Also IMHO I do think that in this case we are seeing early “people doesn’t know the devilish details yet” polling, and I do think that in this case Krauthammer is correct, once those details and ideas of Ryan are known many independents will not agree and the numbers are bound to become more favorable to Obama.
For example the **further **tax breaks to the wealthy idea will not and it is not showing Ryan to be convincing. Specially the yahoo part that still insists that **more **tax breaks for the rich are needed for them to create more jobs, (Where are they if that was the case after more than 10 years of the rich getting them?)
That idea is getting boos from the people they do need to convince to win this.
That’s a good point brought up earlier. Ryan’s plan is very unpopular. At least until you put it up next to Obama’s, in which case it holds its own. Now what exactly is Obama’s?
This could be just the break the McCain Campaign has been waiting for!
c’mon guys, you let it go 242 responses? slackers.
Seriously though … picking Ryan seems like a play to the right. I’m thinking that was not as good a play as one up the middle could have been. The right is sown up, regardless of Romney’s personal weakness there. He could eat a baby on live TV, and the right will come out in droves to vote against Obama. It’s the middle that will decide the contest.
That said, I do not underestimate the amount of stupid people who continually vote R, against their interests. That, combined with the disenfranchisement factor … and I still wouldn’t place any bets on Obama winning. After all, this is a country that RE-elected GWB.
Negative comments about groups are allowed here, but crass generalizations like this don’t contribute much to the debate. And personal insults are not allowed at all.
The good Chef is defending men of mature years and sound judgement from ignorant, hormone addled puppies! An onion on my belt! Yes, proudly! A fannypack? Never!
:dubious:
I have to wonder whether Ryan vetoed these bills because
He was fundamentally opposed to the goals of the bills
He was opposed to the miscellaneous stuff thrown into the bills (e.g. pet projects, pork, etc.)
He was opposed to the means by which the bills would accomplish their goals
Democrats wanted these bills to be passed
He was influenced by external entities - e.g. corporations offering him money for opposing bills
Some combination of the above factors
A more meaningful analysis of Ryan’s political stances would entail a look at what bills Ryan himself has proposed or backed. We have the Ryan budget, for one. Any more?
Just concluded stump speech. Romney said (paraphrasing):
If a kid goes to school and makes the honor roll, sure he got there by riding a publicly funded school bus. But I credit him more for making the honor roll than the bus driver who drove him there.
If a young man goes to a trade school and improves his skills and gets a better job, sure he drove to the trade school on the public roads, but I credit him more than government.
AFAIK Obama’s point was that **all **deserve recognition, what we are discussing here is actually a Republican propaganda point that never actually took place.
I has come to see that this is a question that falls in a conservative blind spot. They cannot conceive of this issue in any way other than relative proportion or worse, an either/or matter as to the assignment of credit.
His point was that people succeed within the context of the society in which they’re striving, therefore the American social structure built out of the New Deal and Great Society programs has led to greater success for businesses and individuals, therefore those programs and that policy focus should be protected from the type of fiscal nihilism currently being promoted by the Republican Party.
Obama’s point was that businesses don’t exist in a vacuum so they can damn well help pay for the infrastructure to keep them running. All the faux outrage over “You didn’t build that” is just the Republican’s desperate attempts to continue to paint Obama as a socialist despite enormous evidence to the contrary.
As a result, you get pablum like Romney’s stump speech instead of, say, explanations of why his tax policy actually raises taxes on everyone except those people in his own tax bracket.
Not blame, but responsibility in the form of the taxes he pays, most GED centers where most of the dropouts end after finding how stupid it was to drop out in the first place, are also publicly funded.
I think it’s pretty self evident that poorly funded schools produce poorly educated students, so…yes. I know republicans hate to take responsibility for anyone but themselves.
I’ve got nothing to back it up, but this is pretty much what I think. I don’t believe there are too many voters out there who sit down before election night, scouring the internet or piles of discarded newspapers, researching and ranking candidates on a scale from 1 to 100 on all of the issues before deciding whom to vote for. And campaigns put negative things about actual policy in ads, not so we will remember them specifically, but just to plant a seed of doubt in our minds or in an outright attempt to get us to despise the other guy.
