint Romney/Ryan as Bush III will not occur in a vacuum. The Republicans will counter any such publicity with their own and they will do it with ease. Besides, the Romney campaign will probably emphasize ideology over policies. Just as Obama cannot run on his record and must destroy Romney’s character, so Romney cannot run on his record and will run on ideology. Ryan is outstanding explaining ideology.
Seventh, the voters Romney needs to win are voting against Obama, not for Romney or Ryan. They want Obama defeated. They realize a vote for Johnson will not defeat Obama. Thus, they will vote Republican, not Libertarian.
Eighth, if Obama does win, it will because of libertarian voters who take votes away from Romney for reasons of pure ideology. I don’t hold this against libertarians, it is their privilege. Politics is and always will be pragmatic. Libertarians find pragmatism difficult. It’s why they never win anything. The election in November is a political contest, not a treatise on political philosophy.
Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure you can say I’m not being objective whe the startegy is already being tested. I gave an example.
Now, a few comments. First, the Dems have had to go with ominem attack because there’s no substance to go after. So this observation doesn’t rebut my point, it supports it.
Second, I agree with you he is a likeable guy. That’s a good asset.
Third, you say the Republicans can counter with ease? I thought the Republican complaint is that the media is heavily Democrat-biased? How exactly will you spread the the word with ease?
Finally, your last point has so many holes and faulty assumptions in it I don’t know where to begin. As a libertarian I’ve dealing with that accusation for a long time.
a) Your political arrogance is astounding. No one “owns” anyone’s vote. Votes must be earned.
b) If people vote for Johnson knowing the odds of him winning a very low, then Romney obviously did a poor job of earning their votes.
c) Many of us wouldn’t vote for Romney under any circumstances. I would vote “NOTA” if Johnson weren’t in the race.
d) You’d be surprised how pragmatic I’m being, and how naive I consider Republican conservatives and libertarians. As I’ve written before, the GOP is a corrupt machine that cannot be overtaken from within. It will continue to move left, and drag pragmatists along, drowning them in its wake. Because I have made a PRACTICAL calculus (yes, practical), I do not vote for anyone from either of the major parties except under exceptional circumstances. If Johnson hadn’t run, and the GOP would have nominated Mitch Daniels, I probably would have crossed the line.
Not only is politics pragmatic, but it’s also unpredictable. I have no certain knowledge with regard to how this election will turn out. You don’t either. A lot can happen in three months that will change everything, perhaps even your point of view…or mine.
For this reason, I’m not going to debate the issues we’re discussing. You see it one way and I see it the other. Just to clarify, however, when I said the Republicans can get the word out with “ease” I was not thinking of the media, but the millions Romney has to spend on advertising.
Lastly, I’ll concede you’re probably right about the GOP establishment being a corrupt machine. I may be naive to think that people like Rand Paul, Steve Southerland, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin and Scott Walker can change it from within. If I’m wrong, we’ll all be voting Libertarian during the next go around…unless we’re all in a gulag together.
I didn’t know there were still minds to change. Unless one believes in the myth of the “undecided.”
Mr Lacksonen wrote:
Will they? Well, perhaps so, but even Bush III would be better than a second term for Barack Obama.
If the national debt was increased way, way, way too much under President Bush ($4.9 trillion in eight years), the Republicans were pikers compared to the democrats ($5.2 trillion in 3½ years; on pace for an $11.6 trillion increase in the national debt in eight years). Your good friends at the Libertarian Party said that, if elected, Mitt Romney would lock in the ObaminableCare law, and, despite Mr Romney’s promises, perhaps that’s true, but if President Obama is re-elected, you know that he will lock it in.
In some ways, I liked the Libertarian Party, but they turned out to be a bunch of idiots. The Libertarian Party lost out in 2010, when the TEA Party formed, not as a separate party but as a grassroots, fiscally conservative group that worked within the Republican Party. The TEA Party groundswell enabled the GOP to take control of the House of Representatives, greatly reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, score big gains in gubernatorial and state legislative races and change the entire debate on government. The TEA Partiers recognized what the Libertarians can’t bring themselves to see: their goals will not be achieved by shutting themselves out as a separate party, but can be by working within the established Republican Party.
The Libertarians have now become the party of the pathetic; what they could have achieved, had they actually tried, other people did achieve, because they did try.
Are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan perfect? No, of course not; nobody is. Will there be policies of theirs with which I will disagree? Yup, sure will! But if you make perfect the enemy of better, you’ll always wind up with worse. A friend of mine in Texas is troubled enough about Mr Romney that he might vote third party for President this year; for him, in Texas, that’s fine. It’s a protest vote, a vote which makes a statement, but one which won’t stop Mr Romney from carrying the Lone Star State. But if you vote for Gary Johnson in a swing state, in a state that is close, you are helping the Democrats far more than you are making any important statement.
I appreciate your sentiments, but I need to correct you on one serious misconception consistently spread by Republican partisans. You call the Republicans “pikers when copmpared to the Democrats. I have done an analysis, and the deficit would still be north of $1 trillion, even if the Pelosi/Reid Congress hadn’t added a dime. It is the Democrats who have been pikers when compared to the Republicans.
How? You cna divide the deficit up into several categories – Republican spending, Democrat spending, Social Security and Medicare increases (partly due to the Baby Boom retirement), built-in inflation increases in many area, and lower revenues due to the recession.
When you look at those numbers, you’ll find that Republican spending leftover from the Bush years is by far the biggest piece of the pie.
Mr Lacksonen wrote:
And Mr Romney could get only four years, if, as President, he displeases the voters.
I’m sorry, but your statement is absolutely foolish. Mitt Romney has promised to cut spending, back from the 24% of GDP it is under President Obama, to between 18 and 20% of GDP; it was 18.2% the last time the budget was balanced. Perhaps Mr Romney won’t keep that promise; we can’t know unless he is actually elected. But we do know that President Obama will not cut government spending, and his FY2013 budget proposed total federal outlays of between 22.2% and 23.5% for every year for as far into the future as he could project (FY2017).
Perhaps Mr Romney isn’t your cup of tea, but to pretend that there is no discernible difference between Messrs Romney and Obama is foolish.
Lots of people think that Obama is just “misguided” in his vision for America. I think he knows exactly what he is doing and where he wants to take this country. He will make it as much a socialist state as he can. That alone is enough reason to vote for ANYBODY other than Obama.
Trackbacks: