Guest Column: Paul Ryan Ready to Lead Country to Change
Local blogger James Wigderson shares his views on Sunday night's rally for presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Wisconsin's Congressman Paul Ryan, the vice president pick.
At the Waukesha Expo Center, more than 13,000 of Congressman Paul Ryan’s friends, family, fellow Republican office holders, and a host of energized Republicans came to celebrate his being picked as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s running mate in the run to the White House. Just two months ago, Republicans were gathered on the same site to celebrate Governor Scott Walker’s victory in the recall election. Sunday even more Republicans came to cheer the Romney’s pick of Ryan for vice president.
Many more people were stuck in a long traffic jam just to get to the Expo center. Senator Ron Johnson told the crowd he needed a police escort to get there in time to speak. When I arrived at 3:45 p.m., the line of cars stretched from the entrance around the neighboring airport. One television reporter said the line of cars backed all the way to the freeway exit.
Some in the crowd were a little cranky about the accommodations, but most were happy to be there to be a part of history. Congressman Tom Petri stole a line from former Gov. Tommy Thompson, telling the crowd it’s a great day to be a Republican in Wisconsin.
And it is. If Republicans had any doubt, all they had to do was look at the lineup of speakers at Sunday’s rally. It was State Attorney General JB Van Hollen who pointed out it was just 2006 when he was the only Republican elected to statewide office. Now Wisconsin Republicans can point to the stage and see Walker, Senator Ron Johnson, and even Lt Governor Rebecca Kleefisch who received national attention during the recall.
Throw in Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the former Republican Party of Wisconsin Chairman, and you understand why National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote on Twitter, “2010-2012: When Wisconsin Took Over America's Politics.”
When Priebus took over the state party, he understood Republicans had a problem of not living up to their message of limited government and fiscal responsibility. When the Tea Party movement started, Priebus embraced the movement and challenged them to hold the Republican Party accountable. It was those moments that set the stage for Walker to become governor and Johnson to become senator.
When Walker ran for governor in 2010, Wisconsin was ready to embrace a politician that believed in limited government and would follow through on putting Wisconsin’s fiscal house in order. Walker won and kept the promise of restoring balance to the state’s books. Walker’s steadfastness was rewarded with another victory over the Democrats in June.
Along with Walker, Johnson was elected senator on a promise to fight for restoring fiscal discipline in Washington D.C. Now Johnson is a nationally recognized figure for his efforts.
Priebus, Walker, and Johnson have all attained status as national political figures not because they’re the smoothest politicians or because they hand out with Hollywood starlets. They became national figures because they are fighting for the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. And the American people are responding.
Ryan has been fighting for those beliefs for some time now, before they became a little fashionable. I remember when his Road Map was presented before a skeptical audience in Janesville in 2008. At the time I wondered if Ryan was heading into a political dead end. Since then Ryan has prevailed in a district that was won by President Barack Obama in 2008. He’s become the chairman of the Budget Committee. It is his ideas that are driving the debate over spending in Washington D.C.
In picking Ryan to be his running mate, Romney made this election about the idea of controlling federal spending and setting the course for future economic growth. At the rally in Waukesha Sunday evening, Wisconsinites showed that they were ready to bring that message to the rest of the country.
In the 1850s in a little school house in Ripon, a new political party was formed that would change the course of our country, the Republican Party. Now, the party of Lincoln is poised to change the direction of our country again. How fitting, then, that it should be led by figures like Walker, Johnson, and Priebus. Who better to lead that change than Ryan?
Eugene Barufkin
11:24 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
This Romney Ryan news and the Waukesha Expo Center site event, painted a hypocritical picture in my mind.
<<>> I've been trying to understand the use of tax money and the concept of socialism. This news adds to my conundrum.
- Romney & Ryan meet on a US warship, the WWII Battleship Wisconsin, built with public tax money and maned by people on the US Government payroll, fly to WI, guided by government air traffic control systems and people, land at a public airport (Waukesha), ride on public roads, meeting on/in a public county owned facility, protected by public law and safety personal.
<> All this is paid by public tax dollars that they want to reduce.
<> On top of the tax issue is the Socialism issue.
<> All this is paid by the public by way of tax money, shared by all those who pay, non-voters, Dems, Repubs & Independents.
<<>> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. - - I think this is the true definition of Socialism. <<>>
The Anti-Alinsky
6:01 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
No Eugene, that is not the definition of Socialism. By definition Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Meaning EVERYTHING, agriculture, vegetable canning, automobile production, firearm production (wait scratch that, Socialist hate private ownership of guns), oil refining...EVERYTHING.
Our system of government provides necessary services that could not be provided otherwise. Roads, air traffic control, even the military. The preamble to the document encrustation our highest law reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
To quote Governor Walker's inaugural address: "We will right-size state government by ensuring government is PROVIDING ONLY THE ESSENTIAL SERVICE our citizens need and taxpayers can afford. " (emphasis added).
Bernard Forand
7:43 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
The Anti-Alinsky also commented on Guest Column: Paul Ryan Ready to Lead Country to Change.
"No Eugene, that is not the definition of Socialism. By definition Socialism is the
Dearest Anti -definition is not yours to make. We as a society have agreed on a dictionary to define words for people to communicate with. By having one focal point of definition we can eliminate those that come from foreign alien sources. Such as Fox News definitions and yours. Now I’ll keep it simple and Basic. Knowing who I’m communicating with.
Your first word; Socialism; so·cial·ism
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Notice Karl Marx {transitional political theorist} Not a government. Now as for you other mangled interpretations of words look them up then come back.
The Anti-Alinsky
11:38 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
And that's different from government ownership of the means of production.....How?
Bernard Forand
9:55 am on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
@ The Anti-Alinsky
11:38 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
And that's different from government ownership of the means of production.....How?
Bernie replies;
Many are the threads of political theories, that are interweaved within our tapestry of Democracy. Socialism is but one engine of our constitution. “We The People’ have included Capitalism { Adam Smith 1723-90] to balance the Socialism, as were Unions to balance Capitalism. Example; Anglo-Irish Trade Union [1889] established the 8 hour workday. Before that owners’ of businesses had no restrictions on the hours they could impose on their laborer’s. Multitude of balancing scenarios exist between the various political theories can be found within our USA. This is but one.
Absolutes and extremes are soon eroded away by our constitution. Balance of financial, religions, morals, property, and so on, are to be balanced to the general welfare of the nation.
Government ownership of laborers productivity, such as is restricted and balanced by he private sectors business ownerships and unions as well as the constitution.
Implying or suggesting that we are not Socialist is false. It is employed for its benefits and reject the negative polices it offers.
Keep the good. Cast out the bad. To simplify.
The Anti-Alinsky
2:01 pm on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Government (state) regulation and ownership is vastly different. When the state owns the means of production, they have COMPLETE control. You like limiting the work day for 8 hours? Once that becomes a nuisance the state can just do away with it.
Bernard Forand
4:21 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Ryan’s plan for our Medicare is to give us a voucher to go feed the vultures.
Ryan's signature proposal would change the popular Medicare health plan for the elderly into a voucher program that would give retirees a fixed amount of money to buy traditional Medicare insurance or competing private plans.
Ryan says that approach would rein in spiraling medical costs that threaten the program's solvency in coming decades. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that one version of Ryan's plan, passed by the House last year, would increase retirees' out-of-pocket medical costs by about $6,400 annually.
Many retirees live on less than $14,000 annually. Another tactic of the republicans, “expedite the death of the weak” Reduces the cost, to the death panels.
12 Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan," Think Progress, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278662&id=48818-18896842-LWo0J9x&t=5
Luke
4:44 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Red herring. The CBO has not done an analysis of Ryan's current plan, which is more generous. Your article does a bait-n-switch by pretending to talk about Ryan's plan, when it is actually talking about one that was merely a "trial balloon" to see what the numbers would look like.
In addition, traditional Medicare would still be an option for anyone who wants it.
Bernard Forand
5:19 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
@ Luke commente
Ryan’s plan changes with the political wind. Nature of the beast has been exposed with his policies. Flip Flopping may be rubbing off on him from being in contact with Romney. Flip floppers are fodder for the serene melodies’ of the Cronyism of Wall Street. Traditional Medicare would be an option for who? How long 1year? 1 month?
. Why bother even putting up a plan that would cost the elderly $6,400 annually! Who of the retirees would even consider it. Perhaps the one’s they pull the wool over their eye’s. “Trial balloon” HA! that’s just pure balderdash. it’s the old salesman trick to get his foot in the door.
One other issue is his position on women’s rights. Guess he flip flopped on that to with Atkins statement of legitimate rape. Nature of the beast. Freudian slip of what lies beneath. 2 feathers from the same bird. continued---
Luke
5:24 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
@Bernard
You are begging the question. His plan does not cost $6,400 annually. The CBO reported that his old plan would cost that much, which answered the question Ryan wanted to know.
Don't you get it? Ryan wanted to know how much it would cost, so the CBO told him,
As for changing plans, if we couldn't pass a bill that involved Obama changing his mind, then no bill would ever have been passed.
Bernard Forand
5:24 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Here take your pick as Ryan may want ti flip flop again after Atkins legitimate rape comment. "Statement on Mitt Romney's Selection of Rep. Paul Ryan for His Vice-Presidential Running Mate," NARAL, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278694&id=48818-18896842-LWo0J9x&t=8
"Paul Ryan's Extreme Abortion Views," The Daily Beast, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278695&id=48818-18896842-LWo0J9x&t=10
"Paul Ryan Sponsored Fetal Personhood Bill, Opposes Family Planning Funds," Huffington Post, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278852&id=48818-18896842-LWo0J9x&t=12
The Anti-Alinsky
6:03 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Bernie, "Mein Kampf" is the only publication more biased that moveon.org
Bernard Forand
8:04 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Luke comments;
You are begging the question. His plan does not cost $6,400 annually. The CBO reported that his old plan would cost that much, which answered the question Ryan wanted to know.
Don't you get it? Ryan wanted to know how much it would cost, so the CBO told him,
As for changing plans, if we couldn't pass a bill that involved Obama changing his mind, then no bill would ever have been passed.
{Bernie replies}
Last figure I herd was $6400 and now YOU say that is not the figure. Then what is the figure and where did you get it. Otherwise it stands.
As to trying to imply, that Obama is in the same category as the flip flopping Romney boys, is out in right field. Obama negates issues. Not a balderdash flip flopper. Example; http://youtu.be/EQwrB1vu74c now that’s flip flopping and not one negating issues's. This flaw, will be fodder, for the Medusa on the shores of Cronyism.
Luke
8:28 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
@Bernard
As I already told you, there is no figure. It is a totally different plan, with expanded support from the government.
You have a false number from a different plan, which a few publications mistakenly use. They pull it out as an effigy.
Kinda funny.
Bernard Forand
5:29 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
Dear luke could not find your post so I'll post it here for you. My reply lies above.
Luke commented on Guest Column: Paul Ryan Ready to Lead Country to Change, which you are following.
"Red herring. The CBO has not done an analysis of Ryan's current plan, which is more generous. Your article does a bait-n-switch by pretending to talk about Ryan's plan, when it is actually talking about one that was merely a "trial balloon" to see what the numbers would look like. In addition, traditional Medicare would still be an option for anyone who wants it."
Bernard Forand
10:21 am on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Luke also commented on Guest Column: Paul Ryan Ready to Lead Country to Change.
"@Bernard As I already told you, there is no figure. It is a totally different plan, with expanded support from the government. You have a false number from a different plan, which a few publications mistakenly use. They pull it out as an effigy. Kinda funny."
Bernie replies.
Well looked around and found a new number. Perhaps this is what you are referring to? Still not good. He'd replace Medicare with vouchers for retirees to purchase insurance, eliminating the guarantee of health care for seniors and putting them at the mercy of the private insurance industry. That could amount to a cost increase of more than $5,900 by 2050, leaving many seniors broke or without the health care they need. He'd also raise the age of eligibility to 67
"12 Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan," Think Progress, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278662&id=48818-18896842-LWo0J9x&t=5
Perhaps you can help me. “Some People Say” that 3 Supreme Court Justices are due to be replaced within the next 4 years. Have you any info on that? If I can’t find verification I’ll just file at as scuttlebutt until proven otherwise.