Paul Ryan too far to the left? Republicians are pushing back against their "radical" populist critics

[Axulus]

“Anyone who attacks Paul Ryan as being insufficiently conservative is either woefully misinformed or maliciously destructive,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. “Paul Ryan has played a major role in advancing the conservative cause and creating the Republican House majority. His critics are not true conservatives. They are radical populists who neither understand nor accept the institutions, procedures and traditions that are the basis of constitutional governance.”

To some degree, the attacks on Mr. Ryan, so far an unwilling draft pick by his colleagues to replace Speaker John A. Boehner, reflect criticism of flashes of pragmatism by Mr. Ryan, the architect of his party’s conservative budget dogma.

Since the 2012 general election defeat, Mr. Ryan has indeed become more of a consensus builder and leader in the House, even as he has maintained his ideological tilt. He has largely voted for bills to keep the government operating and the debts paid when many other Republicans vote against them these days.

He was half the brain on a 2013 compromise with Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, to funnel more money to the government and avert two years of budget brinkmanship, even though two years earlier, he had refused to sit on the original committee that tried and failed to find a solution to the government’s financial problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/politics/latest-unease-on-right-ryan-is-too-far-left.html

 

[laughing dog]

The Congressional republicans are imploding. They welcomed the Christian right and those "radical populists" into the party. Now they realize what a Faustian bargain they got.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow. If Paul Frigging Ryan is who you're hyping up as your go-to guy, then you really have no bench at all.

If I were a Republican, I'd be cheating with all that redistricting bullshit as well if this is a candidate for the best they've got. It's not like there'd be a viable Plan B for me to go with instead.

 

[untermensche]

Hundreds of dumb ass Republicans in the House.

But not one leader.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The GOP was having trouble, what a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore its former glory
Where, Oh where was he? Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me.

 

[ksen]

Paul Ryan is too far to the Left . . . lol.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hundreds of dumb ass Republicans in the House.

But not one leader.

Not one of them is dumb enough to take a job that will be the end of his political career.

The reality is bleak. The GOP is divided between the pragmatists and the crazies. The crazies are happy to shut down the government for the sake of a photo op, and are unconcerned about stock markets and bond rates. This means a Speaker has to count on Democratic votes to get any work done. None of this is going to change until a few(or several) tea party Congressmen are challenged by moderate candidates, who pledge to do something, instead of simply obstructing.

No matter what a Congressman's politics maybe, the one thing guaranteed to threaten his seat is the charge of "ineffective." People look at him and say, "Sure, you're fighting for us, but you haven't won any fights, have you?"

 

[maxparrish]

LOL...Actually I find the hysterical fears of a budget battle, GOP vexations, and the gloating of Washington insiders and Democrats to be amusing...and not a little ironic.

One ritual among the left has been its claim to be a party of "democratic" ideology. "Democratic Party, Democratic Socialism, Democratic Centralism, Grass Roots Democracy...etc". And there is a rumor, that in an ideal age of the mid to early 20th century they were actually serious about that claim. While a somewhat dubious perception, it is now clear that they really hate the disorder of democracy. It's "chaos" and "no top-down leadership" is an anathema.

As one former Democratic Centralist put it, in the Romance of Communism, "Looking back on it, we saw a lot of centralism, but not much democracy". A similar observation that might be made of Sander's idea of "X Socialism" and the leadership's idea of "the X Party".

In contrast, the Republican Party is becoming far more democratic, and unlike the heavy handed authoritarian style of Pelosi or Reid, is now showing what real democracy in the Parties might be like. Conflicting ideologies, demands for full legislative voting rights, and House member freedom from the yoke of party big-wigs.

Good gosh, imagine if the same thing also happened among Democrats and the emerging of true centrist bi-partisanship...freed from Party whips. THAT would at least be true consensus values and policy.

And, by the way, note just in the House are we seeing true democracy, but also in the debates. The Democrats offer a very limited debate schedule (to Hillary's liking), and CNN helpfully complies by "not allowing the (few) candidates to be pitted against each other" (which, BTW, mocks the idea of a "debate").

So what do we get? Two of five to choose from - two elderly geezers with tired left ideologies from either the 1930s or the 1960s.

In contrast the Republicans have had a great year in democratic chaos. Fifteen candidates, different policy advocacy, issues, and rather fun barbs. And in this democracy, unknowns like Fiorina and Carson have shot to the top.

It seems many democrats mock democracy, a belief only fit or "the other guy"..

 

[untermensche]

Hundreds of dumb ass Republicans in the House.

But not one leader.

Not one of them is dumb enough to take a job that will be the end of his political career...

Not one has a good idea to move the country forward.

 

[KeepTalking]

LOL...Actually I find the hysterical fears of a budget battle, GOP vexations, and the gloating of Washington insiders and Democrats to be amusing...and not a little ironic.

One ritual among the left has been its claim to be a party of "democratic" ideology. "Democratic Party, Democratic Socialism, Democratic Centralism, Grass Roots Democracy...etc". And there is a rumor, that in an ideal age of the mid to early 20th century they were actually serious about that claim. While a somewhat dubious perception, it is now clear that they really hate the disorder of democracy. It's "chaos" and "no top-down leadership" is an anathema.

As one former Democratic Centralist put it, in the Romance of Communism, "Looking back on it, we saw a lot of centralism, but not much democracy". A similar observation that might be made of Sander's idea of "X Socialism" and the leadership's idea of "the X Party".

In contrast, the Republican Party is becoming far more democratic, and unlike the heavy handed authoritarian style of Pelosi or Reid, is now showing what real democracy in the Parties might be like. Conflicting ideologies, demands for full legislative voting rights, and House member freedom from the yoke of party big-wigs.

Good gosh, imagine if the same thing also happened among Democrats and the emerging of true centrist bi-partisanship...freed from Party whips. THAT would at least be true consensus values and policy.

And, by the way, note just in the House are we seeing true democracy, but also in the debates. The Democrats offer a very limited debate schedule (to Hillary's liking), and CNN helpfully complies by "not allowing the (few) candidates to be pitted against each other" (which, BTW, mocks the idea of a "debate").

So what do we get? Two of five to choose from - two elderly geezers with tired left ideologies from either the 1930s or the 1960s.

In contrast the Republicans have had a great year in democratic chaos. Fifteen candidates, different policy advocacy, issues, and rather fun barbs. And in this democracy, unknowns like Fiorina and Carson have shot to the top.

It seems many democrats mock democracy, a belief only fit or "the other guy"..

Yeah, what the fuck do Democrats know about democracy?

Extreme gerrymandering, and voter disenfranchisement, now that's what democracy is all about!

 

[ksen]

LOL...Actually I find the hysterical fears of a budget battle, GOP vexations, and the gloating of Washington insiders and Democrats to be amusing...and not a little ironic.

One ritual among the left has been its claim to be a party of "democratic" ideology. "Democratic Party, Democratic Socialism, Democratic Centralism, Grass Roots Democracy...etc". And there is a rumor, that in an ideal age of the mid to early 20th century they were actually serious about that claim. While a somewhat dubious perception, it is now clear that they really hate the disorder of democracy. It's "chaos" and "no top-down leadership" is an anathema.

As one former Democratic Centralist put it, in the Romance of Communism, "Looking back on it, we saw a lot of centralism, but not much democracy". A similar observation that might be made of Sander's idea of "X Socialism" and the leadership's idea of "the X Party".

In contrast, the Republican Party is becoming far more democratic, and unlike the heavy handed authoritarian style of Pelosi or Reid, is now showing what real democracy in the Parties might be like. Conflicting ideologies, demands for full legislative voting rights, and House member freedom from the yoke of party big-wigs.

Good gosh, imagine if the same thing also happened among Democrats and the emerging of true centrist bi-partisanship...freed from Party whips. THAT would at least be true consensus values and policy.

And, by the way, note just in the House are we seeing true democracy, but also in the debates. The Democrats offer a very limited debate schedule (to Hillary's liking), and CNN helpfully complies by "not allowing the (few) candidates to be pitted against each other" (which, BTW, mocks the idea of a "debate").

So what do we get? Two of five to choose from - two elderly geezers with tired left ideologies from either the 1930s or the 1960s.

In contrast the Republicans have had a great year in democratic chaos. Fifteen candidates, different policy advocacy, issues, and rather fun barbs. And in this democracy, unknowns like Fiorina and Carson have shot to the top.

It seems many democrats mock democracy, a belief only fit or "the other guy"..

Does anything in this jibber-jabber address the ludicrous idea that Paul Ryan would be considered too far to the Left by any sane thinking person?

 

[SimpleDon]

It is sad when Paul Ryan is considered one of the party's more pragmatic members. Nothing that he has proposed has struck me as pragmatic. He says that the largest problem facing the US is the national debt. But all of his proposals center around the very same thing that has built the national debt over the last thirty five years, tax cuts for the very rich. With promises to pay for them with increased growth from the low tax rates that we haven't seen in thirty five years or with vague unspecified spending cuts and the elimination of unspecified tax loopholes, the only ones of which that could appreciably increase tax revenues would be the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable contribution deduction, both of which are as close to untouchable as anything in government. Not to mention that lowering tax rates and then increasing revenues by eliminating loopholes to pay for the cuts would, if even possible, have zero impact on the economy, a kind of fiscal masterbation that would accomplish nothing.

The only evidence that I have seen put forward of Ryan's pragmatism is his reluctance to unnecessarily bankrupt the US by forcing the government to default on the debt. This is not being pragmatic, it is being sane. There is no reason for the US government to default on the debt that is in US dollars which the government can produce an unlimited amount of by simply typing into a computer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like I've said, Orrin Hatch is a "moderate" in the party now. That is how far right they've gone. So far, that the baggers are virtually off the scale.

LOL...Actually I find the hysterical fears of a budget battle, GOP vexations, and the gloating of Washington insiders and Democrats to be amusing...and not a little ironic.

One ritual among the left has been its claim to be a party of "democratic" ideology. "Democratic Party, Democratic Socialism, Democratic Centralism, Grass Roots Democracy...etc". And there is a rumor, that in an ideal age of the mid to early 20th century they were actually serious about that claim. While a somewhat dubious perception, it is now clear that they really hate the disorder of democracy. It's "chaos" and "no top-down leadership" is an anathema.

As one former Democratic Centralist put it, in the Romance of Communism, "Looking back on it, we saw a lot of centralism, but not much democracy". A similar observation that might be made of Sander's idea of "X Socialism" and the leadership's idea of "the X Party".

In contrast, the Republican Party is becoming far more democratic, and unlike the heavy handed authoritarian style of Pelosi or Reid, is now showing what real democracy in the Parties might be like. Conflicting ideologies, demands for full legislative voting rights, and House member freedom from the yoke of party big-wigs.

Good gosh, imagine if the same thing also happened among Democrats and the emerging of true centrist bi-partisanship...freed from Party whips. THAT would at least be true consensus values and policy.

And, by the way, note just in the House are we seeing true democracy, but also in the debates. The Democrats offer a very limited debate schedule (to Hillary's liking), and CNN helpfully complies by "not allowing the (few) candidates to be pitted against each other" (which, BTW, mocks the idea of a "debate").

So what do we get? Two of five to choose from - two elderly geezers with tired left ideologies from either the 1930s or the 1960s.

In contrast the Republicans have had a great year in democratic chaos. Fifteen candidates, different policy advocacy, issues, and rather fun barbs. And in this democracy, unknowns like Fiorina and Carson have shot to the top.

It seems many democrats mock democracy, a belief only fit or "the other guy"..

Interesting words from the guy who supports the firebrands in the House who want to elect Dr. Tarr (R-MI) or Prof. Fether (R-CA) Speaker of the House.

 

[SimpleDon]

LOL...Actually I find the hysterical fears of a budget battle, GOP vexations, and the gloating of Washington insiders and Democrats to be amusing...and not a little ironic.

One ritual among the left has been its claim to be a party of "democratic" ideology. "Democratic Party, Democratic Socialism, Democratic Centralism, Grass Roots Democracy...etc". And there is a rumor, that in an ideal age of the mid to early 20th century they were actually serious about that claim. While a somewhat dubious perception, it is now clear that they really hate the disorder of democracy. It's "chaos" and "no top-down leadership" is an anathema.

As one former Democratic Centralist put it, in the Romance of Communism, "Looking back on it, we saw a lot of centralism, but not much democracy". A similar observation that might be made of Sander's idea of "X Socialism" and the leadership's idea of "the X Party".

In contrast, the Republican Party is becoming far more democratic, and unlike the heavy handed authoritarian style of Pelosi or Reid, is now showing what real democracy in the Parties might be like. Conflicting ideologies, demands for full legislative voting rights, and House member freedom from the yoke of party big-wigs.

Good gosh, imagine if the same thing also happened among Democrats and the emerging of true centrist bi-partisanship...freed from Party whips. THAT would at least be true consensus values and policy.

And, by the way, note just in the House are we seeing true democracy, but also in the debates. The Democrats offer a very limited debate schedule (to Hillary's liking), and CNN helpfully complies by "not allowing the (few) candidates to be pitted against each other" (which, BTW, mocks the idea of a "debate").

So what do we get? Two of five to choose from - two elderly geezers with tired left ideologies from either the 1930s or the 1960s.

In contrast the Republicans have had a great year in democratic chaos. Fifteen candidates, different policy advocacy, issues, and rather fun barbs. And in this democracy, unknowns like Fiorina and Carson have shot to the top.

It seems many democrats mock democracy, a belief only fit or "the other guy"..

The Republicans have fifteen candidates all with little to no differences in policy proposals beyond how large of tax breaks to give to the rich, and how far back to take social and economic progress with the acceptable range seemingly being from the 1950's back to the 18th century.

The Republicans whose idea of democracy includes gerrymandering out the young and minorities, that money is free speech, obviously giving the rich more speech than anyone else, are not becoming more democratic. And no, the current autocratic control of the house isn't the result of changes made by Pelosi but were instituted by Newt Gingrich, weakening the committee system and paring down the committee staffs to put more power and control in the hands of the speaker and the corporate lobbyists were all Newt's innovations. Newt was a conservative and a Republican.

Your obsession with constantly comparing present day Democrats with Communists probably results in equal parts from your lack of original thinking and your fear that someone will point out that the biggest failing of the current Democrats isn't some fealty to far left ideology but their embrace of conservative ideology and its insipid but ultimately destructive policies as they have moved to the right.

That the failures that we see everyday now in society and in the economy are the failures of conservative policies and of conservatives. As will always happen when we make the mistake of listening to conservatives. It isn't so much that government has failed us. Government run by conservatives has failed us.