Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Will the selection of Paul Ryan as VP nominee help or hurt Mitt Romney?

By Howard B. Owens
Dave Olsen

In my humble opinion, partisan Republicans were never going to not vote for Romney, even if they didn't like him or his positions, they still think that the lesser of 2 evils is good (stupid) and i don't think Paul Ryan brings in any new support necessarily. This election is about Barack Obama and whether he deserves 4 more years or not.

Sigh.......someday we'll get real choices I hope..........

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498]

Aug 13, 2012, 9:40am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Ryan is precisely what Romney needs to pull in disenfranchised conservatives. Ryan will make Biden look like more bush league than he does on his own already and is the best choice to articulate the realities of both Obamacare and Democratic spending trickery. He is an absolute slam dunk. I do feel sorry for his wife and two innocent young boys as they will now be subject to some of the most vile attacks a Midwestern American family has seen.

Aug 13, 2012, 10:07am Permalink
Rex Lampke

Here come the Granny in a wheelchair being pushed off a clift adds when the Ryan budget doesn't even affect anyone over 55. The Truth is that with the population growing older Medicare will run out of money by 2017 So without changes Obama Will throw the whole lot of us off the clift at once!

Aug 13, 2012, 11:01am Permalink
Tim Miller

"the realities of both Obamacare and Democratic spending trickery"....

Oh, thank you very much for the Monday Morning Chuckle!

Obamacare = Romneycare, just for the whole country. So how can you berate President Obama's passing of the same law that Romney passed without berating Romney?

"Democratic spending trickery"? How about starting two wars (one justified, the other to prove W's pecker was bigger than his daddy's) and financing them OFF THE BOOKS.

Go ahead and reply - the Monday Afternoon Laugh will be a good one.

Aug 13, 2012, 11:22am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Dave maybe we can write in someone.....Lets see....How about Dan Ackroyd for President, he couldnt do any worse and might be a bit more entertaining. Maybe he would do a state of the union adress is shades and a black suit w a harmonica?

Aug 13, 2012, 11:24am Permalink
Tim Miller

Concerning whether Ryan will be good for Romney's candidacy - I had to select "neither help nor hurt", but would have preferred the option of "both help and hurt."

Ryan's lack of heart and fiscal buffoonery will stiffen opposition to Romney from the left, yet the same features will endear him to the right (if it would not, how else did Romney become the presumptive nominee, or Newt have been a front-runner at one time, or Cain have been a front-runner at one time, or Bachmann have been a front-runner at one time...)

Aug 13, 2012, 11:27am Permalink
Dave Olsen

The problem is that Obama, Romney, Ryan and Biden all want to argue about how to treat symptoms instead of trying to eradicate the disease. The disease is out of control, big government that overspends on a regular basis. The Ryan budget wants to chop up medicare and social security while increasing defense spending, and foreign aid. Obama and Biden want to raise taxes and cut nothing. All seem to think we should continue meddling in other countries affairs and spending gad-zillions of dollars on wars and other things that are none of our business. None of them talk about reducing government across the board, reducing the power of the executive or cutting the budgets of senators and congressmen. None of them want to discuss the fact that had the money taken from people's paychecks stayed in the social security and medicare trust funds; instead of sweeping any surplus into the general fund year after year after year, it wouldn't be a problem They need to cut back on foreign involvements and replace the stolen money into those trusts. But NOOOOO, They just want to quibble about details.

4 suckholes. I don't know who I'm voting for at this point, but it won't be any of them.

Aug 13, 2012, 11:31am Permalink
bud prevost

I think Dan Aykroyd would be a fine choice, except he's Canadian, thus making him ineligible to serve that office.

Edit: Here is why he can't,
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. "

Aug 13, 2012, 1:36pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Aykroyd was born in Canada; he is a naturalized citizen of the U.S., married to American actress, Donna Dixon. His interest in UFOs and Spiritualism would definitely merge well with Romney's campaign.

Aug 13, 2012, 1:16pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

Just a guess here, Paul Ryan and his grand scheme to turn Medicare in to a voucher program that leaves the elderly at the mercy of insurance companies will do the same for Romney as it did for Jane whats-her-name that lost to Kathy Hochul last year and will sink Chris Collins this year....So you bet I think it's a good choice Willard....

Aug 13, 2012, 1:57pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Tim, I'll let Paul Ryan himself answer you.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk

Putting aside all the silly baseless talking points about Paul Ryan's budget and healthcare ideas, the loud noise heard the day the announcement was made was a collective slamming shut of sphincters in the White House. You libs can continue down the path of false narratives and vile rhetoric, but the game has changed and the economy and Obamacare will now have to be reckoned with by the White House.

Aug 13, 2012, 3:14pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

"Concerning whether Ryan will be good for Romney's candidacy - I had to select "neither help nor hurt", but would have preferred the option of "both help and hurt."

Ryan's lack of heart and fiscal buffoonery will stiffen opposition to Romney from the left, yet the same features will endear him to the right (if it would not, how else did Romney become the presumptive nominee, or Newt have been a front-runner at one time, or Cain have been a front-runner at one time, or Bachmann have been a front-runner at one time...)"

Thanks for the chuckle Tim,

1) Paul Ryan has won with an average of 63% of the vote in a district with a 2 to 1 Democrat vs Republican registration, not once, not twice but 7 times, If he had stayed in the congressional race, he is favored in that district by 64%

2) Paul Ryan is anything but one for baffoonery, he may in fact be the Last Boy Scout on Capital hill.

3) If you follow the Democrat spin about his budget proposal (Current, not 2010 or 2011's) it is pretty obvious that those who criticize it haven't read it.

The fact is Paul Ryan is one of a small handful of members of congress that is being very honest about our fiscal shape from both sides of the ailse, there are afew Repubs and Dems that still actually speak what they see rather than what p[eople from either party want to hear.

Finally, Paul Ryan did in fact propose a budget, whether you agree with it or not, it is 1030 days more budget proposal than any Democrat has brought to the floor. Part of the mess in DC now is that we keep doing Omnibus Bills through the senate instead of an actual budget. I will also remind everyone, back during the Health care debate, when the President called both sides to the White house, it was Paul Ryan that took the numbers to task with facts.

"Ryan's lack of heart and fiscal buffoonery " NO ONE forom either side of the aisle in DC would make a statement like that about Paul Ryan, he is one of the most respected member of congress from both sides. Just watch the attacks, they won't go after him on ethics, intelligence or try to slime ball him like they do others, they will go after him on his fiscal philosophy, mostly with spin, but this time Mr. Ryan will be more in the spot light and Dems in general may thinking becareful what you wish for, Paul Ryan is one of the most articulate people up there especially on fiscal matters. This time when Granny gets thjrown off the cliff, she may climb up and realize that it was Obama care that stripped medicare of $750 Billion not Paul Ryan. Let's not forget he was on the Boles Simpson panel and much of what he proposed (Not all) is similar to their final reccomendation.

As to the poll, it will both Help and hurt, Ryan will pull some of the more fiscally conscience independents, but there is a risk of ginning up the ultra liberal GOP wants to kill Granny morons from the left. Very Gutsy move by Romney

All in all, this was a gutsy move by Romney, and no one will know if it worked until the fall.

Aug 13, 2012, 4:26pm Permalink
John Roach

If you don't like the Ryan budget, OK, then show us the Democrat budget. Oh, that's right, there isn't one, and hasn't been one for almost 4 years.

Aug 13, 2012, 5:07pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Mark, I agree in wishing Ryan were at the top of the ticket. I was very disappointed when he opted not to run. I have read a lot of his speeches and articles, they are completely devoid of Washington "politispeak". He is definitely a voice of clarity, and common sense and yet he he has the knowledge and confidence to go up against anyone when debating policy, ideas, and direction. Make no mistake, there is real fear on the left now that he is on the ticket. They are going to somehow have to vilify him personally, or run his wife and two little boys through the media wringer.

Aug 13, 2012, 5:21pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

hmmm

http://youtu.be/qEsi6ocRb2U

Clinton, "I am glad that we won this race in NY, but I hope that the Democrats don't use it as an excuse to do nothing on medicare,"

Ryan, "It's going to be paralysis,we knew we were putting ourselves out there but we have to, we have to get moving."

Clinton, "Well if you want to talk about it give me a call"

Ryan, "Yeah, I will, I will give you a call"

Note: Ryan not only consulted Bill Clinton on medicare, but also the Very liberal Democrat and life long advocate for the aging, Senator Ron Widen of Oregon

Aug 13, 2012, 5:56pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Mark,

Ryan voted for the HR 1540 -- the NDAA -- or National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the greatest rollback of civil liberties in American history, inspiring a "pull Ryan" anti-Paul Ryan site to implore him to oppose it as well as SOPA.

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties -Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005) -Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) -Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006). Voted NO against the DADT Repeal. Voted YES for H J Res 88 - Same-Sex Marriage Resolution (which prohibits anything but a man and a woman)

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli -Voted YES on TARP (2008) -Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008) -Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008) -Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Yeah...he's the real deal. He is interested in expanding the government, while limiting personal liberties. Sounds like a typical conservative republican to me.

Aug 13, 2012, 6:43pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

I read that thing last year, mark. I'm not interested in doing it again. But as I recall, the high points for me were:
It takes 30 years to balance
requires the debt ceiling to be raised and adds trillions of dollars in debt
increases defense spending
doesn't actually reduce spending
does nothing to reduce foreign aid

Non-starter, partisan hooey

Aug 13, 2012, 6:46pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Hopefully Dave. However, until we get a government that, "Serves the PEOPLE, rather than themselves." It will never happen. We need to get rid of the Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Independents, Socialists, Tea Party, etc.......... All these political parties have ever done is fight like school children. Campaigning is no longer about the issues at hand but, what the other nominee has done wrong. It is basically a bitch session between parties with no solutions involved. It would be absolutely awesome to elect a President who actually cares about the "PEOPLE of the United States of America!" and not their own personal agenda!

Aug 13, 2012, 7:09pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

To Dave and Phil

1. Ron Paul is not running, period, while there is alot of Ron Paul I like, He like Ryan, Like all of them are not 100% correct, no politician is.

2. Johnson has not a prayer in hell of winning even one electoral vote in the next election, therefore a vote for him is just another vote for Obama

3. Not voting at all, is again a vote for Obama, who I am 97% percent against, therfore not an option

I appreciate your love for purist libertarianism, I respect that, respect the fact however that the vast majority does not. Fortunately, we are a right center country. Myself, I have some liberatarian views, but I am by no means near a liberatarian purist (No Dave I am not trying to give you a monacher, I remember your aversion to labels)

Whether you guys are willing to accept it or not, the only true choice in November is either Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan and as much as I hate lesser of two evil approaches toward government, many times that is all that we have.

Phil Although I wouldn't agree with Ryan's votes on most of the biills that you mentioned, I agree with him on a vast majority of the other bills he voted for and against, Had we any politician that voted 100% of what we want, we would have Utopia and millions of mindless squirrels around the nation.

I can not at this point see myself voting any other way but Romney/Ryan, and I personally do not see that as a lesser of two evil approach. There is nothing that I can see causing me to vote for Obama, and I see a vote for anyone else just a quasi Obama vote

Aug 13, 2012, 8:00pm Permalink
John Roach

Howard,
Mark is right. You can vote for a third party candidate as a protest, but we all know this is a two person race. You can stay the course we are on now, or give the other side a chance.

A third party might get off the ground someday, but the right leader for it has not come forward yet. And bitch as they do, most people are still comfortable with the two party system.

Aug 13, 2012, 8:15pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

It is really not Baffling Howard, of course there were and are concerns about those votes by Ryan and many other politians.

Theoretically it would in fact be troublesome, but on balance, recognizing that we are stuck in a two party system for better or worse, what is the alternative.

To vote for those who would place much more affringements on libertioes via a perceived notion of social fairness or to vote for a purist who stands absolutely no chance of winning and therefore handing the Presidency back in a defacto vote?

What Baffles me is that as I read post, the singularity of reasoning by some becomes evident.

Aug 13, 2012, 8:22pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Mark,

I am tired of repeating the same cycle, apparently you're not, and that's fine, but please don't complain when the same stuff is happening under a President Romney.

Just mindless.

Again, what do you stand with him on?

Aug 13, 2012, 8:24pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Phil, the reality is that that syncism is exactly why the cycle perpetuates.

I am tired of the same cycle over and over, but casting a vote that would ensure more of the current adminstration is imho would be far worse.

In this case, I see the best chance of walking back a growing government in Romney/Ryan. If they fail me, I will seek another path in the future, but the likelihood that anyone would would satisfy 100% of what I believe is slim to none, and I am no different than anyone else in that regard. I do know that the current adminstration doesn't even get to 50% for me, so I will do nothing that would support them either directly or by default.

Aug 13, 2012, 8:34pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

My cynicism? Are you serious? So I'm just suppose to eat my soup like a good little boy and vote for who they tell me because the powers that be say so?

Wow. No thanks. When Romney turns out to be exactly what everyone knows him to be, will you be mad?

Aug 13, 2012, 8:40pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Of those that you mentioned Phil, I was not against the $15B GM Chrysler (Bail Out) in 2008 because it was in form of government backed loans NOT dictating how the business was structured as it was in the 2009 Bail Out which I thought was over reaching.

And the wireless survielance, was much misrepresented as the basis for it had specific terrorism related prequalifiers that are rarely discussed.

Aug 13, 2012, 8:45pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

There was an accidental additional that in there that skewed what I meant, I apologize (Multi-tasking)

I meant cynisim in general

Aug 13, 2012, 8:52pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Uh, Ron Paul IS still running. He may not have any chance at the Republican nomination, the deck was stacked, but he has not conceded. If Romney truly wants to do what is best for the Country, he could adopt Paul's budget plan. He won't, we all know that. So therefor, he will continue the big government, imperialist, corporate, crony capitalism that we have. You can settle for teeny, tiny changes that really won't change anything if you want. But, we get the government and Presidents we deserve.

Aug 13, 2012, 9:07pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The reason we are stuck with nothing but lesser than two evils choices is because of the defeatest attitude that says "well, guess I gotta vote for the lesser of two evils because XYZ can't possibly win."

The reason Paul Ryan can get away with being a statist is because too many liberty loving people say, "well, he's the lesser of two evils." There's no consequence for him supporting the Patriot Act, TARP, bailouts, wars, and more and more spending while proposing merely cosmetic changes to the current budgetary process because too many people say, "well, there's no other real choice."

That very attitude not only beats back third party candidates, but prevents of worthy potential candidates who don't play the political games from coming forward.

Evil is evil. To vote for evil is evil. There is no such thing as a lesser evil.

There is no way in hell I will vote for either Romney or Obama. If either wins, the country continues its slide toward eventual dissolution or dictatorship. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, there is not a whit of difference between either. There will not be one change of policy in the next four years that will do one thing to improve the country; that will help or harm the country any less or any more from either one being in the Oval Office. They are both statists who see no problem with continuing the federal reserve as we know it, embarking on expensive and unnecessary wars, continuing the expensive and needless war on drugs, expanding and promoting domestic surveillance, spending far more than is taken in, keeping the federal bureaucracy in tact, continuing to let China screw over American workers and encroaching on personal liberties.

Voting for either would be like buying booze for the town drunk. It's called enabling, and I won't do it. If that means Obama wins, while, I won't have any more sleepless nights than I have now. I'm 100 percent sure the country will not be any worse off with Obama in Washington than Romney.

Aug 13, 2012, 9:12pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Once Romney got to 1100 delegates the race was over, he will be nominated on the first ballet ergo, Ron Paul is no longer running conceded or not, he has received no scheduled speech time on the floor as yet,

Sorry Dave, he is no longer in the race

Aug 13, 2012, 9:22pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It doesn't really matter if Ron Paul is running or not. The point is/was, he has real policy and budgetary positions that present a clear alternative to Obama. Romney and Paul Ryan do not. (there is a cliche phrase that fits the Ryan budget plan: shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic)

Aug 13, 2012, 9:20pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

The problem with any budget in washington is that it really doesn't matter what a president proposes for a budget. In order to pass into law, every budget will be hacked apart and there will be comprimises.

The current budgetless government is only because the Senate leader will not allow a budget vote.

If you want to effect change, you first have to change in the house of representatives, that gives a base for a third party president to work with. Without that, the parties are simply too powerful. So in essence, you need to elect independants or a third party congress, to try to do that in the Senate would be mopre difficult, for the presidency near impossible without a house molded away from the parties.

With regard to Ron Paul's budget, if he became President, it is doubtful that his budget would gain votes for most GOP and definately few if any democrats, therefore, a meaningless excercise and he would be relegated to veto only which likely would be overturned.

That is just the political reality.

Without independents holding a majority of the house, the party system as it is will never change

Aug 13, 2012, 9:32pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

With regard to Ron Paul's budget, if he became President, it is doubtful that his budget would gain votes for most GOP and definately few if any democrats, therefore, a meaningless excercise and he would be relegated to veto only which likely would be overturned."

Then that would expose them for who they really are, and maybe cause some to be ousted by independents. "Each and every journey begins with a single step"
Hardly meaningless.

"Without independents holding a majority of the house, the party system as it is will never change"

Aug 13, 2012, 9:40pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

The 'Single Step' you suggest might expose them to other liberatarians, but hardly to the masses.

Obama's budget has been shelved every year since he has been in office, by both GOP and his fellow Democrats, all that has done is added to the narrative that he is ineffective.

Unfortunately Dave, Ron Paul would get the blame as well if it were him.

And Mitt Romney will get the balame if he is elected and the same happens to him.

Steps, begin in regional representation,. i.e. The house of representatives... you want change start there, it is the only way it will happen.. The parties are just too powerful at this point. It has to begin grass roots on the regional level or it just won't work

Go to Phelps NY for an example, there are Ron Paul signes almost every 30' right now, Turn that energy toward electing an independant or liberatarian for congress, and things may change.

Aug 13, 2012, 10:06pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Goldwater got the GOP presidential nomination in 1964, radically transforming the party and leading to the Reagan presidency.

There is some precedent for change at the top leading to major reform within the party.

Ideally, yes, some grass roots movement would sweep the nation and we would rediscover our roots of liberty and prosperity.

But voting for either Romney or Obama won't do anything to advance that cause, and could greatly hamper it by leading to more disgust and disenchantment with the system.

I'm not necessarily sold on Gary Johnson, but Johnson getting just about any count of Electoral College votes could have a huge impact on the next wave of politics in this nation. It could be a possible Goldwater sort of moment, but hopefully one that actually advances the cause of liberty rather than just paying it lip service.

Aug 13, 2012, 11:05pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Howard as always you make some good points, I do not agree with you this time around on this election, but that is what makes this country and this sight so great, the fact that we can.

I dissagree with you on there would be no diffference long term Romney vs Long Term Obama but that would probably take 100 or so more post.

Aug 13, 2012, 11:18pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

I'm sick of hearing how third party votes are wasted. Voting for a Democrat or Republican and conceding that the choice was for the least offensive of the two is the real wasted vote! The ONLY solution to the gridlock, non-responsive whorehouse government we HAVE is to stop voting for the two parties that share ownership of the only game in town. Don't run off at the mouth about change and then endorse status quo at the polling place.

Aug 14, 2012, 3:11am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Dave [After the story was picked up by the media on Monday, the Romney campaign moved to deny it. Talking Points Memo quoted Larry Gaffney, an independent accountant for the partnership that handled the trades questioned by commentators, said the shares were not controlled by Ryan.

"Trades are done automatically based on an algorithm on a regular basis," said Gaffney, in a statement to TPM that was provided by the Romney campaign. "In addition, this index was held at the time within a partnership in which Rep. Ryan had and continues to have no trading authority."]

I didn't like this line of attack on Nancy Pelosi [Even though I want her gone] and they usually hold no merit going the other way either.

Most members of congress have their accounts in in either Blind Trust or mangaged groups were they have no trading authority.

This is what is wrong with politics, partial truths that 99% of the time lack merit get picked up by a quick to react rag like the Guardian and the headline hides the facts.

A great diversion from true issues, just embelish on transaction and make something up and away we go. Just yesterday our President in Iowa said "The Reoublicans like Ryan are holding up the farm bill that has provisions fpor drought relief" The fact is the GOP controlled house passed the bill 3 weeks ago and it is being held up in the Democrat Controlled Senate, the reason why ... The Senate is oin summer break.

My point is , go past the headline and this story is tilting at windmills

Aug 14, 2012, 2:21pm Permalink
Tim Miller

RE: Ryan trades.... I loved the story - "evidence" that he was pure, unadulterated scum. Then, as Mark pointed out, it just wasn't the way it happened. From what I read, the meeting Ryan attended was after trading closed for the day - the trades happened prior to the meeting. That particular piece of evidence was not correct.

Aug 16, 2012, 9:51am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Fellas, I read any article I put up a link to, before I do it. I don't for one second believe that although politicians' money is in a so-called "blind trust" that they don't have an avenue to make their wishes known or to pass information. Ryan should just admit it, it wasn't illegal at the time. He was looking out for himself not the other investors in those banks. It wouldn't have been prudent to make that info public. Any good Republican would understand.

Aug 16, 2012, 11:05am Permalink

Authentically Local