Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paul Ryan, Not the Wort: Did the Best Exist?

This blog has criticized Pual Ryan in the past--along with almost every GOP member of Cngress-for being more of a GOP establishment politicin than a conservative of real principle and conviction.  Romney's selection of Ryan as VP nomineee does not even come close to causing me to suport Romney for President. 

Ohh, the  supp0sed alternatives Romney was actually considering were much WORSE.  Tim Pwlenty?  The very idea that Roney is a 'freind" of Pawlenty, and evn considered him for VP, tells you more abut Romney than I ever could  DISASTE.  That is what the choice of Pawlenty, who culd not even make it to the Iowa primary, would have ben for Romney.  Pawlenty and Rob Portman (the othersupposed "finalist") are BUSH/MCCAIN peole.  They are the very worst of the estalbishment wing of the GOP. The choice of either of them would have sorely tempted me to vote for Barack Obama (although I don't think my stomach could atake it, as it cannot take voting for Romney). 

INn 2008, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin ALMOST got me to vote for McCain.  I actaully announced, in this blog, that I would do so afte the choice of Paalin. In the end, however, I simply could nto stomach McCain, even if he came with Paline, Therefore, it was not long before this blog reverted to the same lpositin on McCain I had to start with, and have with regard to Romney:  I simply cannot bring myself to vote for this kind of GOP establishment peson for President.  As stated, Paul Ryan does not even come close to making me change my mind, as Sarah Palin did cause me to initialy (for a few weeks) change my ind on not voting for McCain.  By the way, it is not that I think Sarah Palin is GREAT. . But she is so far above McCain, Romney and Ryan that it is not even close--if only becazuse she is NOT a GOP establishment person.  I don't think Ron Paul is great either, but I would be glad to vote for him for President.  Well, "glad" may be too strong a word, but I would have no hesitancy.  Paul an dPalin MIGTHT "shake up" WaZShington.  GOP estabishment politiciaNs never will.  Would Paul or Palin "betray me" if they actually got elected?  Maybe.  But I don't KNOW that.  I do know it with regard to Romney, McCain and Ryan (not even to mentin the hopeless Portma and Pawlenty--lol as to Pawlenty).

You might say this blog ws wrong, for the first time in a long time, when I said that Romney's choice came down to only two:  Rubio and Christie.  In reality, of curse, I was not really "wrong'.  I did not really "predict" that Romney would choose either Christgie or Rubio. I simpy said that those were the only two choices with the potentil to actualy HELP him.  I stand by that.  Oh, the reason Ryan may have been the best of the AVALIABE choices is that Ryan IS helpful to Romney on SUBSTGANCE and ENERGY.  Romney comes across too much as a "plastic man' whose only desire is not to say anything to offend anyone, or even to say anything that SAS ANYTHING.  Ryannot only nows more than Obama, but can say things: defend whkat Ropm ney professses to believe without being able to really explan why.  So Ryan may provide "help" to Romney.  The only question is whether the "help' is worse than the downside.  I don't think Romney had any choice, as to the three he was supposedly considering.  Portman and Pawlenty would have doomed Rmney to be nothing more than a "white bread" Bush type. Ryan gives him some chance to get out of that gOP establishment box. 

Why does the headline suggest that there was no "best" out there? Rubio would have helped with both Hisanics and conservatives, even though this blog has told you that Rubio has already BETRAYED conservatives at almost every turn.  More importantly, Rubio would give the Roney campaign less of a "white bread", GOP poitician look.  And Rubio CAN be articulate, even though I believe his performance over the past 6 months has ben pathetic.  Christie is Christie.  What you see is what you gtet.  But Christie does nto provide that kind of "squeaky clean" image that Romney obviously prefers.  He is FAT, for God's sake.  And he really does SAY THINGS (more than Ryan) . But Christie is nto much of a conservative, even if he is sort of a hero to peole lik me for taking on "journaLists" and actually saying things. 

In otehr words, both Rubio and Christie ight have been DEISQUALIFIED from being the choice, even if they were the only possible "game changing" choices.  Neither haS much experience.  BOTH may have REFUSED the job for their own rfeasons.  It is entirely possible that either Rubioo or Christie, or both, had "skeletons" that made them (or Romney) feel that they were not ready right now for the scrutiny that would come with being named VP.  Thus, I can hardly say that Ryan was the "wrong" choice for Romney to make, even though I previusly said that Rubio and Christie wre the ONLY real choices that he had.  Ryan may well have been the best AVAILABLE choice. 

As stated, Ruan brings SUBSTANCE and a sense of "real" that Romney lacks, and a youth and enrgy that Romney desperately needs--with a truly attractive faily as a BONUS.  Plus, Ryan is Catholic, for you CNN bigots out there who want to make Romney's Mormonism an "issue".  I know.  The anti-Christian bigots of CNN are ANTI-CATHOLIC as well, except for Cahtolics like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and the late Ted Kennedy (in other words, those who do not actually believe in the religion in which they profess to believe).  No, Ryan is not a bad choice from Romney's point of view, despite the fact that the DEMONIZATION of Paul Ryan began at least 2 years ago, on MEDICARE.

Notice how the Ryan choice pretty mujch puts to bed the FALSE, evil "issues' of "Mormonism" and "tax rfeturns".  Can even Obama and our evil media ctually DEMONIZE Romney on BOTH substance and negative personal attacks?  I don't think even those evil hypocrites can manage. kt.  I think they willl choose to go after Romney and Ryan with a HATE CAMPAIGN on MEDICARE (mainly).  Sure, Obama will contn=inue the Bain negative ads, and yu can expect the tax returns to be brought up from time to time.  But even our incompetent and evil media seems to realize that the Ryan choice makes it impossible to avoid real POLICY ISSUES in this electin. 

Why is the media willin g to go this way?  Come on.  You know this one.  The media BUYS INTO the Obama narrative that Obama WANTED to run agaInst Paul Rayn.  The idea is that Ryan is "so radical (lol--what am I?) that the American peole could never vote for a ticket bsed on his ideas.  The media were previously, DESPERATELY, trying to make this electin abut EVERYTHING but OBAMA and the ECONMY, becaUse they thought Obama would LOSE if the electin were really about Obama and the econmy  This blog has already predicted that Obama WILL LOSE if the econmy is not at leastg perceived to be improving by electin day.

That is what makes the meia so incompetent, besides the fact they are so partisan.  Do you think Obama won in 2008 because the American peole really "bought into" his "radical" leftists agenda?  Not a chancde.  Sure, Obama had the advantage of running against McCain, but Obama won because of the  ECONOMY.  It does not matter whehter Obama and the media portray this as a "choice" electon between the "reasonable' Barack Obama and "radical" Paul Ryan.  In the end, barring major Romney/Rya mistakes, Obama CANNOT WIN if the economy does not improve.  People are willing to vote for CHANGE 9f almost any kin d (e.g. Obama) rather than accept that MISERY is their permanent lot.  After all, Romney can make a pretty good case that he is a better MANAGER than Obama, even if he has few principles (the opposite, by the way, of being a "radical"). 

No. This elecitn, UNLESS the economy seems to be "improving', is still ging to be abut Obama and the economy.  The media can delude themselves all they want about how they can now make this elecitn abut a "choice' without exposing their obvius EVIL by acting as a negative aD machine for Obama (as on Mormonism).  Our 'journalists" are turly stupid peole.  Obama will keep up the negative ads because Obama STiLL cannot afford this election to be about \HIME, and he knows it.  The media is wrong if they think that they can now portray this electin as a "choice" betwen the "vision" of America of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and have an easy win for Obama.  Peole do not realy BEIEVE this stuff.  If they think Romney is actualy going to DO something--antyghin--different, then they are going to vote fo rCHANGE (Romney) ,. UNLESS, Obama, Democrats and the media can really get away witht he NEGATIVE AD CAMPAIGN this is going to tun into: the LIES and DISTORTIONS on MEDICARE.  Democrats will now try to SCARE seniors, to go along with their SCARE campaign directed at Hispanics and women.  Cntgrary to the stupid peole of the media, who may or may not know better, IF this campaign comes down to SUBSTANCE, it will NOT be decided on sbustantive "policy" questins.  It will then be decided by the way the ECONY looks on electin day, becaZuse the peole will give Romney thebenefit of the dubt on p9licy quesiotns (as they did with Obama).  People will NOT vote for Obama, in the abesnce of FEAR and HATRED, if they feel they are facing a dismal economic future under Oama. Sure, Romney MAY not be better. But people are gong to KNOW Obama is not good enough (assuming they do not perceive the eocnmy to be doing better by electin day).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking.  Notice I do not metnin "polls",, unlike lthe evil media.  Polls right now mean NOTHING.  The GOP is likely to get a bump" in the polls with their convention, and Obama a "bum" after his convention.  It all means nothing.  The only polls that mean AnYTHING are in the week before the electin, and even those could be off a LANDSLIDE either way.  Doubt me?  Never, ever, d that.  Even on the last weekend, the Reagan-Carter electin was seen to be a "toss up" by mospolls.  Reagan won bly essentially the same margin that Obama beat McCain, and it "felt" like even more of a landslide than that.  No.  Polls are a meaningless evil, and cerainy SHULD BE.  Should it make any difference to you how some OTHER PEOLE SAY THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE. I sure hope not, although evil "journalists" keep trying to tell you that polls give you some kind of "valuable" information.  HOGWASH.  Evil hogwash.  Polls give you NO "valuable" informatin, and realy just give LAZY "jrounalists" something to tak about so thay don't have to do the HARD job of actually reorting. 

No comments: