Media turning on Paul Ryan?


#1

Two things:

  1. Ryan is the reason there is any (very little) excitement for the Romney-Ryan ticket. That said, it’s sad to see that Romney has not translated any of Ryan’s likeability or plans and campaigned on that. Romney has nothing going for him, he has failed to differentiate himself from Obama by giving a clear vision of what his presidency would look like. Ryan gave him a good opportunity to do that.

  2. The media has been moving in against Ryan, because he is the biggest threat to Obama, not Romney.


#2

Just as they did with Sarah Palin.


#3

[quote=“Susanna, post:2, topic:36386”]
Just as they did with Sarah Palin.
[/quote]Exactly.


#4

Yes, but in that case they were right that she is completely unqualified to be VP (or potentially POTUS).


#5

Jebby, the media is against anything resembling a threat to the anointed one [to paraphrase Hannity] The only media that will be fair to Ryan will be FOX and that’s about it. The whole beginning lovefest is an old sales ploy, of “suck’em in boy” and then smack them.

it’s called-------“Wait for it”


#6

Not as much so as Barack Obama.


#7

Both are/were wholly unqualified to be President.


#8

Jebby??? and just what “qualifies” one to be president?


#9

I’d start with not being a moron.

Preferably I’d like to see someone with some legislative experience, executive experience (either private sector or as governor), a good understanding of foreign policy, but above all an understanding and appreciation of the Constitution. The President’s number 1 job is to protect and uphold the Constitution, not run the economy, not “keep Americans safe” (as Obama says it is), not create jobs, not talk to foreign leader.


#10

How is she a moron? I’ve met the woman and found her to be very intelligent. You don’t think she said “I can see Russia fro my house” do you?

Being a Governor isn’t legislative or executive experience? Believing that anything not specifically granted as a Federal power by the Constitution is a state rights issue isn’t an understanding of the Constitution?


#11

A lawyer? and ceo, hmmm.
Was Reagan any of those?


#12

Anytime I hear someone is not qualfied it makes me think of a lot of things.

First to come to mind is O’Bammy: I got an opening for a ranch hand. Lets see, fence work, dig out ditches I am building, drag wood I have cut down to the road so we can load it in the trailer, be smarter than a shovel, follow directions, not be a drug user, show up on time and be able to work unsupervised. Guessing that lets 'bammy out.

Bet Sarah Palin can put in a days work…


#13

It’s not that she literally said she could see Russia. It’s that she thought being in Alaska gave her foreign diplomacy experience because of Russia being so close, which is complete bogus. Or at least she couldn’t think of anything else to say besides being close to the outskirts of Russia. We can also talk about her remarks on death camps.

She’s said some other stuff in interviews, but I won’t mention it because I just think she doesn’t interview well. She routinely couldn’t name things when asked in interviews, such as countries or court decisions. She simple does not have what it takes to be a national figure or lead, and has hardly any political experience, and what little experience she has is covered in bad press. McCain, in my opinion, had a good chance until he picked her. She’s the opposite of Ryan, and she should have never been a VP pick.


#14

She didnt figuratively say she could see Russia either. Tina Fay on SNL said it, the left just ran with it claiming it was SArah Palin. The sheep that is the left bought it.

When she used being close to Russia as diplomatic experience she was accurate, because she was speaking about international water incidents that happen all the time in the Bering Sea.

It’s not like any President or VP has had gaffs so I agree with you. [/sarcasm]

McCain had no chance. He picked her to grasp the Conservative vote which he knew he didn’t have. There was no way I was voting for McCain, just like I will not vote for Romney. I don’t vote for Liberals. Here is a pretty long list of Presidents that had as little or less experience than Sarah Palin to include your hero Obama. Some of them were pretty damn good Presidents. Others were not.

Presidents with little or no experience (other than minor state houses):
James Madison: Secretary of State
John Quincy Adams: Secretary of State
Andrew Jackson: Governor of Florida
William Henry Harrison: Military Indian territory Governor
Zachary Taylor: General
Franklin Pierce: General
Abraham Lincoln: no previous experience
Andrew Johnson: Mayor before becoming VP
Ulysses S Grant: General
Rutherford Hayes: Governor Ohio
James Garfield: General
Chester Arthur: no experience until VP
Herbert Hoover: Secretary of Commerce
Benjamin Harrison: General
William McKinney: Governor of Ohio
William Harding: Lt Governor of Ohio
Dwight Eisenhower: General
John F Kennedy: no previous experience
Lyndon B Johnson: no experience until VP
Richard Nixon: no experience until VP
Gerald Ford: no experience until VP
Jimmy Carter: Governor of Georgia
Ronald Reagan: Governor of California
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas
George W Bush: Governor of Texas
Barack Obama: 3 years US Senate


#15

During an interview on Fox News, host Chris Wallace noted that a recent study showed that the Romney-Ryan plan would cost nearly $5 trillion over 10 years.

“Not in the least bit true,” Ryan insisted. “That study has been so thoroughly discredited.”

“How much would it cost?” Wallace wondered. “The cut in tax rates.”

“It’s revenue neutral… Lower all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent,” Ryan replied.

“Right, how much will it cost?” Wallace pressed. “It’s not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions.”

“I won’t get into a baseline argument with you because that’s what a lot of this is about,” Ryan explained. “We’re saying, limited deductions so you can lower tax rates for everybody. Start with people at the higher end. … And every time we’ve done this – whether it was Ronald Reagan working with Tip O’Neil, the idea from the Bowles-Simpson commission on how to do this – there’s been a traditional Democrat and Republican consensus: lowering tax rates, broadening the tax base works.”

“But YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN ME THE MATH,” the Fox News host pressed.

“I DON’T HAVE THE TIME,” Ryan laughed. “It would take me too long to go through all the math. But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.”

“If – just suppose – that the doubters are right, President Romney takes office the math doesn’t add up… what’s most important to Romney?” Wallace asked. “Would he scale back on the 20 percent tax cut for the wealthy?”

"No," Ryan said.

“Would he scale back and say, ‘OK, we’re going to have to raise taxes for the middle class?’” Wallace continued. “What’s most important to him in his tax reform plan?”

“Keeping tax rates down,” the vice presidential candidate remarked. “That’s more important than anything.”

Just watch that little twerp tell Wallace that tax cuts don’t cost anything and that he doesn’t have time to tell the American people how much they’re going to have to pay.

I knew Ryan was a liability, but I didn’t know he was this bad. He can’t even withstand an interview on Fox. He looks like a child trying to lie to the teacher. I think even Joe Biden might own him in debate (and that’s saying something).


#16

[quote=“Caudipteryx, post:15, topic:36386”]

Just look at that little twerp tell Wallace that tax cuts don’t cost anything and that he doesn’t have time to tell the American people how much they’re going to have to pay.

I knew Ryan was a liability, but I didn’t know he was this bad. He looks like a child trying to lie to his teacher. If he can’t even withstand an interview on Fox News, I think even Joe Biden might have a chance to crush him in debate.
[/quote]C’mon, man. Quit trying to turn Chicken Salad into Chicken…uh,…stuff. He said the time he had didn’t permit the details, not that he didn’t have time to tell Americans the details. He never said that tax cuts didn’t cost anything, he said lower tax rates broaden the tax base, which is true. If anyone is intellectually dishonest, it is you.


#17

Details? All Wallace asked was, how much do they cost before the deductions? That’s not asking for details. That’s asking for one simple number (like 5 trillion), which is actually a pretty damn important thing and he should be prepared to answer it.


#18

Ryan WAS on Fox when “the media turned against him”. He couldn’t answer a simple question from a fox news host about how their plan is revenue neutral!


#19

[quote=“Caudipteryx, post:17, topic:36386”]
Details? All Wallace asked was, how much do they cost before the deductions? That’s not asking for details. That’s asking for one simple number (like 5 trillion).
[/quote]No, it isn’t. Obama pulls numbers out of his posterior, but not everyone does. The fact is, you spun his words to fit YOUR narrative. This is your method of operation, as it is with most Dems.

“But YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN ME THE MATH,” the Fox News host pressed.
That is a request for details, genius.

"It would take me too long to go through all the math. But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care.

Maybe you can believe some number picked out of thin air by your Fearless Leader, but I can’t, and Ryan is also aware that the math is complicated.
Reading is FUNdamental.


#20

They are losing for this reason: People WANT to know how their “plan” will work. They won’t (or can’t) explain it without causing more damage to their campaign.
I would gladly listen to how they plan to come up with 6 trillion in revenue. They can’t really do it, and they don’t want anyone to find that out until after they are elected.

Period.