Paul Ryan VP boomlet

[Gehringer_2]

I'd disagree, Rand was several moves ahead of the American 60s in terms of capturing the mood of the "prime movers." I think this mood thing is entirely under- estimated by those who dismiss Obama's you didn't build it comment.

Obama's comment is actually pretty milquetoast compared to the real socialist rhetoric that had gained substantial currency in the 60's. Nobody today talks in anything like those terms anymore.

[MAROTH4MVP]

Ryan has been a live long Catholic, which completely conflicts with Objectivism.

Democrats paint him as a crazy right wing zealous and also try to make him out to be a Satanist. He can't be both. A lot of the Democrats who are doing this are the same people who were so offended that the equally absurd Rev. Wright controversy occurred.

[Gehringer_2]

Ryan has been a live long Catholic, which completely conflicts with Objectivism.

.

Well that *is* exactly what makes it interesting. What kind of Catholic requires his staff read a writer like Ayn Rand? There are a lot of other great critiques of socialism out there - Hayak is a fine example - that don't also preach objectivism.

Is Ryan just a nouveau philosopher who has never sorted out the conflicts in what he thinks he believes? Does he not see the conflict? Does he just think Rand is such great literature everyone on his staff will enjoy slogging through 1000 pages of her prose? Is is Catholicism intellectually hollow?

This guy wants to be 'a heartbeat away' from the Presidency - can he think straight?

[hueytaxi]

Well that *is* exactly what makes it interesting. What kind of Catholic requires his staff read a writer like Ayn Rand? There are a lot of other great critiques of socialism out there - Hayak is a fine example - that don't also preach objectivism.

Is Ryan just a nouveau philosopher who has never sorted out the conflicts in what he thinks he believes? Does he not see the conflict? Does he just think Rand is such great literature everyone on his staff will enjoy slogging through 1000 pages of her prose? Is is Catholicism intellectually hollow?

This guy wants to be 'a heartbeat away' from the Presidency - can he think straight?

I can think of another VP candidate who may not think straight.......do they dare put him on the ticket again.?

[MAROTH4MVP]

I can think of another VP candidate who may not think straight.......do they dare put him on the ticket again.?

+1
Washington Examiner ran an article stating the VP offer was rejected by Clinton.

[Gehringer_2]

I can think of another VP candidate who may not think straight.......do they dare put him on the ticket again.?

Romad seems to think they may not but I'm not seeing any evidence yet.

It's a fair point, but Biden is also a more known commodity at this point. We have factored that in to whatever degree we have a mind to. Ryan is still in a position to make the argument on his talents.

And in Biden's defense, I think over the years two things show through - he doesn't control his ego-mania well in public, which makes him look bad but a lot of these guys are just a venal but hide it better, and more significantly, he speaks worse than he thinks. For example, early in the Iraq mess, Joe was panned from all sides for being a lone voice predicting that it was inevitable that Iraq would end up as three separated communities - I'd say he hit that right on the head.

[Truth]

Obama's comment is actually pretty milquetoast compared to the real socialist rhetoric that had gained substantial currency in the 60's. Nobody today talks in anything like those terms anymore.

Admittedly I wasn't there in the 60s, at least of any age to follow politics but are you talking about presidential administrations or the cultural events of the decade?

[hueytaxi]

Romad seems to think they may not but I'm not seeing any evidence yet.

It's a fair point, but Biden is also a more known commodity at this point. We have factored that in to whatever degree we have a mind to. Ryan is still in a position to make the argument on his talents.

And in Biden's defense, I think over the years two things show through - he doesn't control his ego-mania well in public, which makes him look bad but a lot of these guys are just a venal but hide it better, and more significantly, he speaks worse than he thinks. For example, early in the Iraq mess, Joe was panned from all sides for being a lone voice predicting that it was inevitable that Iraq would end up as three separated communities - I'd say he hit that right on the head.

Quite a bit of agreement there, Biden could not have remained in public service this long as a stupid person.

[ROMAD1]

I believe at one point this board had a discussion about the relative merits of popcorn caramel nut mixes. I think the funniest thing I've read on the board was when someone said that Ferrari or some other elite car is the Poppycock of cars.

Joe Biden...is not Poppycock.

[Gehringer_2]

Admittedly I wasn't there in the 60s, at least of any age to follow politics but are you talking about presidential administrations or the cultural events of the decade?

You would be correct that the culural noise on the left was more extreme than the actual politics, but even in formal politics things were being said 'seriously' in the 60's that would get you laughed off a podium today. Just off the top of my head, take a look at Eugene MCarthy's candidacy declaration speech ('68). I think he claims a "right to a job" "right to a house" "right to health care" "right to higher education". Of the four the only one we still argue about at all as a 'right' would be health care, and even there the left, which still looks at it as a 'right' at heart would rather make the argument that we look cheap and 2nd rate for not doing what most of the rest of the 1st world is doing - it's more a 'shame' argument that if we don't provide health care we are a 2nd rate country than an argument from a socialist manifesto. McGovern proposed a sort of guaranteed income plan in '72, though to be fair he may well never have actually meant a proposal as leftist as it sounded and was interpreted.

Purely as measure of the tenor of the times, I dont think a democratic presidential candidate could go to those places today. And of course a republican would think to any way.

In fact I would say a shorthand way to look at it might be that with just about the same symmetry that Ron Paul's movement and libertarian factions exist to the right of the republican party today and conduct public discourse with reasonable seriousness out there to the right, there were real socialists on the left of the Democratic party in the 60's early 70's conducting a pubic discourse to the left with some reasonable seriousness.

[hueytaxi]

Poppycock:

[Truth]

You would be correct that the culural noise on the left was more extreme than the actual politics, but even in formal politics things were being said 'seriously' in the 60's that would get you laughed off a podium today. Just off the top of my head, take a look at Eugene MCarthy's candidacy declaration speech ('68). I think he claims a "right to a job" "right to a house" "right to health care" "right to higher education". Of the four the only one we still argue about at all as a 'right' would be health care, and even there the left, which still looks at it as a 'right' at heart would rather make the argument that we look cheap and 2nd rate for not doing what most of the rest of the 1st world is doing - it's more a 'shame' argument that if we don't provide health care we are a 2nd rate country than an argument from a socialist manifesto. McGovern proposed a sort of guaranteed income plan in '72, though to be fair he may well never have actually meant a proposal as leftist as it sounded and was interpreted.

Purely as measure of the tenor of the times, I dont think a democratic presidential candidate could go to those places today. And of course a republican would think to any way.

In fact I would say a shorthand way to look at it might be that with just about the same symmetry that Ron Paul's movement and libertarian factions exist to the right of the republican party today and conduct public discourse with reasonable seriousness out there to the right, there were real socialists on the left of the Democratic party in the 60's early 70's conducting a pubic discourse to the left with some reasonable seriousness.

Well there is the Congressional Progressive Caucus that has 70+ members and chaired half the standing House committees when the Democrats held the majority. I think you would find that while the rhetoric may have decreased the political influence is much greater. I guess it could be argued if they are self identified socialists but certainly its at their roots and there is an ongoing relationship with independent self proclaimed socialist organizations.

I suspect that 60s voice hasn't disappeared at all but rather got better at packaging itself. They might not say everybody has a right to a house but that view had to influence CPC member Barney Frank and others as they worked to lower the barriers to home ownership (and ignore the folly that ensued).

[Mr. DNA]

Virtually every post-Depression, pre-Reagan prominent politician would be laughed out of both parties for being a "socialist" today. It was a different country back then-- top marginal tax rates were between 74 and 90 percent, workers were more likely to be unionized, massive infrastructure projects were undertaken, education was heavily invested in (especially after Sputnik), social welfare programs were robust, etc.

I think that had a lot to do with major leftward tilt the country went through during the 1930s. You think the '60s were radical? The 1930s saw a substantial amount of Americans joining the Communist Party, physically doing battle with corporations in the streets, and generally scaring the living crap out of wealthy, powerful Americans...Like FDR. The New Deal didn't just attempt to save capitalism, it also tried to put a lid on swelling socialist movements in the US. A more left-leaning USA became the new normal and WWII really sealed the deal-- private capital harnessed for the war effort, millions of young men and women joined the federal payroll, tax rates went up to 94% (we used to pay for wars!), and those who served were rewarded with...Government benefits.

How did that unravel and how did we get back into a more Gilded Age state of mind? Well, FDR was able to ram through all those New Deal programs with support from southern Democrats. As long as the racial hierarchy was properly maintained, they were cool with social programs and higher taxes on wealthy. Once JFK and LBJ reluctantly began coming around on Civil Rights, the deal was off. Social spending wasn't going to sanctioned with MLK marching, Watts on fire, and the old American apartheid system being threatened everywhere from Mississippi to the Chicago or Detroit suburbs. New Deal programs became associated with the unpopular minority groups who'd been locked out of the American Dream via housing discrimination, "sundown" laws, lousy schools, etc. The Civil Rights Movement was the kiss of death to the American welfare state.

On top of that, I think a lot of the rightward push in American politics had to do with Vietnam and the sexual revolution. Mainstream American politics from 1945 to 1974 might have been left wing as hell compared to today, but we were also very jingoistic, militaristic, socially-conservative and anti-communist. It may seem contradictory today, but 60 years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to decry the red menace while at the same time advocating for top marginal tax rates that seem downright draconian today. Again, that goes back to the major leftward shift we went through during the Depression and WWII...Progressive politics, at least when it came to tax policy, were practically axiomatic during those times. Now, while the Civil Rights Movement ended the bargain FDR made with southern Democrats, the baby boomers protesting the war, getting on the pill, and arguing for even more civil rights alienated their parents and created yet another negative association with lefty politics in the minds of more conservative Americans.

Finally, in the 1930s, American industrial workers were getting the crap kicked out of them by company security guards in order to make a decent living and share in the profits of their industry. By the 1960s, industrial workers had well-established and powerful labor unions, bought houses, drove cars, paid for college without borrowing, and generally enjoyed a great standard of living. They had no need for lefty politics. Who needed lefty political ideas? Blacks, Mexicans and other people who hadn't been able to buy a house, get a good-paying job, join a labor union, move into a suburb without their home being firebombed, etc. Lefty politics became associated with minorities and spoiled baby boomer college kids.

Still, top tax rates stayed in the 70% range well into ultra-conservative Richard Nixon's administration. OSHA and other costly workplace safety programs went into effect. Freeways and other massive infrastructure projects continued, though maybe not at the same rate as during Ike and LBJ's era. Despite the major right turn our politics took in the mid- to late-'60s, the policies of FDR and LBJ were not completely terminated-- nor was there all that much political appetite to totally put the kibosh on them. Heck, even Ronald Reagan raised taxes and hired thousands of government employees throughout the '80s. I don't think we really entered our current phase until the Clinton years, when even a Democratic President took part in castrating organized labor (NAFTA) and essentially undid the financial reforms of the New Deal. George W Bush just pumped a ton of steroids into what Clinton was already doing.

So, yeah, Tricky Dick would be called a socialist today...Not because he had any sympathy for the New Deal, but because the political realities and expectations of his time-- largely an outgrowth of the radical '30s and big government WWII expansions of power-- forced him to be what we'd consider a socialist today.

[Gehringer_2]

Wow DNA. 20th century US political history in a nutshell. That's a quite a nice write up.

[Mr. DNA]

Also, there are political machines. FDR and LBJ had a well-oiled machine that was disciplined, rewarded its patrons handsomely, and could ram just about anything through during the '30s, '40s and early '60s. FDR spent his many terms strengthening it and LBJ had the kind of brutish personality and good ol' boy credibility to put it to use in ways that JFK could only dream of.

The Republicans were a chaotic game of Hungry Hungry Hippos in comparison during those decades. Weak Presidential candidates and an even weaker share of Congress. Sure, you had your Jack D. Rippers and John Birchers back then, along with your "Mad Men" Rockefeller Republicans, but even they all would shy away from the Paul Ryan budget. You only get that bold when your machine is on top of its game.

Nowadays, the Republicans have the machine. They spent decades putting it together and when they're not ramming through legislation, they block anything a Democrat might try to do. They dominate the narrative. So, when a guy who staffs his treasury with Wall Street titans, conducts extrajudicial assassinations of Americans suspected of treason, deports/imprisons hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, and merely argues for Bush's tax cuts to expire only for the wealthiest 2% of the nation-- HE IS A SOCIALIST.

That, right there, is political dominance and discipline. The center-left had it from the '30s to the '60s, the far right has had it in our country ever since. I tip my hat to the Atwaters and Roves. They are very good at their jobs.

[Mr. DNA]

Fact checkers really grade on a curve when Paul Ryan is involved.

If I were a governor of Michigan, I would do the following:

1. Pass a law saying that I will fire every single public university employee, scrap the entire course catalog, and sell everything on the campuses to a Chinese recycling company starting in 2022.

2. Turn complete control of the state's university system to a private, for-profit corporation, like University of Phoenix or Devry. They set the tuition rates, hire the faculty, decide on course offerings, and all that by 2022.

3. I would NOT change the names of the schools-- they'd still be called University of Michigan, Michigan State, etc.

4. I would send 40% off coupons to all state residents who choose to attend a "public university" in Michigan after 2022. This coupon will always stay at 40% off, regardless of what the University of Phoenix administrators decide to set their tuition rates at.

5. I would laugh my head off when Factcheck.org or that WaPo hack gives "Pants On Fire!" or "Eleventy-Seven Pinocchios!" ratings to any of my critics who said I ended the public university system in my state. After all, you can still go to U of M and the state helps pay for it!

[Auburndale Ray]

[ROMAD1]

Ray, are you going to bring the discrepancy in Paul Ryan's acceptable music tastes to his attention at his appearance in your neighborhood today?

[TheCouga]

Wow DNA. 20th century US political history in a nutshell. That's a quite a nice write up.

Yup. Lots of fantastic posts on here lately.

[TheCouga]

Fact checkers really grade on a curve when Paul Ryan is involved.

If I were a governor of Michigan, I would do the following:

1. Pass a law saying that I will fire every single public university employee, scrap the entire course catalog, and sell everything on the campuses to a Chinese recycling company starting in 2022.

2. Turn complete control of the state's university system to a private, for-profit corporation, like University of Phoenix or Devry. They set the tuition rates, hire the faculty, decide on course offerings, and all that by 2022.

3. I would NOT change the names of the schools-- they'd still be called University of Michigan, Michigan State, etc.

4. I would send 40% off coupons to all state residents who choose to attend a "public university" in Michigan after 2022. This coupon will always stay at 40% off, regardless of what the University of Phoenix administrators decide to set their tuition rates at.

5. I would laugh my head off when Factcheck.org or that WaPo hack gives "Pants On Fire!" or "Eleventy-Seven Pinocchios!" ratings to any of my critics who said I ended the public university system in my state. After all, you can still go to U of M and the state helps pay for it!

This is a really good analogy.

[shabba4detroit]

So, yeah, Tricky Dick would be called a socialist today...Not because he had any sympathy for the New Deal, but because the political realities and expectations of his time-- largely an outgrowth of the radical '30s and big government WWII expansions of power-- forced him to be what we'd consider a socialist today.

Yes he would. Probably because he was never ultraconservative, but rather one of the last progressive Republicans.

[ROMAD1]

Yes he would. Probably because he was never ultraconservative, but rather one of the last progressive Republicans.

Richard Nixon was a pragmatic politician. Like any smart one is. The art of the possible. Bill Clinton took credit for all the reforms the Republican congress shoved down his throat. Smart.

[TheCouga]

Wasn't it Nixon that started the EPA or something?

I hate thinking about the Nixon years as "the age when the Republican Party actually had dignity," but it's pretty true, I guess, given how low the bar as sunk.

[Gehringer_2]

Well before we get too dewy eyed on RMN, aside from his minor issues with paranoia, he had some huge holes in his competencies on the economic side. Let's remember that he brought us a laughably impotent "wage and price" control regime to "control" inflation. Had he been as smart in economics as he seemed to be at foreign policy he would have been the one to put a monetarist in the Federal Reserve 10 yrs before Reagan finally did. Might have helped the country avoid the whole stagflation thing. Of course take it a step further, if he had, maybe Reagan never gets elected. That's interesting to contemplate.

[chasfh]

Rage GIF

Actually, Ray, I came in here to post Morello's entire statement, since he makes numerous cogent points:

From The New York Times:
" Yet even if he is viewed as politically pure by the modern-day standards of his party’s base, he is not without contradictions. The nation’s first Generation X vice-presidential candidate, he is an avowed proponent of free markets whose family has interests in oil leases. But he counts Rage Against the Machine, which sings about the greed of oil companies and whose Web site praises the anti-corporate Occupy Wall Street movement, among his favorite bands."
Source: nytimes.com / via: http://New%20York%20Times


Rage Against The Machine's guitarist Tom Morello responds:

Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.

Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.

I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "**** the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!

Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.

But Rage's music affects people in different ways. Some tune out what the band stands for and concentrate on the moshing and throwing elbows in the pit. For others, Rage has changed their minds and their lives. Many activists around the world, including organizers of the global occupy movement, were radicalized by Rage Against the Machine and work tirelessly for a more humane and just planet. Perhaps Paul Ryan was moshing when he should have been listening.

My hope is that maybe Paul Ryan is a mole. Maybe Rage did plant some sensible ideas in this extreme fringe right wing nut job. Maybe if elected, he'll pardon Leonard Peltier. Maybe he'll throw U.S. military support behind the Zapatistas. Maybe he'll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign – and then torture them with Rage music 24/7. That's one possibility. But I'm not betting on it.

[Oblong]

Someone takes themselves a little too seriously.... I like the comps to the Beatles and Springsteen.

[hueytaxi]

How does taste in music tie in to political views? I enjoyed Dylan, didn't care for his political views.

[Gehringer_2]

How does taste in music tie in to political views? I enjoyed Dylan, didn't care for his political views.

I don't think Dylan really did either, he was just writing to impress Joan.

[Oblong]

I still like Judas Priest but I no longer sing along....

[hueytaxi]

he was just writing to impress Joan.

Nicely done!

[Truth]

Well that *is* exactly what makes it interesting. What kind of Catholic requires his staff read a writer like Ayn Rand? There are a lot of other great critiques of socialism out there - Hayak is a fine example - that don't also preach objectivism.

Is Ryan just a nouveau philosopher who has never sorted out the conflicts in what he thinks he believes? Does he not see the conflict? Does he just think Rand is such great literature everyone on his staff will enjoy slogging through 1000 pages of her prose? Is is Catholicism intellectually hollow?

This guy wants to be 'a heartbeat away' from the Presidency - can he think straight?

I don't suppose his Catholicism is any more hollow than his Vice Presidential opponent who picks and chooses which parts of his Catholic faith he supports.

[eastside billee]

Truth speaks the truth!!!! Say it brother.

[mtutiger]

I don't suppose his Catholicism is any more hollow than his Vice Presidential opponent who picks and chooses which parts of his Catholic faith he supports.

Truth speaks the truth!!!! Say it brother.

Last I checked, there's only one Catholic VP candidate who has drawn strong condemnation for his views from members of the Catholic clergy... and, inconveniently for your fallacious argument, it's not Joe Biden.

So, no, Truth doesn't speak the truth.

[Oblong]

Last I checked, there's only one Catholic VP candidate who has drawn strong condemnation for his views from members of the Catholic clergy... and, inconveniently for your fallacious argument, it's not Joe Biden.

So, no, Truth doesn't speak the truth.

Joe Biden’s Bishop: He’s Wrong on Catholic Church and Abortion Teaching | LifeNews.com

boom goes the dynamite....

[mtutiger]

Joe Biden’s Bishop: He’s Wrong on Catholic Church and Abortion Teaching | LifeNews.com

boom goes the dynamite....

A Catholic bishop opposing abortion?! Oh my stars!

I think what I'm getting at here is that Paul Ryan is much the cafeteria Catholic that Truth says Biden is... in fact, Ryan's viewpoints on the social safety net flies in the face of the Catholicism I grew up, so much so that it overshadows any statement that Joe Biden may make on abortion.

[Gehringer_2]

A Catholic bishop opposing abortion?! Oh my stars!

I think what I'm getting at here is that Paul Ryan is much the cafeteria Catholic that Truth says Biden is... in fact, Ryan's viewpoints on the social safety net flies in the face of the Catholicism I grew up, so much so that it overshadows any statement that Joe Biden may make on abortion.

I like to remind people that if even Peter and Paul couldn't agree on "Doctrine" before the organized Church had even gotten off the ground, the rest of us certainly have little hope to.

[ballmich]

Clearly you're anecdote is empirical evidence of American laziness... lol

Oh, you are right, there's no evidence of jobs abound, while we have unemployment of around 20%. Oh wait, there is...

California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever' - Yahoo! Finance

There's a different sort of drought plaguing California, the nation's largest farm state. It's $38 billion agricultural sector is facing a scarcity of labor.

"This year is the worst it's been, ever," said Craig Underwood, who farms everything from strawberries to lemons to peppers, carrots, and turnips in Ventura County.

Some crops aren't get picked this season due to a lack of workers.

"We just left them in the field," he said.

[Truth]

Oh, you are right, there's no evidence of jobs abound, while we have unemployment of around 20%. Oh wait, there is...

California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever' - Yahoo! Finance

Isn't that interesting? I've seen the same thing in Michigan over the last 10 years. I have a large agricultural client that has to go to Texas to recruit workers for the summer months as they can't get them in-state and federal regulations are such that they can't hire high school kids. Sure, they could pay more, but that would make their product uncompetitive.

[drownwithyou]

Oh, you are right, there's no evidence of jobs abound, while we have unemployment of around 20%. Oh wait, there is...

California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever' - Yahoo! Finance

If this is what my job search comes to I'm going to cry. And wipe my tears with my law degree and LLM diploma.

[mtutiger]

Oh, you are right, there's no evidence of jobs abound, while we have unemployment of around 20%. Oh wait, there is...

California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever' - Yahoo! Finance

LOL, using a hoe in the fields doesn't pay for the $40000 in student loans used for the college education we supposedly need to make money and support our families.