Posted on 04/03/2012 5:12:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If he's desperate enough to be babbling about “social Darwinism” in early April, what’s he going to say come October if he's two or three points down to Romney? Do we actually have to start a Godwin watch for this campaign?
Remember, this is the guy who spent his last presidential run tut-tutting Republicans about the "politics of fear" while promising a hopeful new age of high unemployment and crushing deficits.
Following another disappointing partisan speech by President Barack Obama, in which he tried to substitute tired political attacks for the principled leadership he refuses to offer, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued the following statement:
“History will not be kind to a President who, when it came time to confront our generation’s defining challenge, chose to duck and run. The President refuses to take responsibility for the economy and refuses to offer a credible plan to address the most predictable economic crisis in our history. Instead, he has chosen tired and cynical political attacks as he focuses on his own re-election.
“The President has offered four budgets during his four years in the White House – each committed to funding ever-higher government spending by taking more from hardworking Americans and adding to a crushing burden of debt. His failed agenda is stifling opportunity and hope for the next generation.
“Like his reckless budgets, today’s speech by President Obama is as revealing as it is disappointing: While others lead by offering real solutions, he has chosen to distort the truth and divide Americans in order to distract from his failed record. His empty promises are quickly becoming broken promises – and the American people will hold him accountable for this violation of their trust.”
That last bit seems like wishful thinking. It’s as least as likely that Americans will hold Ryan, and by extension Romney, accountable for interrupting the sweet dream of Medicare existing forever and ever in its current form even as its costs supernova. If you want true social Darwinism on entitlements, you’ve got an easy path: Do nothing and wait. Or, if you’re dead set against Ryan’s idea, at least be honest about your own solution:
Over the course of attacking Rep. Paul Ryan’s vision for America’s future on Tuesday, President Obama argued that Republican spending cuts represented “pulling up … ladders for the next generation” after previous generations had benefited from government investments. But in reality, reckless and overly generous spending by older generations has placed a massive debt burden on America’s youth. Far from pulling up the ladders, putting our nation on a sustainable fiscal course would be taking a massive weight of the shoulders from younger Americans, enabling them to climb much more easily…
It’s one thing if Obama wants to argue to Americans that they should accept massive, across the board, tax increases to preserve his vision for government. But instead, he’d prefer not to offer solutions so he can have a free hand to attack Republicans in an election year. As Obama’s Treasury Secretary told Ryan in February: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”
Right, but of course this is why O and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the rest of the gang spend so much time publicly hyperventilating about the “Buffett Rule.” It’s not just a cheap class-warfare gimmick designed to appeal to blue-collar voters. It’s also a bit of misdirection, a way to make low-information voters believe that we can get out of the $15 trillion hole if only the mega-rich would pay a few percent more. The revenue raised by the Buffett Rule means squat; the revenue raised by letting the Bush tax cuts for the middle class expire would, however, go a long way towards funding Great Society II, but unlike Ryan, there’s simply no way Obama’s going to risk his political ambitions by telling the public that. Better to focus on how Ryan’s cuts would make it harder to predict the weather or whatever than to talk, say, about the trillion-dollar “Trojan Horse” that you and I know as ObamaCare. But hey, he got Bin Laden.
Long but worthwhile: Go read Guy Benson’s point by point response to O’s remarks this morning. Seven more months of this.
Obama is a coward and a liar. Period.
History will remember how Paul Ryan sold out to the establishment as well. What’s he going to say when Romney loses?
” Paul Ryan to Obama: History will remember you ... “
Better if Zero were swept into the ‘dustbin of history’ along with all of the other would-be tyrants forgotten by History....
If history doesn’t iremember, I will remind it.
Traitor! I hope the 30 pieces of silver he was given buy him a lot of happiness.
RE: What’s he going to say when Romney loses?
That he endorsed the wrong person.
The great Ronald Reagan endorsed a few losers himself. Barry Goldwater and Papa Bush in 1992 (After he broke his “Read my lips” pledge) among them.
If you notice Obama labeled Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse”. This is an effort marginalize/negate language. This was the criticism of Obamacare. In other words: I’m rubber, your glue, whatever you say... (you get the idea) These are the linguistic parlor games of the left targeted at his pea brained base.
History will be kind to Obama, because only Bill Ayers will be allowed to write it.
(apologies for paraphrasing Winston Churchill)
Traitor indeed! No one in the Establishment has the courage to call out Barry Soetoro for the willful purposeful intentional non-accidental destruction of America. All of these traitors have violated their oath of Office and all should be dealt with accordingly. It is a very short list in Washington of those who are doing the right thing.
Blame Obama? That’s nuts. Congress is in charge of public policy - see US Constitution. Nothing preventing Congress from changing fiscal policy. Well, the president isn’t preventing it.
RE: Nothing preventing Congress from changing fiscal policy.
This congress just did by PASSING the Paul Ryan fiscal plan. Obama opposes it.
Funny
He is not US citizen
I think the VP race is between Rubio and Ryan. If Rubio doesn’t want it, then Ryan gets it. If Rubio lacks the gravitas, then Ryan gets it.
Ronald Reagan did not say, and I cannot conceive of him saying, he endorsed the wrong person.
My point is Ronald Reagan endorsed people who LOST the elections. Heck, Reagan even endorsed an unabashed liberal RINO from CT for Senator named Lowell Weicker ( who did nothing for him ), who eventually, like Arlen Specter and Michael Bloomberg, LEFT the GOP.
So, I don’t think it is a bad mark on Paul Ryan to have endorsed Romney ( whether he wins or loses ).
I think in Paul Ryan’s view, whether you agree or disagree with him, to endorse any one of the other three at this point in time is really pointless.
Paul Ryan is an outcast to me!
There are similarities between Paul Ryan at this stage of his career endorsing a presidential contender in the 2012 pre-convention time period and a young Ronald Reagan making an endorsement in 1964, but that’s as far as it goes. For your analogy to work, or if there is any similarity as to how Reagan’s endorsement of a general election-losing Goldwater affected Reagan’s career, and how Ryan’s endorsement of a general election-losing Romney would affect Ryan’s career - Reagan would have had to endorse the LIBERAL in the ‘64 race, not the conservative. Ironically, one liberal in ‘64 that Reagan did NOT endorse was also named Romney. (another was named Rockefeller).
Paul Ryan bump! He was great on FNC tonight responding to Obama’s dogma.
>> Paul Ryan is an outcast to me!
That’s a shame. He’s brilliant.
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.