the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

fwiw the 'ryan plan' has been billed as ending medicare (which is true) but it is more savage to the discretionary public sector. i don't know if ryan has any grand plans for the social security death benefit.

Ironically, Ryan came to national attention trying to dismantle the very program that helped him go to the college of his choice, pushing an even more radical version of President Bush’s Social Security privatization plan, which failed.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/

xp dude you need to go look up that word in the dictionary, then.

ok, i looked it up and got

"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

Not seeing it.

Is every wealthy liberal who campaigns for increases in the highest income tax a hypocrite, unless they voluntarily write big checks to the US treasury? Rush Limbaugh thinks so and maybe so do you, but I don't.

Has any congressperson or senator refused gov't health insurance?

Has Ryan ever been asked whether he has benefited from the federal government programs he wants to cut?

After his government-subsidized out-of-state education, the pride of Janesville left college and went to work for government, where he’s spent his entire career,

The federal government is bad and the only way he can end its badness is by benefiting from it

I don't think there's a lot of weight in the argument. Yes it's bullshit that he benefited from a program that now exists but it veers close to the Right's "If you want to raise taxes why don't you just voluntarily pay more?" argument against the Left - which is different, sure, but not disimilar.

When I pointed out to Ryan that government spending programs were at the heart of his home town's recovery, he didn't disagree. But he insisted that he has been misunderstood. "Obama is trying to paint us as a caricature," he said. "As if we're some bizarre individualists who are hardcore libertarians. It's a false dichotomy and intellectually lazy." He added, "Of course we believe in government. We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports."

The fact is that his "budget" will demolish federal spending on those very things

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-romney-vp-pick-11562917

That's quoting from a Ryan Lizza New Yorker profile

Ryan is young and earnest and still, for most voters I would guess, mostly a blank slate.

um

ie he isn't widely known, and he isn't widely liked either

I don't see anything in there about "Don't know yet." I just find it hard to believe that people have such set views on him already--maybe I'm wrong, ore maybe that's general dislike/distrust of Romney spilling over.

Repub convention in 2 weeks, so excited!!!!11!

This f'in guy:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-shouts-down-heckeler-at-wisconsin-rally/

As Romney began addressing the seriousness of America’s unemployment rate, he was shouted down by a group of protesters in the audience. Romney supporters in attendance immediately responded to the hecklers with chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.”

“You see, young man, this group here is respectful of other people being heard,” Romney shot back at the protester. “And you ought to find yourself a different place to be disruptive because here we believe in listening to people with dignity and respect.”

(Although that second sentence - supporters in attendance immediately responded to the hecklers with chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.” - is the worst part about the story.)

You say he's not widely liked, and the pundit class being excited about it is one thing, but donations have increased.

From people who would have donated anyway, I imagine. They just got their renewal notice from Romney on Saturday morning.

On reflection I don't think I have much respect for any moral framework which doesn't, at one point on another, include "Step 5: Be a sucker"

Like Dylan and the Beatles skipping Woodstock, the convention will not be everything that it could be:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/sarah-palin-will-not-speak-at-rnc-convention

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

although maybe this means she will be roaming the convention floor savaging unsuspecting delegates, in which case YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

Absorbing and duplicating them, like Agent Smith.

savaging unsuspecting delegates

gross dude

A poll that contradicts the one Shakey Mo posted earlier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/positive-views-of-ryan-jump-higher-after-pick/2012/08/13/32251614-e55b-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_blog.html

It's too soon--after a few weeks you'll better know how Ryan's going over.

Haven't read those last few links, so sorry if this addressed.

Romney drawing a distinction between his budget plan and Ryan's budget plan on 60 Minutes seems strange to me. Ryan is largely known (where he is known) for that bold, ideological budget, so if you're not going to incorporate that into your campaign...what the hell is the upside of Ryan? Were there a lot of undecideds/independents clamouring for a 40-something white guy?

romney is inviting the right to elect and then assassinate him maybe

There was no strategically better choice that I know of. It's like questioning having Romney at the top of the ticket and then looking around and seeing that his competition was Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

But there were safer choices, no? He's already on the defensive about Ryan's budget.

maybe he's found a way to integrate Locutus of Ryan into his matrix

I guess he gets to choose how much he owns it, and Ryan can't argue back.

It was Mitt's gift to headline writers. "Ryan's Hope"..."The Ryan Express"..."Ryan's Daughter" (that one might sit idle).

There was no strategically better choice that I know of.

you no like Rubio?

jonathan chait explores the character of "Sad Paul Ryan"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryan-helps-mitt-reclaim-political-virginity.html

What does Rubio give him other than a futher hiding from the Latino vote?

well picking Rubio would have been a misguided attempt at tokenism and a hail mary to get Florida but I don't see how Ryan is demonstrably safer in any substantive way. Ryan isn't going to deliver Wisconsin. And he isn't gonna attract independents (neither would Rubio, to be fair). He'll solidify Romney's support from his base but Rubio would have done the same, I suspect.

I bet Romney wishes he could have picked Ryan Lochte. You know that douchebag must be a Republican, if he were bothered to vote.

Rubio may have gotten him Florida but he's a zero nationally.

You also assume that whoever Romeny wanted would actually accept the offer to run with him.

I watched a little bit of "Morning Joe" today and the very serious DC pundits on his show were all very satisfied that we now had a real debate on the issues in this election, a real choice on matters of policy, finally.

I have to ask.. Hasn't the question of whether or not Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs in the social safety net should be cut and/or privatized been put before the voting public REPEATEDLY? The answer to the question: Does the vast majority of the public want the government to get out of the business of running these programs is: No. How many polls and elections do we need to find out whether or not the answer is no? The answer is no! Do we need to keep holding choice elections until the very serious pundits on Morning Joe get the answer of yes that they clearly want? I just don't think they're going to get that answer.

Very Serious cable and Sunday morning pundits also thought Palin would catapult McCain into the White House for a few months before stretching him out on a hospital stretcher.

Very Serious pundits are simply selling you the Suspense of the Show that has 11 weeks left to run.

Morbz otm

Digby links to a Yglesias post on another impact of Ryan's entrance into the election:

And focusing attention on the big-picture disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about long-term fiscal policy means we won't be focusing attention on what ought to be the most pressing economic policy issue of our time—mass unemployment and the tragic waste of human and economic potential it represents. To be sure, politicians will still talk about this. But obviously Obama would prefer at this point to talk about long-term vision and the contrast between his "balanced approach" and the GOP's cut-cut-cut approach. With Ryan on the ticket, he more and more gets his way. Which means conservatives also get their way.

and then adds: You'll notice that this great debate only features two competing ideas: the "drastic cuts in exchange for some small tax hikes for millionaires" and "drastic cuts." (I guess the perfect compromise would be "even smaller tax hikes for the millionaires and drastic cuts.") But no matter what, the one thing we can all agree on is that whatever ails our economy is nothing that firing a few more government workers can't cure.

digby otm. it's time for everyone to get amped up about voting for their team and trouncing the other team and ignore that both teams are fighting for the wrong things

of course, after the election everything will be different! until early 2013, when you have to start thinking about optics for the 2014 mid-terms...

or, as Taibbi said when predicting Dem victories a couple years ago, "and then the Democrats will do nothing for 4 years again."

What is Digby saying? That given an opportunity to win on long-term policy, what we really should be doing is talking about current unemployment? Because that conversation favors the GOP, doesn't it?

And yes - I know the media has to sell the horse race here, because they have to cover it and they don't want the ratings to tank. I recall hearing someone comment on a political panel some time after the WI recall that they'd all known the polling indicated that Walker was going to win it, and the impression you'd get from turning on the news beforehand was, election was a tossup.

that piece about Sad Paul Ryan made me think of what I saw on Morning Joe today - Mika started reading a series of bullet point facts about what, exactly, the Ryan budget would cut out of domestic programs and the percentage of tax cuts it would give to the wealthiest, and Scarborough cut her off partway through with no other point except that it was so ridiculous and unfair to have to hear this - I can't recall exactly what he said but it was not about the substance of it, just disgust that she even brought it up.

So this is a problem, it seems to me? The serious pundits want a serious debate about the facts and the policies.. but stating the actual facts about what Ryan's stated policies would do, is out of bounds and offensive? Huh?

"seriousness" and "boldness" are qualities that only make sense if you feel america's distribution of pain and hardship is not slanted downward enough.

x-post--Digby does acknowledge one aspect of the choice re focussing on the long-term

The idea that this election will now be about deficit reduction is almost impossible for me to believe, but the Obama campaign believes they can win on this turf and I assume that's correct.

So this is a problem, it seems to me?

it is totally a problem. which is why Romney disavowed Ryan's plan the day after announcing him as VP.

which is, really, classic Romney. Put forth a position/characteristic as a virtue to appeal to one set of people, then immediately distance yourself from it due to its political liabilities with another set of people

Ezra Klein was on talking about all the calls for a serious debate about Medicare makes him want to smash his head into a wall because Ryan's plan would keep all the cuts they're calling Obama out on, and it's really a debate about who takes the hit, but nobody is talking about it because whenever there are "serious debates" they aren't "serious debates".