Does Ryan Boost Romney's Chance to Win Presidency?

Paul Ryan makes his keynote speech tonight at the Republican National Convention. Let us know in the comments section why Ryan does or doesn't improve the Republican's chances in November.


Earlier this month, presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Ryan, 42, from Wisconsin, is the House budget chairman and is scheduled to make a critical speech at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night in Tampa.

An estimated 20 million people will tune in and hear the Ryan speech, the biggest speech of his life.

Alex August 15, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Jean Inglis, you started with a statement that Obamacare helped you with your son's health insurance while he was/is in a college. Now, you wrote that he is actually NOT in a college and taking an Appalachian Trail. AFAIK, this is NOT "while he attends college" and you made a bogus claim. As for Deval, it was you who mentioned him without any clear connection to the substance of the discussion.
hammergjh August 15, 2012 at 08:28 PM
The problem w/ the republicans is that they're wrong. Hysterical conspiracy theories and paranoia don't make "facts". Go to a real news source like the New York Times or The Glove, CNN, Time magazine and not Fox News.
NahantJean August 15, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Alex, Do you really want to go there? Really? You're sinking to a whole new level with your lastest grammatically-challenged rant! Wow! Nonetheless, I have a second so I will respond to your ridiculousness . . . I stated that he "can remain on my health insurance while he attends college." No bogus claim there. I also stated that he "took some time off before college to hike the Appalachian Trail." Again, no bogus claim there. Why the baseless accusations, Alex? Are you that desperate to try to be right about something? You clearly have nothing meaningful or of substance to contribute so I'm done wasting my time with you. Why don't you go get a Chick-Fil-A sandwich and call it a day! Adios!
brian condon August 15, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Pa Lenny. Would you be on my death panel next time my name comes up on the list?
Lenny August 16, 2012 at 01:21 AM
Brian, I thought it was you that sanctioned my parole? Anyway, happy to be on your death panel if you'll have me, but I warn you that I am pretty frugal and you won't be getting the red pill.....you'll have to hope for the best with the blue one!
Lenny August 16, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Brian, I understand what Koch is saying,but let me ask you....don't you think Obama is the most leftist President ever? Wouldn't you say he to the far left? It is not an attack, his views are his views and if they are to the far left, so what? But when Koch or anyone says that the Ryan pick is the polarizing one, I would say that is missing the point. Had Hillary been the Dem nominee in 2008, I would say that would have been a Center Left pick opposing a Center Right McCain. But in my view, Obama is much further to left than Ryan is to the far right. I would also suggest that Ryan's ideas are closer to President Kennedy's then Obama's are.
Jay Valatka August 16, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Obama is so middle-of-the-road, he's being buffeted by traffic on all sides. He is most definitely not the most leftist President ever. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to come up with five names in this country's government that can be considered "far left".
brian condon August 16, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Lenny Good points. Obama would be my clear choice not because of leftist leanings. He is an advocate for social justice. Mitt is not. Ryan's budget has been analyzed as impractical by the office of management and budget A very detailed 21 page report that describes his plan as one that could not be implemented. Given Mitts fluidity, and Ryan's extreme budget desires, they represent an unworkable team. In the final analysis neither presidential candidate has the power to raise or cut taxes. That rests with the congress. Same for budgeting. So much wind blowing around on these items. Leadership philosophy is where I hang my hat. A commitment to Social justice is what I look for. Great to hear Death panels are back in the discussion. I expect the birth certificate issue will surface , right after the accusations of Muslim terrorist connections. The silly season is upon us!
Jim Malone August 16, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Lenny — you misspelled "budget fraud." Ryan's a fraud. His numbers — the few he's provided — don't add up. "His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009. With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian than honest conservative." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/04/the_ryan_reaction.html His Medicare lies will be smoked out by a media that's finally aware and starting to challenge Romney and surrogates on the falsehoods. He'll be revealed as another deficit fraud as well — He voted for the Bush tax cuts without demanding offsets. He voted to extend the Bush tax cuts without demanding offsets. He voted to repeal the House’s “PayGo” rule, which says both new spending and new tax cuts need to be paid for, and to replace it with the “CutGo” rule, in which spending cuts need to be paid for and tax cuts don’t. Finally, as an Ayn Rand acolyte, he's massively out of step with the mainstream of American values. Like Rand he rails against Big Gummint while happily taking Social Security, at least 22 government contracts for his family's construction business, student loans etc. The vision of America embodied by Ryan and Romney to me is immoral and unsustainable. It's a Koch-Brothers fueled dystopia of Social Darwinism.
Lenny August 16, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Jim Malone, you are quoting an article written by a "liberal economist" (a bit of an oxymoron) 16 months ago. Mr. Wiesberg praised the Ryan budget but then was forced to backtrack because the liberal blogs went nuts. He says so in the article. Then Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman (there are no longer any standards for the awarding of Nobel Prizes) repeats Wiesberg's interpretation of what the CBO reported the other day and every liberal blog picks it up, it is what you copied and pasted on your comment. Firstly, the CBO does not use words or phrases like "absurd future". It is made up, it isn't true, and you are repeating it without knowing that it is false. Secondly, Ryan is not against SS...it is crazy to even suggest that he is. It is made up and it is untrue. He is not against private companies working for the government.......how the hell would roads or bridges be built if they weren't done by private companies hired by the government? Suggesting he is against gov contracts is factually incorrect. What he is against is government control of those companies. I'd like to know where this hysteria coming from? Is following the constitution and balancing the budget that frightening?
Lexi August 16, 2012 at 05:17 PM
So BC, instead of saying you are for social justice why don't you just tell us all that you are for progressive taxation, income redistribution and property redistribution so everyone out here knows exactly what you stand for. The term social justice is a bit benign until you look a little deeper into its meaning, I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say your in the minority with that type of thinking. Maybe you should suspend yourself for a little while instead of waving your magic wand and suspending people you do not agree with or better yet just ask Obama to make a executive order to shut everyone out you don't agree with, he's getting very good at it and you two seem to have a lot in common
brian condon August 16, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Lexi Glad to see you have not lost any of your charm.
Lexi August 16, 2012 at 05:39 PM
My pleasure, enjoy this beautiful day.
Lenny August 16, 2012 at 05:54 PM
I think social justice is a term that can be broadly defined. It appears to have been sucessfully captured by the left to mean what they believe in, but it my view, having a job is the best social program. It gives one dignity, independence, and a pride in being able to create and support a family on your own terms. For the last 3.5 years, the focus has not been on creating jobs or an enviornment in which to create jobs. People need unemployment checks, food stamps, welfare subsidies, and housing assistance because they are desperate due to the Obama economy, not because they want those things or prefer to live with that way. The overwhelming majority would prefer a job and not to be a ward of the state. That is why Romney is going to be the next President.
Jim Malone August 16, 2012 at 08:34 PM
In 2010, teabaggers and the GOP campaigned and were swept into office on jobs, jobs, jobs. Post-election, Mitch McConnell admitted Job #1 on his watch was to deny President Obama a second term: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010. Still, President Obama's job creation record exceeds GWB's. Pick your source, timeframe etc. Private sector growth has been better under Obama. Public sector jobs have been shed, but that's due to the GOP war on teachers, firefighters, public union employees, and wrong-minded (IMHO, but then, I'm a Keynesian!) austerity programs. This is important, as the decline in public spending is a drag on growth, according the the Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/Ma4WsF Now, imagine what we could have accomplished as a nation with both sides pulling on the same oar!
Jim Malone August 16, 2012 at 08:42 PM
Ryan's plan is not realistic. And maybe it's not meant to be. Scarce on details, big on conventional, failed conservative principles, it's a wish-list of how they think our nation should be governed. I agree with Forbes' John McQuaid: "Would Romney start out his presidency by forcing through dramatic changes that many, many people will oppose – including large swaths of the Republican base – and which have no clear tie to reviving the economy in the short term (the basis for his campaign)? If Romney does push through some version of the Ryan plan, then Republicans will own all the unpleasant changes, and will suffer at the ballot box, possibly for a very long time. It’s political suicide, and Romney is, if anything, not the kind of politician who places principle over success." http://onforb.es/RkSaiV
Lenny August 16, 2012 at 09:00 PM
I agree that Romney will likely be a one term president, because nobody likes cost cutters. Unfortunately, someone will have to do it to ward off our becoming Greece. And where on God's green earth did you get a "fact" that Obama created more jobs than GWB? Do the simple math...unemployment is at 8.3 (14.9 if you consider those who have dropped out or are undermployed)....undemployement under Bush never went past 6.5. To sustain less than 6.5 for 8 years means that a hell of a lot of jobs had to be created just to keep up with the population growth. Also your terms "war on teachers, firefighters" etc. What does the mean....really? In Wisconsin, all the governor wanted public emmployees to do was contribute 5% top their own retirement and it resulted in mobs in the staehouse defecating on the marble floors. The war is on us, the taxpayer.....not the public unions. And Keynesian economics have been discredited all over the world. If you want us all to pull on the same oar, then help us row to the right, because Obamanomics has failed miserably.
brian condon August 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Lenny You silver tongued devil. I don't think any of these Romney/Ryan budget proposals will be a problem for either of them. Unless hell freezes over. the proposed ticket is unelectable . There are too many lead weights in that boat. My personal definition of social justice dates back to the UK in 1849, and the roots of the US democratic party of the twentieth century that pledged that the government will not allow a disaster of that magnitude to occur again. Government intervention does fight against the brutal forces of big Business. Why did they call them "Robber Barons" in the late 19th century. Both of the Roosevelt's abhorred the lack of accountability to the man in the street espoused by Those who had amassed huge fortunes Teddy went after them with a few shakes of his big stick, and Franklin became a social engineer who rebuilt the country with a healthy attitude of sharing . There is no shame in caring for those who are less fortunate. That is what social justice means to me. Those values do not go out of style Love you Lenny. You cannot be as harsh and uncaring as you suggest. You are honest and feisty. Keep it up. But don't get taken in by these show biz wonders who are a little on the transparent side. Just remember those positions espoused in the great republican debate series. And Romney is the author of Obamacare. Lovingly referred to as Romneycare at the state house. Sorry his horse didn't cop a medal My
Lenny August 17, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Brian, the “roots of the Democrat party” was for the preservation of slavery. Martin Luther King was a registered Republican for a reason. Were it not for the Republican Party, LBJ wouldn’t have passed Civil Rights legislation as 37% of Dem House members voted against it (80% of House Repubs voted for it) Progressiveism is neither a zero sum game nor a dirty word. You pointed to Republican T Roosevelt passing anti-trust laws to tame the Robber Barons. Conservatives supported such laws then & do so now. When Dems say Repubs want to de-regulate everything, it’s nonsense. The problem is the DEGREE to which Dems want to regulate & tax everything that moves. Whne social programs make sense to both sides then Americans usually get what they want. Medicare & social security passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. When major social programs such as Obamacare are rammed down the throats of more than half the population who hate it, problems ensue. Scott Brown’s election, hostile town hall meetings, poll after poll showing more than 60% against it; nothing persuaded them; Dems rammed it through regardless of what voters told them, & then paid the price w/the largest midterm defeat of any party in more than 90 yrs in 2010. SS & Medicare filled a real need for Americans, the desire to retire without burdening children, but Americans don’t want to reform healthcare by surrendering control of medical decisions to bureaucrats, which is Obamacare will do.
brian condon August 17, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Lenny I was referring to the statements made by house speaker John Mc Cormick restating his view of the role of govt in the context of the 1849 famine. The Dixiecrats of 1948 clearly were walking away from the democratic leadership that consisted of a Northern urban power base. I could never be comfortable with the Dixiecrat contingent. That was not my democratic party every one of all stripes bears the blame for the Jim Crow compromises of the late 19th century that Dr King battled. Thanks for your well researched comments. You remain a worthy voice for the opposition. Have a good weekend my friend
Lenny August 18, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Nobody could ever knock you for a lack of wit and generosity of good will Brian.
Tricia August 19, 2012 at 02:05 AM
Notvoter, My advice to you is not to feel like you are required to have in-depth knowledge on all the issues to cast a vote in our upcoming election. Basically, we live in a two-party political system and you should decide if your values are aligned with democrats or republicans. In a nutshell, democrats believe the government should have a role in helping its' citizens live healthy productive lives. Republicans, on the other hand, mistakenly proclaim the private sector will take care of everything. Crazily, Ryan's budget would raise taxes on the middle class while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest. Some good entertaining and factual sources I recommend you check out to help you decide where you stand are The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Rolling Stone Magazine, all Michael Moore documentaries, and The Boston Globe. I hope you join the Democratic Party!!!
Lenny August 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Tricia, Sounds to me lik Nonvoter already has a good handle on the differences between Republicans and Democrats. "Republicans are much more intelligent and operate with facts (at least it seems like it) while democrats mostly insult opponents". We don't gather our "facts" from comedy shows, disingenuous film makers, and drugs and rock and roll magazines. History, science end economic books are where conservatives draw our conclusions. For you liberals, I would suggest the US Constitution would be a good start. I wish someone could put that document on the President's TelePrompter.
brian condon August 19, 2012 at 07:13 PM
FYI the New York Times columnist, Gail Sheehy had some good things to say about Romney and Ryan. She referred to the pair as "Sincere Hypocrites". pretty positive statement for The Times.
Lenny August 19, 2012 at 08:39 PM
I agree Brian, it's certainly progress. Last week Romney killed some steel workers wife and last year Ryan pushed an elderly woman over a cliff in her wheelchair. I guess your side is proving they really are "progressives". Now if we could get them to stop being race batters, y'all.
Lenny August 19, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Speaking of "progressives".........I have that kind of eye glasses that so far I haven't gotten used to. My typos are shocking. I meant of course to say "race baiters" in my previous post.
Tricia August 21, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Lenny, Why don't you look up the multiplier effect in your economics book. When Romney/Ryan give themselves and their millionaire/billionaire friends their huge tax breaks and then slide those funds over to their swiss bank accounts (well, Romney's is in the Cayman Islands) the economy will SHRINK. Republican fiscal policies are disastrous for our economy. I think Obama is doing an outstanding job getting this message out; how republicans got us into this mess in the first place!!!
Lenny August 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Tricia, you are referring to the multiplier effect in economics? Because the multiplier effect is what happens when capital is left in the private sector, not surrendered to the government where even if the government were not corrupt and incompetent (which it is) there is still a loss because of the cost of administration of the collection and dispersal. It makes you folks feel good to convince yourself that rich people squirrel all their money away in overseas bank accounts, but rich people don't become rich by leaving cash in a bank. Rich people like Romney are rich because they took risk and invested in the market. There is roughly 2 trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines that are not entering the market because of the anti market policies of the Obama administration. When Romney is elected, God wiling, you will see just how well the multiplier effect works when that money is spent in the market and not taken by the government to fund trains to nowhere, non profitable solar panels, or overpriced electric cars.
brian condon August 21, 2012 at 01:44 PM
Lenny Your optometrist must be a Democrat. Those progressive glasses can be a problem when you a coming down a flight of stairs....you may hit bottom long before you planned to do so. May be a plot to sideline you. Reference the multiplier effect. Every administration that has pushed for a tax cut , has relied upon that economic principle as a positive justification. A tax cut of one dollar improves the GDP by multiples of three or more. That was argued by Ford, regan, bush and bush. It is still taught as a real economic factor in graduate economics. Hope you are well....watch out for those glasses on curb stones as well!
Lenny August 21, 2012 at 02:18 PM
I think sometimes people confuse a tax cut with a lack of fairness. You may recall the famous Democratic debate in early 2008 when Charlie Gibson from ABC asked then candidate Obama if he would favor an increase in the capital gains tax despite the overwhelming evidenced that it actually 'reduced " revenue to the gov. Obama said he did because it was fairer. Gibson pressed him, and to Obama's credit, he persisted in his view that even though a tax increase resulted in a loss of revenue to the government, it was still fairer. So Obama and most people on the left understand the mulitiplier effect, but they can't square it with their sense of right and wrong and what is fair or unfair. My view has always been based on the answer to a simple question. Ask a person what they would do if they won a million dollars. My answer would be I'd pay off my mortgage and bank the rest in a safe CD or something of that nature. I am risk adverse and I would not invest the million in a new business. But the Romneys of this would would invest it and therefore risk it. If that same person lost it all in the investment, the most they can write off under current tax code is 3K. Buf if they profit, they are taxed at 15%. I think it is fair to reward people for taking risk and possibly creating a few jobs, especially because someone like me won't do so. So if my taxable percentage is larger than the risk taker, then I'm comfortable with that, and if not I can put my money at risk too.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »