Posted on 07/31/2013 12:30:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think he’s going to end up not running, but if his favorables stay this high, maybe he has no choice.
He’s technically “next in line” and he’d make a decent compromise candidate (as would fellow Wisconsinite Scott Walker) for righties who are leery of Christie, Paul, and Rubio for various reasons. Second look at Paul Ryan?
Are Ryan’s numbers really that surprising? He’s been overlooked on blogs lately because we’ve all been busy shaking our fists at Rubio over immigration and gawking at the Rand Paul/Chris Christie brawl, but thanks to 2012, Ryan’s name recognition is sky high. He’s a warrior on the budget but soft-spoken enough not to spook moderates. Grassroots righties are newly steamed at him because he seems to be slipping into the Rubio role in the House of pushing conservatives towards a deal on amnesty, but nothing’s happened yet and he’s smart enough to keep a much lower profile on the issue than Rubio did. Most low-information voters on our side probably know him as that nice young guy from the midwest who’s deeply concerned that our spending is unsustainable. Why wouldn’t he be at 65 percent favorables? And why wouldn’t he have better numbers with tea partiers than with centrists? His core issue is reforming the welfare state. Centrists resist that, partly because they’re more comfortable with bigger government and partly because they’re probably more sensitive on balance to “electability” concerns. Conservatives might be willing to risk a ferocious political backlash in the name of fixing entitlements. I doubt many centrists are.
The real surprise is Rand Paul’s numbers. His favorables among tea partiers are now 11 points better than Rubio’s, thanks in part to immigration, of course. But his numbers among non-tea-partiers are comparable to centrist hero Chris Christie’s and amnesty champion Marco Rubio’s. Maybe that’ll change in the primaries as his philosophy is scrutinized more closely; if centrists think Paul Ryan is too much of a threat to the welfare state, wait ’til they get a load of the great libertarian hope. Christie’s unfavorables among non-TPers are also a mild surprise. I wonder if that’s more a reaction to his policies or to fatigue with his tough-guy shtick. Either way, maybe he’s more vulnerable than we thought.
One more graph:
For all the babbling about party divisions lately vis-a-vis defunding ObamaCare, there’s only minor division on immigration. Pluralities on both the right and in the center think the GOP should be more conservative about the border. Tell me something, though: What would it mean for the party to be “more conservative” on gay marriage at this point? Despite a heavy tide nationally and in government in favor of legalizing SSM, only a handful of congressional Republicans have come out in support of it. House Republicans sued to enforce DOMA because Obama’s DOJ refused to. Rubio declared that benefits for gay spouses under the Gang of Eight bill would have been a dealbreaker for him. What should the party be doing to please social conservatives that it isn’t? Forget about the Federal Marriage Amendment. That’s nothing but a rhetorical device at this point; it’ll never pass.
I’m loath to close with something from Think Progress but if their transcript of this Paul Ryan townhall vid is accurate, it’s news. Here he is on immigration reform:
RYAN: [...] Bringing these bills to the floor, we’ll find out. It is not, “they don’t come to the floor unless we have a majority of the majority,” because we don’t know if we have a majority until we vote on it. So here’s where I see things going. I’ve spoken to John Boehner as recently as three days ago about this, which is, we all agree it is better to legislate in stages instead of one big thousand plus page bill that no one has read. [...] I’m trying to get to a consensus so a majority of us do support those component parts. I believe that’s achievable because when people really look at the details and they focus on what’s right, I believe what I’ve just laid out is something that a consensus of Republicans and Democrats can agree to.
Is that quote accurate? The audio makes it hard to tell. The whole point of the Hastert Rule is not to bring bills to the floor until the Speaker knows that a majority of his caucus supports them. Doing it the way Ryan describes (or seems to describe) would mean abandoning the Hastert Rule; you bring the bill to the floor, kinda sorta hoping/expecting that a majority of GOPers will vote for it, and if it turns out that only a few dozen do — plus 200 Democrats, such that the bill passes — then whoopsie! Guess they miscalculated. Is that what he’s saying or did TP misunderstand?
Twelve months ago, there wasn’t a bigger fan of Paul Ryan than me. Of all the potential 2012 candidates, he would have been my first pick. While I’ve always thought he did very well in interviews, I am not sure I like his campaign style. It just wasn’t natural. Since November, he’s pretty much been lockstep with the failed House leadership on everything, and it sounds like he’s horrible on immigration. He’s not as bad as Rubio (yet) on the issue, but he’s pretty close. He’s also become invisible on other big issue, and seems to be evolving into a Washington animal.
Over the years, I have not cared for the good Dr. Paul because he is basically a blow-hard, money-grubbing hypocrite with some really stupid ideas. His actions present him as either a person with extreme cognitive dissonance, or an actual agent provocateur. Either way, he has made a good career out of playing the crazy uncle. Other than that, he occasionally speaks rationally on limited topics.
His son, Rand, seems to be cut largely out of the same mold, albeit more from the right side. However, he is better-spoken and seems to be able to at least distance himself from some of the craziness without losing the appeal of the underdog. I really don’t say this to disparage him, just to be honest.
His Libertarian bona fides will certainly grab all of (big and little l) libertarians in the party, and some of his ideas will appeal to the conservatives, so he may be able to gain a majority support. However, he will never be able to gain even 1% of the GOP-e and that is 95% of the money and power.
The only way for him to succeed would be to lead a revolution, and I am not sure he can build a coalition to wrest the party back to the people. I, for one, would support Paul because of his outside-the-beltway mentality, and I believe that the worst he could do would be far less than the best that the Democrats or GOP have done in the past 20 years.
Extreme times call for extreme measures and the time for restoration or, depending on your point-of-view, radical change, is now, before world events coalesce into war. Those arguing the finer points of debate, doctrine and policy will not have to worry when the concerns of life are reduced to bread and bullets.
I agree completely with the idea of dividing the immigration issue into parts and addressing them separately. Enough of the 1000+ page bills. I also think that addressing the issues separately is the way to make progress on the illegal immigration mess.
So, what should be the separate issues, and what order should they be undertaken?
I’d argue that #1 has to be border security, because without that nothing else matters. You can set all the requirements for amnesty, green cards, and citizenship that you want, but if people can still live arrive here and remain here illegally without much risk of reprisal, nothing has changed from what we now have.
Next, I’d argue that the conditions for legal residency (not citizenship, residency) should be determined in a separate bill. For example, you hold a job, are not on welfare, have been in country for a certain period of time, and have not been convicted of a crime. (Add any conditions you like; Congress will.) Under those conditions you get a green card entitling you to remain a resident. Violate certain conditions later (felony, applying for welfare, etc.) and you lose your green card.
Some people just want to live here, and have for years, possibly are even retired by now. Under certain conditions they should be granted permanent residency status (again, not citizenship, so they can’t vote.)
The next topic I’d take up would be healthcare and education, together. If a family is here legally, with a green card, and paying taxes, they should have access to education for themselves and their kids. They should also be free to purchase health insurance, or to be on an employer’s plan. Think of them as having moved from another state, rather than another country. You move to CA from Indiana, CA will educate your kids and you can get health insurance in CA. However, one requirement should be the purchase of some form of health insurance as a condition of getting a green card. No more relying upon the emergency rooms instead. No health insurance; no green card.
Note that, so far, amnesty hasn’t been addressed. That’s important. First, secure the border by law. Possibly implement a waiting period, or some sort of triggering condition before any of the other laws are either passed or become effective. Second, describe the conditions under which an alien can be here legally, and can secure access to education and healthcare. Never make them eligible for welfare or disability. They are, after all, not U.S. citizens.
Next, tackle citizenship. Just describe the process whereby an alien can attain citizenship if they entered the country illegally. Maybe they have to go to the back of the line. Maybe they can’t ever get it. Just sort it out and put it into law.
And finally, tackle amnesty. First get everything else in place. Wait until the border security program meets the standards set in the first bill. Have all the other laws in place. Then grant amnesty to everyone who comes out of the shadows. If they don’t qualify for egal residency status, send them home. If they file for welfare, food stamps, etc., send them home. If they commit a felony (including attempting to vote illegally) send them home. If they enter illegally after that, put them in Joe’s jail in AZ for a year and then send them home.
The point is to get everything in place before addressing the amnesty issue, and then grant amnesty to everyone who comes out of the shadows. They might come out, and then be sent directly home because they don’t qualify for a green card, but they would not be subject to jail time. Anyone who fails to come out under the amnesty, if found later, will spend a year in Joe’s jail before being sent home.
Taking up each of these issues separately, in roughly the order above, allows each issue to be debated on its own. Take the eligibility for green cards, for example. One provision, intended to stop thousands from flooding across the border as the bill is being proposed, could state that anyone without U.S. employment prior to, say, January of 2012 is not eligible for a green card and will automatically be sent home when they come out under the amnesty. Their choice is to risk a year in Joe’s jail if they stay, or to just come out and go home. This approach allows legislators to consider various circumstances and to tailor appropriate responses for each.
I know, “Just send them all home,” is the preferred approach for a lot of you, but it’s not going to happen. Personally, I think Ryan’s approach is a good one. Furthermore, because it can be done fairly, it is not likely to alienate a lot of Hispanics, even if it sets up a long and difficult path to citizenship.
what a stupid headlne
“retarted sir”
I met him along with Romney at the VP announcement rally in Norfolk last year... I too thought he was the real deal. I've since become rather jaded about them all... every single one of them seems to have that price at which they'll turn on any issue position.
As with identity theft and other things, do AMERICAN CITIZENS also get amnesty for the same crimes??
Yet another in an expanding line of GOP versions of Michael Dukakis. Just a placeholder to manage the defeat.
Paul Ryan is an open borders stooge ..he can rot for all I care
Paul is also for amnesty.
Oh Yea!!! That’s what we need ...a candidate that can’t stay on the same stage with Joe Biden!!!!
Maybe they thought it read “Proscription.”
I like Ryan but he needs more fire in the belly. He had glimpses of brilliance on the trail but needs more of them.
And what’s with the water? Between him and Rubio ...they need a set manager to keep them from looking odd.
He is in favor of homosexuals adopting children.
Governors make the best Presidents, not someone going straight from the House or the Senate....
The Tea party would be the only hope by taking over the Senate and holding the house.
but then we would have RINO leaders sequestering the newly elected and cornering them
into going along "again", or being ignored and making them lame duck "AGAIN".
Boehner needs to be kicked so hard out of the House leadership that he'll
limp the rest of his pathetic drunk useless life.
The loser candidates they pick every election cycle are just go-along-to-get-along RINO types who won't rock the boat. The monied interests that control the GOP establishment believe that they can get by with just enough foolish Republican voters to allow them to thumb their noses at any and all conservative dissidents.
Considering the average low-information Republican voter, they're probably right.
If it’s Ryan I’m staying home. Been there done that.
NO RETREADS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.