PDA

View Full Version : Elections Ryan for President?


Donger
08-16-2011, 11:34 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-president_590273.html

Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan is strongly considering a run for president. Ryan, who has been quietly meeting with political strategists to discuss a bid over the past three months, is on vacation in Colorado discussing a prospective run with his family. Ryan’s concerns about the effects of a presidential campaign – and perhaps a presidency – on his family have been his primary focus as he thinks through his political future.

“He’s coming around,” says a Republican source close to Ryan, who has been urging the 41-year-old to run.

“With Paul, it’s more about obligation than opportunity,” says another Wisconsin Republican. “He is determined to have the 2012 election be about the big things. If that means he has to run, he’s open to it.”

Ryan hinted at his thinking during a candid interview Friday with Charlie Sykes, an influential talk radio host in Milwaukee, telling Sykes that he was unsatisfied with the current crop of Republican candidates.

Sykes asked Ryan about state of the Republican presidential campaign. “Looking at the Republican field right now, are you confident that the candidates there are able to articulate the issues of the debt and the deficit and the need to reform entitlements in the way that you want to see done?”

Ryan laughed. “Why did you ask me that?”

“You know exactly why I asked you that question.”

“I know. We’ll see. I didn’t see it last night. I haven’t seen it to date. We’ll see. People’s campaigns evolve – they get better. So we’ll see.”

Ryan then broadened his comments. “Look, the way I see 2012 – we owe it to the country to let them choose the path they want our country to take. And I just have yet to see a strong and principled articulation of the kind of limited government, opportunity society path that we would provide as an alternative to the Obama cradle to grave welfare state.”

Sykes pressed him. “Do you think that it is absolutely essential that there be a Republican candidate who is able to articulate…”

Ryan cut him off. “I do. Because this is how we get our country back. We do it through a referendum letting the country pick the path not by having a committee of 12 people pick the path or not by having just the inertia of just letting the status quo just stumble through by winning a campaign based on dividing people.”

Sykes asked if Ryan understands why people think that person should be him.

“Well, I keep hearing that. I’m hoping that people will step up and I’m hoping that somebody – I can help them fashion this. You know my story and you know my answer – and I haven’t changed it. We’ve got a long way to go. There’s 15 months left.”

Ryan has been talking to friends and advisers about a run since last spring. Those familiar with his thinking say that he expected that Indiana governor Mitch Daniels would run. Hours before Daniels released a letter he’d sent to supporters informing them of his decision not to run, he called Ryan to give him a heads up. That phone call profoundly changed Ryan’s thinking.

One Ryan confidante used an analogy to make the point. Ryan sees running for president like taking a swan dive off a cliff. In the early stages of the race, when he started getting calls urging him to run, Ryan began walking away from the cliff at a brisk pace. Then, when Daniels announced that he was passing on a bid, Ryan stopped in place and turned around. In the weeks since, he’s slowly made his way back to the cliff and he’s now peering over the side trying to decide if he makes the leap.

There have been many hints of this in recent months. In an early June appearance on Your World with Neil Cavuto, the Fox host asked Ryan if he had changed his mind about a run. Ryan, who had been rather firm in his denials of interest, softened his hard line. “Look, I want to see how this field develops,” he said, surprising even those who had been urging him to run. “I was hoping Mitch Daniels would get into the race. He obviously didn’t do that. But there’s such a long way to go. Obviously, I believe Republicans need to retake the White House.”

When Cavuto asked if this meant he was taking another look, as Ryan’s comments suggested, the congressman said he wasn’t giving it “serious consideration because to do that you really have to get into this thing full throttle.”

But in private meetings with conservatives urging him to run, Ryan was more open to a bid and that serious consideration started shortly thereafter. Early this summer, Ryan met with two different Republican strategists to game out what a late-starting run would require, making clear that he was truly just asking questions and not yet planning. He continued to take calls from top Republican fundraisers, neither committing to a bid nor ruling one out. And he asked his staff to look at whether he would have to give up his seat in the House if he were to jump into the Republican primary.

Last week, Ryan’s Prosperity PAC sent out a fundraising letter seeking money to run ads in Iowa to counter attack ads run against Republicans by the Democratic National Committee. “The DNC is attacking all of the candidates for their support of my Path to Prosperity budget,” Ryan wrote. “We have to fight back. With your support, I’m planning on launching a counter-attack to educate Iowa voters about the Path to Prosperity and how it’s the only plan currently on the table that saves Medicare.”

Iowa Republican Party chairman Matt Strawn says that Ryan has an open invitation to come to visit Iowa and talk to Republicans – “whether as a presidential candidate or national conservative thought leader.”

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:35 AM
Nope another fraud and militarist.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Nope another fraud and militarist.

Oh, please

mnchiefsguy
08-16-2011, 11:45 AM
Nope another fraud and militarist.

Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:54 AM
I think it's unwise for Ryan to do so now.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:00 PM
Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?
If Bill Kristol likes them, then BEWARE! Bill Kristol likes Ryan. He'd love Donger too.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Oh, please

Voted for Bushcare—Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Voted with Bush 94% of the time. Voted "YES" on TARP, Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008), $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler (Dec 2008), 192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) I get a kick out of watching Republicans when Democrats are in power.

Read here for lot's more on how Ryan's rhetoric doesn't match his record.

Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin (http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/)

FD
08-16-2011, 12:06 PM
I think Americans are too enamored of their entitlements to ever vote for Ryan for President.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Dick Cheney worships the phony budget cutter too:

"I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55749.html#ixzz1VDU2fSl3

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 12:12 PM
Voted for Bushcare—Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Voted with Bush 94% of the time. Voted "YES" on TARP, Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008), $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler (Dec 2008), 192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) I get a kick out of watching Republicans when Democrats are in power.

Read here for lot's more on how Ryan's rhetoric doesn't match his record.

Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin (http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/)

Legit candidates rarely have their rhetoric matching their record. It's what happens in the game of Washington Politics.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 12:13 PM
Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?

Anybody other than Ron Paul, you would be correct. If the ticket had 10people listed as Ron Paul, she would checked them all to get the right one.:Poke:;)

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:14 PM
Legit candidates rarely have their rhetoric matching their record. It's what happens in the game of Washington Politics.

Well, I say it's time for a change. I mean if you do want change from the direction we've been going in, then you have to do something different and find someone who will really do what you want. Seems pretty logical too me. You've given up.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:15 PM
Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?

Because you hate the Founding Fathers?

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 12:15 PM
Well, I say it's time for a change. I mean if you do want change from the direction we've been going in, then you have to do something different and find someone who will really do what you want. Seems pretty logical too me. You've given up.

Given Up? Yeah, a long time ago. I'm looking for the least worst candidate, and his name is not Ron Paul. Sorry

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:15 PM
Anybody other than Ron Paul, you would be correct. If the ticket had 10people listed as Ron Paul, she would checked them all to get the right one.:Poke:;)

I'd vote for someone who is just moderately Ron Paul preferably younger and taller.
I'd vote for Rand. I'd vote for a few more. I don't even feel a need to remove all our bases WW—just stop the madness in the ME. Heck, I'd vote for Bachmann even but I am SICK of war.... like 70% of the American people.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Given Up? Yeah, a long time ago. I'm looking for the least worst candidate, and his name is not Ron Paul. Sorry

Vote for who you want. I am just sick of WAR like 70% of the American people. NONE on the right are in this mode. NONE!
You saw it at the debate...where an old man had to school the young'ins. I did consider Bachmann at one time. You want a candidate that can win but you keep trodding out those who want more war.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:21 PM
Vote for who you want. I am just sick of WAR like 70% of the American people. NONE on the right are in this mode. NONE!
You saw it at the debate...where an old man had to school the young'ins. I did consider Bachmann at one time. You want a candidate that can win but you keep trodding out those who want more war.

None of the candidates intentionally want more war. Can you give up that over-the-top, off-based rhetoric? It would be unfair if we all said that Ron Paul wants segregation, just because he probably wouldn't support the passing of Civil Rights Acts.

go bowe
08-16-2011, 12:33 PM
not likely...

NaptownChief
08-16-2011, 12:51 PM
He has my vote if he does run.

SNR
08-16-2011, 01:11 PM
Ryan's so good at fuzzy math he could give GWB a heart attack.

I don't care for him or his budget proposals. A guy like him would only provide the illusion of a budget-cutting conservative, and when he failed liberals would be quick to point, "AH AH AH SEE??? BUDGET CUTS TO GOVERNMENT DON'T WORK!! QUICK! RAISE TAXES! MORE STIMULUS!!!"

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 01:52 PM
They want a Music Man to tell them what they want to hear SNR.

Chocolate Hog
08-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Ryan wouldn't stand a chance against Obama considering his plan shafted those who vote the most.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 02:32 PM
Ryan would jump to the position of front runner in my personal poll. I don't think he'll run though.

My one concern with him is the lack of executive experience. He's got far deeper relevant experience than Obama had though and you don't get any better endorsements than Dick Cheney's.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 02:39 PM
Ryan would jump to the position of front runner in my personal poll. I don't think he'll run though.

My one concern with him is the lack of executive experience. He's got far deeper relevant experience than Obama had though and you don't get any better endorsements than Dick Cheney's.


I could be wrong, I would think he would hold off till 2016. Almost anybody worth running is holding out till2016. The Liberal media has such a stronghold on the country many conservatives feel the need to hold back and let this train wreck happen and then fix it.

The sad part is how bad is the damage going to be.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 02:43 PM
Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?

Because of their actions? See a blue sky chances are it was a blue sky you saw.

alnorth
08-16-2011, 03:18 PM
None of the candidates intentionally want more war. Can you give up that over-the-top, off-based rhetoric? It would be unfair if we all said that Ron Paul wants segregation, just because he probably wouldn't support the passing of Civil Rights Acts.

Well, to be more accurate, a lot of these republican candidates who presumably don't "want more war" have an insanely low threshold where they would sigh, shrug, and say "well damn, we're in danger. Guess we have to fight."

I'd like a candidate who is not a completely paranoid fruitcake. Specifically, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon there is nothing short of an all-out invasion we can do to stop it. We can't afford an invasion, and it is none of our damned business. MAD worked fine against the soviets.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 03:20 PM
Well, to be more accurate, a lot of these republican candidates who presumably don't want war have an insanely low threshold where they would sigh, shrug, and say "well damn, we're in danger. Guess we have to fight."

I'd like a candidate who is not a completely paranoid fruitcake

Yes, and that's really the point plus too many of them already are baying for Persian blood. And they're not even in office yet. :deevee:

patteeu
08-16-2011, 03:49 PM
Well, to be more accurate, a lot of these republican candidates who presumably don't "want more war" have an insanely low threshold where they would sigh, shrug, and say "well damn, we're in danger. Guess we have to fight."

I'd like a candidate who is not a completely paranoid fruitcake. Specifically, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon there is nothing short of an all-out invasion we can do to stop it. We can't afford an invasion, and it is none of our damned business. MAD worked fine against the soviets.

It worked fine against the Soviets if your standard for "fine" is just that we didn't eat a nuke. We spent several decades during the Cold War in various conflicts by proxy with the Soviets, including one where we lost about 10x the number of troops we lost in Iraq. Iran probably wouldn't use it's nuclear weapons (although I think the chances are greater than they were for the Soviets) as a sword. Instead, they'll use them as a shield to enable them to be even more brazen than they already are at using conventional abilities (including their proxies like Hezbollah) to cause trouble in their neighborhood and bully their neighbors without any fear of repercussion.

And when Iran goes nuclear, the cause of non-proliferation will take a severe and maybe unrecoverable hit.

HonestChieffan
08-16-2011, 04:54 PM
Why do I get the feeling that no matter who runs, they cannot possibly be a true conservative according to BEP?

Paulitas only see the Paul.

|Zach|
08-16-2011, 04:58 PM
I could be wrong, I would think he would hold off till 2016. Almost anybody worth running is holding out till2016. The Liberal media has such a stronghold on the country many conservatives feel the need to hold back and let this train wreck happen and then fix it.

The sad part is how bad is the damage going to be.

Sounds pretty spineless.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 05:03 PM
Paulitas only see the Paul.
NeoCons only see war candidates.

alnorth
08-16-2011, 05:04 PM
Iran probably wouldn't use it's nuclear weapons (although I think the chances are greater than they were for the Soviets) as a sword. Instead, they'll use them as a shield to enable them to be even more brazen than they already are at using conventional abilities (including their proxies like Hezbollah) to cause trouble in their neighborhood and bully their neighbors without any fear of repercussion.

And when Iran goes nuclear, the cause of non-proliferation will take a severe and maybe unrecoverable hit.

So be it. Let the middle-east do whatever the middle-east is going to do without our interference. We still basically have the Monroe doctrine over here, if China invaded Paraguay or something for the good of regional stability, we'd be alarmed.

No matter how much you don't like Ron Paul, the fact remains that if you are not prepared for an all-out invasion where you defeat Iran's (much tougher than Iraq and Afghanistan) army and occupy that country for another couple decades, you can't stop them. If you aren't willing to embark on such an invasion, then essentially your views are somewhat similar to Paul's, only he's more honest. If you do want to invade Iran, you are nuts.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 05:06 PM
The cause of non-proliferation was set back with the Bush Doctrine. Period!

HonestChieffan
08-16-2011, 05:07 PM
How good would a Ryan VP or Rubio VP be hooked to Perrys bandwagon?

|Zach|
08-16-2011, 05:08 PM
How good would a Ryan VP or Rubio VP be hooked to Perrys bandwagon?

Good enough for second place.

.....maybe.

FD
08-16-2011, 05:09 PM
How good would a Ryan VP or Rubio VP be hooked to Perrys bandwagon?

Rubio is a good VP pick but I think Ryan is more valuable staying in the House, chairing the Budget Committee than sitting in the VP office.

HonestChieffan
08-16-2011, 05:10 PM
Rubio is a good VP pick but I think Ryan is more valuable staying in the House, chairing the Budget Committee than sitting in the VP office.

You may well be right.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 05:27 PM
Rubio is a good VP pick but I think Ryan is more valuable staying in the House, chairing the Budget Committee than sitting in the VP office.

I'd rather keep Rubio in the Senate myself. I want as many Rs kept there as possible in the event Obama wins another term. That is the lesser of two evils.

HonestChieffan
08-16-2011, 05:40 PM
I'd rather keep Rubio in the Senate myself. I want as many Rs kept there as possible in the event Obama wins another term. That is the lesser of two evils.

Rumor is that Allen West may make a run for Florida Senate Seat....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61457.html

Chocolate Hog
08-16-2011, 05:41 PM
Rumor is that Allen West may make a run for Florida Senate Seat....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61457.html

Now theres a guy whos a total joke.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 08:03 PM
So be it. Let the middle-east do whatever the middle-east is going to do without our interference. We still basically have the Monroe doctrine over here, if China invaded Paraguay or something for the good of regional stability, we'd be alarmed.

No matter how much you don't like Ron Paul, the fact remains that if you are not prepared for an all-out invasion where you defeat Iran's (much tougher than Iraq and Afghanistan) army and occupy that country for another couple decades, you can't stop them. If you aren't willing to embark on such an invasion, then essentially your views are somewhat similar to Paul's, only he's more honest. If you do want to invade Iran, you are nuts.

I don't dislike Ron Paul. I just dislike his RINO foreign policy positions.

I'm not at all convinced that a full invasion and occupation of Iran is required to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon so we'll have to agree to disagree at the premise level on that one.

alnorth
08-16-2011, 08:47 PM
I don't dislike Ron Paul. I just dislike his RINO foreign policy positions.

I'm not at all convinced that a full invasion and occupation of Iran is required to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon so we'll have to agree to disagree at the premise level on that one.

Given history and many, many, many failed attempts to keep countries who really want to go nuclear from going nuclear, you are wrong.

If this is a RINO position, then the republican party is a worthless steaming pile of crap that does not deserve to have a president in the white house.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 08:55 PM
If this is a RINO position, then the republican party is a worthless steaming pile of crap that does not deserve to have a president in the white house.

It's not RINO. It's not traditional conservativism, which believes in a more restrained foreign policy and NOT an excessive budinski one. It's a Neo Conservative position—the real steaming pile of crap out there. I just noticed the original post was from the Weekly Standard—which is considered the premier NeoConservative magazine of Bill Kristol who admits he's NC. So it's not conservative or Republican. No wonder Donger posted it and calls people nuts if they don't go along with the Iran has a nuke and must be dealt with crowd. It's really about regime change—not nukes.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 10:27 PM
Given history and many, many, many failed attempts to keep countries who really want to go nuclear from going nuclear, you are wrong.

LOL, you can't be serious. Since the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was signed in the 60's, we've succeeded in preventing/deterring far more countries from going nuclear than we've failed to prevent. For every failure you can name, I can name 10 countries that haven't gone nuclear. Even among countries that really wanted to go nuclear (as in, made efforts to clandestinely build a nuclear program), we've got a decent track record (see Iraq, Syria, and Libya as countries that were stopped before getting a nuke and South Africa as a country that agreed to dismantle it's nuclear program after supposedly achieving nuclear status with a few bombs). So I guess that makes you wrong.

If this is a RINO position, then the republican party is a worthless steaming pile of crap that does not deserve to have a president in the white house.

Well, it's certainly the RINO position, so I guess you can make of it what you will.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 10:29 PM
It's not RINO.

Ha ha, you're in RINO denial.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 11:12 PM
Good enough for second place.

.....maybe.

ROFL

Direckshun
08-17-2011, 07:01 PM
God yes.

Please, run.

He'd lose, hard. And it would brand the GOP as the anti-social security and anti-Medicare for a generation.

alnorth
08-17-2011, 07:10 PM
LOL, you can't be serious. Since the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was signed in the 60's, we've succeeded in preventing/deterring far more countries from going nuclear than we've failed to prevent. For every failure you can name, I can name 10 countries that haven't gone nuclear. Even among countries that really wanted to go nuclear (as in, made efforts to clandestinely build a nuclear program), we've got a decent track record (see Iraq, Syria, and Libya as countries that were stopped before getting a nuke and South Africa as a country that agreed to dismantle it's nuclear program after supposedly achieving nuclear status with a few bombs). So I guess that makes you wrong.

You are confusing countries who didn't really want a nuke and held out for a bribe (either money or better international political position), with countries that really wanted a nuke. If one of the poorest, intellectually bereft, god-forsaken countries in the planet can get a nuke (NK, who pumped us for all the money and supplies they could get, then got the nuke when the bribery well ran dry) then anyone can. If you think we really stopped someone from getting a nuke, who really wanted one, you are firmly in denial.

If you want to stop Iran from getting a nuke, assuming they really want one and aren't holding out for a payday, then you need a full-scale invasion. We can't do a full-scale invasion. You either agree with Ron Paul, or you are insane.

That is not a RINO position, it is sane non-partisan reality. Those who disagree are insane bloodthirsty warmongers ready to burn cash and lives for no good reason at all.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:19 PM
You are confusing countries who didn't really want a nuke and held out for a bribe (either money or better international political position), with countries that really wanted a nuke. If one of the poorest, intellectually bereft, god-forsaken countries in the planet can get a nuke (NK, who pumped us for all the money and supplies they could get, then got the nuke when the bribery well ran dry) then anyone can. If you think we really stopped someone from getting a nuke, who really wanted one, you are firmly in denial.

If you want to stop Iran from getting a nuke, assuming they really want one and aren't holding out for a payday, then you need a full-scale invasion. We can't do a full-scale invasion. You either agree with Ron Paul, or you are insane.

That is not a RINO position, it is sane non-partisan reality. Those who disagree are insane bloodthirsty warmongers ready to burn cash and lives for no good reason at all.

I listed 3 countries that really wanted a nuke that were stopped. Iraq, Syria, and Libya. You're just ignoring the obvious flaws in your argument. It can be done if you really want to do it. Those who don't want to stop Iran are just indifferent to ongoing turmoil in the Middle East with a strong chance of a much more bloody conflict in the future and/or oil flow disruptions and all the economic chaos that that would entail.

I see that you've backed off of full scale invasion plus occupation to simply a full scale invasion now. You're still wrong, but not as wrong as you were a few posts ago.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 07:54 AM
Iraq was not stopped because of our invasion. They didn't have a nuke. SH may have dreamed of having one but he didn't have one.

ChiTown
08-18-2011, 07:59 AM
In a Republican Field full of dipshits, he would be the least worst, imo.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 08:00 AM
In a Republican Field full of dipshits, he would be the least worst, imo.

Not when Bill Kristol endorses him. That's one of the worst signs and a sign of another war—this time on Iran which can do us some damage.

ChiTown
08-18-2011, 08:01 AM
Not when Bill Kristol endorses him. That's one of the worst signs and a sign of another war—this time on Iran which can do us some damage.

You read way too many spy novels. Not everything is a conspiracy, sweetheart.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 08:03 AM
You read way too many spy novels. Not everything is a conspiracy, sweetheart.

Wow, apparently you don't even know what the word means. There's nothing even remotely conspiracy there. I just know what Kristol believes out of his own mouth. BTW, I don't read spy novels at all. I rarely read fiction too. But I see you had nothing to refute with so I understand why you did it.


Cheers!

ChiTown
08-18-2011, 08:13 AM
Wow, apparently you don't even know what the word means. There's nothing even remotely conspiracy there. I just know what Kristol believes out of his own mouth. BTW, I don't read spy novels at all. I rarely read fiction too. But I see you had nothing to refute with so I understand why you did it.


Cheers!

ROFL. Right, brilliant analysis!

patteeu
08-18-2011, 08:16 AM
Iraq was not stopped because of our invasion. They didn't have a nuke. SH may have dreamed of having one but he didn't have one.

Iraq was stopped by the first Gulf War invasion.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 08:26 AM
ROFL. Right, brilliant analysis!

Just as brilliant as yours. Projection is rearing it's head again. LMAO

ChiTown
08-18-2011, 08:27 AM
Just as brilliant as yours. Projection is rearing it's head again. LMAO

:LOL: Wha?