The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Veep Paul Ryan Open Thread

    I'm sure we all have a lot to snark.  I mean, "to say."  Figured I'd make a place for it.

    I'll start.

    What a wuss!

    Most people will never get to be governor of any state and even fewer will get a term as governor of Massachusetts.  Were I to ever accomplish something of that magnitude, I would not let a bunch of freaks in tricorner hats force me to apologize for the best things I did during that time.  Not even in pursuit of a bigger goal.  A human has to draw the line somewhere.

    Picking Paul Ryan is a huge cave by Romney, towards people who clearly don't appreciate him.  It is the presidential equivalent of claiming that you don't really like a song that you listen to multiple times a day in private, because the cool kids say that it sucks.

    "Romney has no center," is how the political people say it.

    I think he's a wuss.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Let the games begin!


    Mitt had greatness thrust upon him. And he ducked.


    Maybe my rational (it's about future control of the party) (is Ryan a tea-partier?) was screwy but let it be known that I called Ryan (sort of) at the end of A-Man's Ayotte post.

    Slogans, please:

    Romney, Ryan, what else could he do?

    Romney, Ryan, and ending Medicare.

    Romney, Ryan and vouchers too.

    Romney, Ryan, just tipped the canoe.

    Romney, Ryan will trickle down on you.

    Romney, Ryan and the Fairy Dust Plan.

     


    Starts it off by calling Ryan "the next president of the United States."  Somebody has to tell him he said it wrong.  Comes back and says he's made mistakes before.  Heh heh.  Battleship in the background.  Romney, no jacket; Ryan, no tie.  just a couple of guys.  Battleship in the background. 

    They're gonna fix things.  Ryan:  "Our economy will make a come-back.  More jobs.  We'll get us back on the right track."

    No mention of which side brought us to the brink in the first place.

    Battleship in the background.  Flags flying.  Ryan mentions Bain Capital.  Romney shows how a free economy works. 

    Shouts of "Obamaloney" in the background.

    "We can't get it from government" gets a big hand and cries of "USA!  USA! USA!

    And it goes on. . .


    If there's any question about what "brought us to the brink" in the first place, let me point you to Jimmy Carter's community re-investment act, having the Govt twist the arms of the "evil" bankers to give mortgage loans to people who did not have the financial capacity over time to honor it. Or should I point you to the Clinton/Greenspan policies that allowed these little ticking time bombs to create a foundation of securities the whole World built its balance sheets on.  Or should I point to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac accelerating these loans in the 1990s and 2000s.  I blame democrats who lie to my face that having a 16 trillion dollar debt is no big deal, and I blame spineless Republicans who didn't have the political courage to stop them.  Let me make this simple, without significant change, Medicare and Social Security will NOT EXIST in 20 years.  Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you.  Paul Ryan built a bi-partisan proposal enabling a choice of vouchers OR staying on the current system, without touching anyone age 55 or over.  An intellectually honest and moral plan, by the first politician with the backbone to say so in a long time.  What did he get in return? A commercial of him wheeling grandma off a cliff.  1.5 trillion dollar deficits are not ok, a 16 trillion dollar debt is not ok, un-sustainable entitlements are not ok.  If you think that's not what Obama brings to the table, where have you been for the last 4 years?


    Okay dude, there is so much wrong with everything you've written, but I am going to talk about one aspect of what you have written about: The Medicare voucher system, Ryan wants to implement for those 55 and under. I've paid into that system since I was 16 years old as a someone who is not quite 50, I oppose trying to get rid of it, completely, unless you are going to refund my fucking money. Which you aren't and Ryan isn't promising that, so you can shove it, I've been paying into that system 33 years and I going to use it when I retire, because I've been paying for it.


    Nice language. The "point" is that the money that you have put in for the last x number of years will go towards the voucher or towards the "current" system.  Without this option being implemented, you will learn the truth that democrats have been hiding since the 60s, the money doesn't even exist, unless you count a vault full of I.O.U's currency.  If you do, you could be the next Tim Geithner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etcetera, etcetera


    Proud Constitutionalist, sorry I hurt your very delicate sensibilities, but I am serious. The US Government is not Bain Capital and the congress and a fictitious Romney administration will not be able to wipe away everything my entire generation ever put into this system.  Payments we made in order to assure our place in the system, our benefit when we retire, Medicare.  I don't think it is a trivial thing to wipe that away, and I think it is something to fight for, and I expect there are lots of people like me, my entire generation actually, that means fighting the illogic of voucherizing the system, and pointing out what a rip off it is to those of us who are getting close to that age. It isn't adequate to give future seniors, (us) a voucher of $5000.00. That is a joke, but it isn't funny.

    It's 33 +/-5 years of payments on our part, but we aren't 55, why shouldn't we vote for our benefit, we've been paying for it, it isn't free.  I also believe all these benefits we pay for are more important than giving large tax cuts to corporations and the Mitt Romney's of the world, while giving up our own benefits. Why should we sacrifice ourselves so they can make more money, how much profit is enough if it is at the expense of everyone else?

    But me and my whole generation, I don't think we are going to let you all get away with attempting to obliterate all those payments we've already made into a system that works well just to have Romney/Ryan replace it with some Randian Utopianism noted as much for its vapid reliance on long disproved social Darwinism as for its outright cruelty towards humanity.  I for one think this is a very easy fight to win.  I am looking forward to this election season.


    There was never, ever, a law passed that forced banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them.  At a certain point, banks decided to do just that, but not out of charity and not because they were forced -- they did it in an attempt to chase profits, pure and simple.  Loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act standards were not subprime loans.

    Did Greenspan and Clinton makes mistakes by underregulating derivatives and structured products?  They sure did.  I don't see Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney trying to fix those errors.  If you want that fixed, go campaign for Elizabeth Warren in Mass.

    Is a $16 trillion debt okay?  Probably, given that the money isn't all due at once and that our annual GDP is approaching $16 trillion.  We can easily grow into our balance sheet, if we grow.

    Is a $1.5 trillion deficit okay?  In light of the demand recession we're enduring, it's likely criminally low.  U.S. bond purchasers are paying the Treasury to take their money.  We should be backing up the truck.

    Finally, the long-term problems faced by Social Security and Medicare would best be met by giving them higher budget priority than by the "solutions" that Ryan suggests.
     

     


    Yeah, what Destor23 said. 


    http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html

     

    The beginning of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the federal government bureaucracy and "compassionate" progressive policy. Let's be honest and serious.  Regulations written to leave open-ended power and interpretation to the regulators that wield them will always result in dislocation, and tyranny.  Not to mention a world wide financial collapse that many of you actually blame on George Bush (who I'm not a fan of, mind you). Wow.  (Spoiler alert! The energy crisis is next, stay tuned) 


    Community re-investment Act title VII (Sec. 802 forward) a little light reading...

     

    The beginning of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the federal government bureaucracy and "compassionate" progressive policy. Let's be honest and serious.  Regulations written to leave open-ended power and interpretation to the regulators that wield them will always result in dislocation, and tyranny.  Not to mention a world wide financial collapse that many of you actually blame on George Bush (who I'm not a fan of, mind you). Wow.  (Spoiler alert! The energy crisis is next, stay tuned) 


    I feel a little guilty, because I think we should give Ryan a little credit for honestly thinking about policy and stuff.  But, still, just because one is a deep thinker doesn't mean that he or she should be immune from criticism for the product of such deep thinking.  And, of course, we grow too soon old and too late smart, right?  Here's a group of seniors from Ryan's congressional district booing the whipper snapper Ryan for asserting, more than once, that we already tax the top of the top: 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfegLR6YxQg

    And, seriously, without thinking too deeply up here, has Romney just ceded Florida because he now owns another product of Ryan's deep and serious thinking, namely the privatization of Medicaire?  


    Right, deep thinking. I think he got the whole plan from Heritage.

    The low info voters go ecstatic when they think one of their own actually has a brain.


    I love that Romney's attack ad on welfare reform shows on the screen that the Heritage Foundation is a source for one of its claims.  This may be one of the few helpful pieces of information disclosed in a campaign ad this season, as a few folks watching that ad know what the Heritage Foundation is. 

        


    I agree with you, Bruce.  I credit the guy for not only thinking about policy, but being honest about what he wants.  Ryan has, as a Congressman, been far more transparent about his budget plans than Romney has in two runs as candidate for the White House.  I can respect a guy for being wrong but having honest convictions.  If Ryan were a Dagblogger, he'd be the type I'd engage with frequently.

    But he's now tied his career to somebody who is the opposite of that.  I wonder if anybody warned him.


    Have to disagree. I think he has a demeanor of being thoughtful. But deep thinking is something else. How hard is it to come up with a plan that would turn the country into a military establishment with little or no other infrastructure?

    On the other hand, his demeanor is extremely important and the Obama team should switch immediately to the moral basis of the Progressive agenda.

    I am going along with some of Peracles' disdain for peripheral arguments. It is time to make the moral case for what we are doing. Ryan's strength is in his pure, though they are wrong, positions. Don't caricature, but attack on the merits and the moral underpinning of our better position.  


    What this pick  means is that Mitt Romney's internals are horrible, this is an indication  that he didn't have his base sewn up. (And he didn't have his base sewn up), and this isn't going to help him,. So Bill Kristol picks another idiotic candidate! What? Hahaha doesn't he remember Sarah Palin, Kristol's last epic fail  pick! OMG this is so awesome, seriously, I can already see the adds against Ryan, get rid of social security, yep, get rid of student loans, yep, less taxes for the rich, yep, and the Ryan budget is going to be a center  piece of the attacks.

    I just can't believe how  lucky this President is, seriously,

    And WTF did they really run out of a battleship? What?  Oh right it is cool for Republicans to pretend to be warriors!

    Mitt Romney, weakest candidate of the millennia.


    What's funny to me is that the Redstate people thought that Romney having a spokesperson who nobody even knew anything about touting the benefits of the best thing he did as Massachusetts governor was the moment he lost the election...

    This might be the first time that Erik Vikingson or whatever he calls himself, was early in a prediction!


    Hah, des you are right. I am pretty sure Romney's internals have been really bad for a while. And yes after his spokesperson's defense of MassCare, his internals took a nosedive. At least that is what I've been hearing through the grape vine, really shitty internals that lead the campaign to believe he hadn't shored up his base at all. There are many reasons for this, his wealth, his being a Mormon, the fact that evangelicals are the Republican base.  If you trade Florida to shore up your base, you've already lost.  I don't know that the President could have asked for a better pick, this is great.  Paul Ryan best be prepared to defend his budget plan, because it is what we will be discussing from now until the election, well that and tax returns, because Mitt needs to release his tax returns so we can fully assess how little he will pay under the Ryan plan.

    Erick Vikingson... hehe, that's a keeper. I read it to my husband and we laughed our asses off.


    Love to amuse the Tmac fam!

    Another thing I hadn't considered is that Obama has dealt with Ryan before, during the whole budget debate.  This is a guy who Obama knows how to shut down.  And I'm starting to believe that to a Clinton extent, the last thing you want to do if you're an Obama opponent is to show vulnerability.


    tmac, Did u know....

    What happens to Paul Ryan's House seat?

    For newly minted GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, Election Day will be a win-win situation.

    Ryan, currently the powerful House Budget Chair, is a Wisconsin congressman currently in his seventh term and widely expected to be able to win reelection to his southeast Wisconsin seat.

    That’s not a bad fall-back if he and Mitt Romney lose the presidential race. Ryan can keep his options open as a result of a Wisconsin policy that allows candidates running for office, who are also on the ticket for president or vice president, to appear on ballots twice. He is planning to run for re-election to his House seat, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

    So if the White House doesn’t work out, Ryan can likely return to his influential role in Congress. And if it does, a special election will be held to fill Ryan's seat.

     


    On the other hand, think how nice it would be if we could make Ryan lose twice on election night ...


    Officially now the party of Medicare for none on one side, against the party of mixed bag Obamacare on the other side.

    With the majority of all citizens who say they want Medicare for all remaining unrepresented in this election on one of the public policy issues of most immediate, direct and grave impact on them.  

    Could there be a simpler way to illustrate that our political system at the moment reflects the rule of, by and for corporate special interests? Abe Lincoln turns over in his grave, again, repulsed by what his political party has become.

    My other thought is for the first time I'm beginning to wonder if, deep down, Romney really wants the job after all.  Which, come to think of it, might be one of the few indicators of cerebral cortex activity we've seen from the man.  It's been such a parade of unforced errors.  Just because you've been a governor of a fairly large state doesn't mean you're ready for national prime time.  If he really thinks Paul Ryan is marked by his excellent judgment--or that the selection of Ryan by him marks Romney as someone with excellent judgment--then he's an even dimmer bulb than I had thought.  I wasn't sure that was possible.


    Sometimes I used to wonder, "What would Mike Dukakis have been like if he were much, much, much whiter?"

    And now I know.


    I've been fearing Romney might take Ryan for a long time, specifically because the guy comes off well.  He has the pathological narcissist's ability to charm.

    But now, having had the Obama campaign frame him as an enemy of the middle-class, this move on Romney's part is a joke.  Yes, he's asking how high when the conservatives say jump, but, really, he's put the debate exactly where the Obama campaign wants it to be, and where every endangered Democratic Senator and Congressman wants it to be too.  It's not impossible that Ryan just might lose the Republicans some in the balance seats too.  Let's hope.  

    Meantime, put Florida in Obama's column.  29 votes.


    Why would Paul Ryan give up being an influential member of a Republican controlled House of Representatives to become, at best, the tie-breaking vote in a Senate most likely controlled by Democrats and at worst, an unemployed ex-member of Congress who will have to engage in a hot-dog eating contest against Chris Christie in 2016 for the GOP Presidential nomination?  I can see only one reason ... He's got a man crush on Mitt Romney, who, in Paul Ryan's mind, looks just like John Galt. 

     

    P.S.  Paul Ryan drinks "True Blood."  Pass it on.

     

     


    I think David Frum has summed it up perfectly: (I can't believe I just wrote that)

    The likely script of the next attack ad. A woman in her later 40s, looking worried at a kitchen table. She's probably vaguely Latino; the photos on her refrigerator (kids, no dad) suggest a single mom.

    A woman's voice over. "You've worked hard all your life. You've paid Medicare taxes for almost 30 years. But under the Republican plan, Medicare won't be there for you. Instead of Medicare as it exists now, under the Republican plan you'll get a voucher that will pay as little as half your Medicare costs when you turn 65—and as little as a quarter in your 80s. And all so that millionaires and billionaires can have a huge tax cut."

    That ad will draw blood and will—as Henry Kissinger used to say—have the additional merit of being true.


    I used to have a low opinion of David Frum's work, thought he too often wrote simplistic stuff that was well wide of the mark.  But he has earned my respect for a willingness to challenge the GOP and the right's party line when he disagrees with it, which seems to be increasingly often over the past 5 or 10 years.  I see him writing things I would not have thought he would say which show more practicality and reflection in his thinking than I thought he used to show. At this point he is among a number of Republicans who worshipped, and in a number of cases worked for, the Reagan Administration who in no way view people like Paul Ryan or the Tea Party phenomenon as positive vanguards of the American future.


    Frum is an old style moderate republican that just doesn't get elected anymore. They can't get past the republican primaries. He thinks government has a role and would like to see it work. I disagree with him a lot but democrats could sit down with him and come up with acceptable compromises on many issues.


    Hey, a guy who can construct an axis out of a secular dictator with a history as US proxy, a theocratic oligarchy and the world's last Stalinist is talented . As for his (and Bruce Bartlett's) belated journey from the dark side, viva the axis of apostasy

    Hey, a guy who can construct an axis out of a secular dictator with a history as US proxy, a theocratic oligarchy and the world's last Stalinist is talented . As for his (and Bruce Bartlett's) belated journey from the dark side, viva the axis of apostasy

    I've been chewing on this since last night and can't settle on a strong feeling about it. Of course, Ryan will help excite the base while giving Obama some more ammunition to paint Romney as extreme.

    But I just don't think it will matter that much. With the exception of Palin, who upstaged McCain, when was the last time a VP candidate really mattered? Even Cheney, for all his negatives, didn't have much impact.

    But what keeps coming back to me has little to do with this election. Ryan is the best face of the GOP's extreme economic agenda. Whether Romney wins or loses, we will surely see Ryan again. In either 2016 or 2020, he will be a candidate for president.


    It may not affect the election. But if Romney wins it will be attributed, rightly or wrongly. to Ryan and his policies. It will vastly empower the extremist wing of the republican party to the detriment of us all.

    That's the danger and why I think this election has gotten much more important.


    I'd emphasize the word "extremist" in your comment.  

    The GOP base, whose lack of enthusiasm for and confidence in Romney appears to be far surpassed by its determination to vote Obama out, has seen this election as between the left extremist Obama vs. the mushy and soft Romney.  Now they have someone they trust to reflect their values openly and directly, and with a credibility Romney does not have with them at this point.  

    But, notwithstanding 3+ years to portray him that way, a majority of the public and probably of those who will vote as well does not perceive Obama as "extreme left".  With Ryan on the ticket, the relative difficulty of successfully portraying the Republican party as being extreme right, versus portraying Obama as extreme left, may have now shifted in Obama's favor.  I don't say easy, because there are no guarantees.  It will require hard and smart and creative work for the Obama campaign to make that happen.

    So that if one buys into the view that Americans usually prefer presidents they do not perceive as extreme in their views and values, then...  

    Odd from the perspective of many of us here that this election might be decided, in part, by a slightly higher percentage of voters perceiving the GOP ticket as extreme right than the Dem ticket as extreme left, given that neither party is saying anything which sounds particularly promising or hopeful to get us out of this bad economy.  On the basis of Obama's actual record, this should not even be a close call, as to which candidate is more extreme in their views and proposals.  That it may be I'd attribute to the GOP and the Right's far greater ability to define (perceived pretty much=actual) political reality than the Democrats.

    On a more electorally concrete level, Florida knows Ryan by now and it's hard to see him doing anything but reducing Romney's chances of winning that key state.  If he wins it anyway I guess that will be a pretty strong piece of new and additional evidence that the VP pick rarely matters to outcomes.  Romney of course could win without Florida.  But which potential swing states does this VP pick increase the likelihood of tipping in his favor?

    Ryan does not strike me as an ordinary VP pick.  Rather, his presence on the GOP ticket sharpens and crystallizes the GOP philosophy and program in a way that heightens and clarifies some of the stakes in this election, in ways I suspect even senior GOP strategists would have preferred not to have to do.  

    All first blush reactions to the Ryan, I concede.


    But if Romney wins it will be attributed, rightly or wrongly. to Ryan and his policies. It will vastly empower the extremist wing of the republican party to the detriment of us all.

    I see. But when McCain lost with Sarah Palin at his side, that really took the wind out of the right wing's sails.

    The extremist wing is on an upward trajectory that shows little sign of abating regardless of presidential politics. If Romney wins, they will credit conservative activism. If Obama wins, they will blame it on Romney not being conservative enough.


    Do you think there is a possibility that, IF the GOP were to lose this election, at least, the influence of those within the party who want it to shift in a less extreme direction may become more powerful?  Would it take 1 or 2 (or more?) more presidential election defeats for that to happen?  Or is not likely to happen, regardless of electoral outcomes?

    The Democrats shifted rightward in the 1990s after losing 3 presidential elections in the 1980s.  Do you think the GOP base in the end cares enough about actually winning presidential and perhaps other elections, versus other goals it may have, to undergo something along lines of the change the Democratic party underwent some time back, for better or worse?  Does the GOP base have an effective--and enduring--veto over the influence of others within the party who might want it to shift?


    Every time the GOP loses, the pundits and centrists blame conservative extremism. And the conservatives ignore them every time. By all conventional wisdom, the Republicans should have moved left after the Democrats routed them in 2006 and 2008. It was the largest political repudiation since 1994, the one that caused the Democrats to go right. But the Republicans ignored the conventional wisdom and went the other way. In response to defeat, they created the Tea Parties. There is no reason to think they will behave any different if Romney loses, particularly since they never liked him in the first place.


    That's because these losses weren't a repudiation of an ideology or philosophy as perhaps happened in 1964.

    The Republicans lost because of corruption. That's different. That ENCOURAGES the extremists/purists to keep moving forward.


    I agree a loss will be blamed on Romney. That's the other side of the coin. Conservatism can never fail because if it does the policy wasn't conservative enough or candidate wasn't really a conservative. But there has been some tiny push back this season. A small hand full of republicans challenging Norquist. A loss might have some small effect in increasing that but probably not much.

    The real danger is a win credited to Ryan. Moderate dems might start to think defending entitlements is a looser. We've already seen some of that with the talk of the "grand bargain," the Simpson-Bowles commission, and the talk of Bowles at treasury.

    The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/obama-is-an-avid-reader-an...

     


    I think democrats are a bit to happy with this choice of Ryan as vp. Ryan is no Palin. He can spin, spin, spin and sound reasonable doing it. He can come up with intelligent sounding answers to questions that totally avoid answering the questions. I don't think its going to be all that easy to take him down. It will take some skill and I'm not all that confident the leaders we have have that skill.


    The following noted by Michael Tomasky on Daily Beast site this a.m. states one of the main reasons I really didn't think Romney would pair up with Ryan:

    Romney will become in some senses the running mate—the ticket’s No. 2.

    Think of it: The candidate will be running on his vice president’s ideas! It’s a staggering thought. Ryan might as well debate Obama this October, and Romney can square off against Biden.

    Of course, there is the sentiment stated by others that Romney, for all his posturing, really doesn't possess any good ideas of his own to put forth. (At least any that aren't rife with flip flops and/or lacking base processes of how to get from point A. to B.)


    The more I see of Romney, the more I think of GWB.  Shallow, not too bright, willing--maybe even anxious--to be the puppet and not the puppet-master.  Thoughts of the White House are seductive, but being the leader of all the people, even those who don't happen to agree with him and he can't fire--not so much.

    Ryan could be Romney's Cheney; the bad cop who will do the dirty work while clueless Romney plays at being president. 

    That's not good.


    Ramona,

    Exactly. It's become apparent, IMO, that Mitt's strengths, ironically, are his ability to be a forceful follower. Whether it's abiding to the regimental dictum of his church; his adherence to the mandates of the corporate realm policy 'how to succeed in getting rich at costs to others'; touting the 'let them eat cake' or starve philosophy needed to be a member in good standing with his societal class brethren and so on..................as stated before - he marches in lock step to the beat of other (bigger, louder, shinier) trombones .

    What I'm beginning to realize, that I didn't consider before, is he needs a Ryan and the Kochs with their cohorts to give him his marching orders.  I still stand by my belief that Ann is the smart one and she casts a long shadow - 'Mother knows best'.

    Ryan is another little rich boy and no doubt promises of future rewards, regardless of the election outcome, have been proffered and accepted.  (And putting another silver spoon elitist on the ticket is really just another way of showing Mitt's inability to understand the vast majority of the real world.)

    And 'that's not good' doesn't begin to describe how horrific it would be if this duo succeeds in their quests.

     


    It could be that Romney's intro of Ryan as "the next President of the United States" wasn't a slip but a declaration.  (I think we have our work cut out for us.)


    I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario whereby this pick helps Romney. The only people who love Ryan are the ones who NEVER would have voted for Obama anyway.

    I don't think Romney picked Ryan because he really believes he is the right man for the job, I think he picked him out of desperation. Bold, my ass. It was opportunistic, plain and simple. Just like Palin was. The difference is Ryan has a brain, even though that brain thinks ker-azy stuff.

    The quick ad up from the Obama camp shows they knew this was a possibility. That's a good thing. Just as they were able to define Romney, hopefully they will be able to define Ryan, as well.

    The right will come out to vote FOR Ryan, but they would have come out anyway to vote AGAINST Obama, given how much they hate him. So their motivation is of little importance, as far as I can tell.

    Now the question is, will the left come out to vote AGAINST Ryan, when they aren't so keen to vote FOR Obama.

    If not, we can only hope there are enough people in the middle who are scared to death of what a takeover by the crazies will mean for the country.

    -Stilli (aka Janet Forrest - I'm coming out of the political closet)


    Stilli,

                I just read Ryan described as Palin without the boobs ad twang. 

                Many are declaring that neither Romney or Ryan have any military or foreign affairs experience and this is an important deficit to many of the GOP 'warmongers' .

                 I agree, this 'choice' has great potential to do more harm than good to the repub ticket. 

                 Nice to 'converse' with you again.


    I've been on facebook too long, I was looking for the 'LIKE' button. Good to see you, too, Aunt Sam. So what do think? Will the far left turn out for Obama?


    If those who describe themselves as far left don't vote for Obama, except for not voting, I don't see 'they' have another option.  It's the women's, minorities and independent votes that will decide the outcome, not a select, self described group of political extremists.

    I read somewhere that the Romney-Ryan ticket is the three 'Rs' - Romney, Ryan and Rightwingers.  Then there's one goin' around about the GOP's election sandwich:  two slices of white 'blunder' bread without any meat or flavor.  Of course, someone's going to start marketing Mitt's new bbq apron, 'Kiss the Kochs'.  And the list goes on.......