This Tweet said it as well as anything else over the weekend:
Yes, for a presidential candidate who leaves everyone somewhere between cold and lukewarm, Paul Ryan is the perfect running mate: Someone beloved by both the Tea Party and the Club for Growth.
For those of you color-blind in that range, Nikki Haley is a Tea Party Republican, while Mark Sanford is a Club for Growth Republican. Nikki makes hearts go pitter-pat at snake flag rallies; Sanford sent shivers of pleasure down the spines of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. The shorthand distinction: One is populist, the other not.
By contrast, the least helpful, indeed most idiotic, thing I’ve seen on the Ryan selection was in the HuffPost: “David Axelrod: Paul Ryan Pick Evokes Memories Of Sarah Palin.”
That headline was a bit misleading. To his credit, all Axelrod was saying was that then, too, one saw excitement among the base. But what Axelrod is missing, or intentionally underplaying, is the breadth of Ryan’s appeal. Not just Tea Party — Club for Growth, too.
Of course, no one in his right mind would suggest Palin and Ryan live anywhere near each other on any measurement of intelligence or gravitas. The one famous for “I can see Russia from my house!” basically doesn’t live on the same intellectual planet as the one current officeholder in American who has ever, to my knowledge, used the word “subsidiarity” in a sentence — for which I honor him, even though his emphasis in using the word would not have been mine.
With Ryan, there’s a bonus, from Romney’s perspective: He gets the cultural conservatives, too, which is a whole other part of the base that casual observers sometimes erroneously lump in with the others. Since Romney isn’t beloved of any of these groups, Ryan brings much that he needs.
This morning, the Palmetto Family Council got so overexcited that it Tweeted this:
We now have a solid pro-life ticket for President… Mitt Romney Picks Pro-Life Rep. Paul Ryan as VP Running Mate…http://fb.me/DVLjuPF0
Um… are you sure about that folks? I mean let’s see… this is Monday… Is Romney pro-life on Mondays?
The Democrats seem a bit shaken up as well. I suspect that, however much they may trash the Ryan selection publicly, they know he’s about as good a pick as Romney could have made. The reasons they give to think otherwise are weak. Politico reported this morning that “On his three-day bus tour, Obama will hit Paul Ryan as a leader of GOP opposition to the farm bill…” To which my reaction was, um, isn’t that kind of a good thing?
The only gamble is, how well does Ryan play among us swing voters? That remains to be seen. But I suspect he’ll do as well on that score as anyone else Romney could have chosen that his party would have accepted.
Related Posts
For those who haven’t seen it, you might want to check out the recent (just last week) profile of Ryan in The New Yorker. I haven’t finished it myself, but I plan to. It was recommended to me by a social conservative who thought it very fair. An excerpt:
“Ryan’s long-range plan was straightforward: to create a detailed alternative to Obama’s budget and persuade his party to embrace it. He would start in 2009 and 2010 with House Republicans, the most conservative bloc in the Party. Then, in the months before the Presidential primaries, he would focus on the G.O.P. candidates. If the plan worked, by the fall of 2012 Obama’s opponent would be running on Paul Ryan’s ideas, and in 2013 a new Republican President would be signing them into law.
“Sitting in his office more than three years ago, Ryan could not have foreseen how successful his crusade to reinvent the Republican Party would be. Nearly every important conservative opinion-maker and think tank has rallied around his policies. Nearly every Republican in the House and the Senate has voted in favor of some version of his budget plan. Earlier this year, the G.O.P. Presidential candidates lavished praise on Ryan and his ideas. ‘I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan,’ Mitt Romney said on March 20th, in Chicago. The following week, while campaigning in Wisconsin, he added, ‘I think it’d be marvellous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and adopt it and pass it along to the President.'”
Is Ryan going to lure more crucial voters to Romney than, say, someone less polarizing? Are the true believers who would have sat out this election rather than vote for Mitt greater than the number of swing voters who don’t want Medicare messed with, for one thing?
Perhaps. But here’s another reason why I think he’s a good pick, and why I think he MIGHT have an advantage in appealing to swing voters.
Unlike the other true believers, he doesn’t speak in bumper stickers that grate on the ear, the kinds of things that are likely to sound like fingernails on a chalkboard to independents.
Rather than mumbling about how he hates gummint, he’s more likely to use terms like “subsidiarity.” He will at least SOUND smart…
This pick moves the narrative away from Jobs and the economy towards Medicare, long-term debt, tax cuts for the wealthy, and more than its share of kulturkampf issues. Jobs and the Economy were the primary narrative of Romney’s campaign. Now its a narrative shift into areas that will confuse the message. It also makes the #2 guy the more important one on the ticket, because Romney has had to embrace the well-known “Ryan Plan”, which he fought hard against embracing, then acceded to under pressure.
You could be right. But at least Romney never pulled a Gingrich, calling the Ryan approach “right-wing social engineering“…
Good point, Tim. Obama’s weakest point is jobs/economy (unfairly so, but…).
@Tim
I think Romney knows the jobs/economy issues will take care of themselves over the next 12 weeks. ANY bad news on unemployment hurts Obama. Rising gas prices hurt Obama.
It may be a good strategic move on Romney’s part to get people talking about deficits and Medicare. Obama will have to come out in favor of two losing propositions.
Ryan will sound intelligent like Newt did to some people.
I’m really happy to see that I’m not the only person in the country who believes Ryan misunderstands subsidiarity.
I just ran across this, which I found reassuring.
The money quote, which came from James Baresel:
“Subsidiarity is a communitarian philosophy. In this doctrine the human person cannot be understood apart from his communal nature and his communal existence. Subsidiarity claims that a communal, social and political existence is imposed on the human person by human nature, by the natural law and, ultimately, by God.
“For the libertarian, by contrast, the human person is individualistic. The libertarian considers the communal, social and political aspects of human existence to be the result of human free choice and considers these aspects of human existence to be created by man rather than by God. …”
Which helps to explain why I was confused when a libertarian like Ryan invoked subsidiarity…
I see that Baresel piece is from a publication called “The Distributist Review”… which almost made me not link to it.
I then looked up “distributism,” which I confess was a new term to me, which I suppose puts me in the category of less-well-read Catholics.
Turns out it doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means.
But boy, it’s hard to imagine a name more likely to ensure a philosophy won’t get a hearing in the modern political sphere, given the near-total triumph of libertarianism of various flavors.
Hey, alla you Catholic intellectuals out there — next time you want to launch concepts like distibutism and subsidiarity, even communitarianism itself, come check with me and I’ll focus-group it for you… 🙂
As Brad astutely pointed out, the issue is the impact on the 3% who are swing voters — and who will ultimately decide the 2012 election.
I think the choice of Ryan is like preaching to the choir. The main benefit is that the selection of Ryan gives them a reason to come to the polls, rather than sitting at home shaking their head at one of the most inept presidential nominees in our history.
Now, what about the rest of us? This choice really amounts to vanilla on vanilla. Will the older voters wake up and realize that although they are screwed either way, Obama taking $1/2 trilion to finance the Affordable Health Care Act may be a better choice than losing their Medicare insurance benefits for a voucher (not to mention inroads on their Social Security income)?
Romney probably gets a bit of a bounce in the polls for a while, but nevertheless, the President is widening his lead over the GOP’s hapless ticket.
Really, Doug? You think the people who told now-ex Rep Inglis to keep his government hands off their Medicare are going to embrace Ryan’s plan?
Anybody else waiting for the Ryan vs. Biden debates?
@Kathryn – How many people came out to vote for Obama because he picked Joe Biden as his running mate?
“kulturkampf”, is that anything like turdukhen?
“Obama’s weakest point is jobs/economy (unfairly so, but…).”
Haven’t you heard, it’s Bush’s fault.
@Tim – As someone who appears to be a Obama/Biden supporter… are you really commenting on Ryan’s intelligence? Joe Biden, does anything stupid coming out of his mouth come to mind just at the mention of his name?
Sounds like Brad is already making excuses for pulling the Obama/Biden handle in the voting booth.
Stuff is going to come out. I remember a NC Repub Congressman commenting after being in the same meeting that he was going home immediately and move his money from his bank(s). Wasn’t against the law but one of the perks of insider info. Cantor proposed allowing family members to be excluded from the new inside trading statute limiting just those in Congress but was caught by the media and withdrew the exception.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/13/paul_ryan_used_inside_info_to_profit_from_the_financial_crisis.html
It’ll be interesting to see how P Ryan is playing around the 1st of Sept.
Personal Information:
His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.
Education:
B.A. from Brigham Young University ,
J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University
Religion:
Mormon – The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
Working Background:
After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.
In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .
In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.
Some Interesting Facts about Romney:
Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts , turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years.
He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.
He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.
And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income…. Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:
He will show us his birth certificate
He will show us his high school and college transcripts.
He will show us his social security card.
He will show us his law degree.
He will show us his medical records.
He will show us he has nothing to hide.
@J – Do you think we’ll see Obama’s college transcripts by September 1st?
Juan Cole puts Repub PR into the best perspective I’ve seen.
“You might be Paul Ryan if….
Posted on 08/13/2012 by Juan
If you admitted that you got into politics because of the impact on you of the philosopher of personal greed and egotism, Ayn Rand, but later had to deny it because it was bad publicity, you might be Paul Ryan.
If you want to destroy social security for others, but after your father died when you were 16, you used your father’s social security survivor benefits to help pay for your education at Miami University of Ohio . . . you might be Paul Ryan.
If you say your budget plan was inspired by Roman Catholic teachings, but but nearly 60 prominent Catholic thinkers and leaders condemned it as heartless, cruel and un-Christian . . . you might be Paul Ryan.
If you claim to be a free marketeer but want to keep $40 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil in the budget, you might be Paul Ryan. When it comes to green energy, the Right says it has to be profitable on its own, but won’t give it a level playing field.
If you would raise taxes on the middle classes; but your budget would allow your wealthy running mate Mitt Romney to pay almost nothing in taxes, you might be Paul Ryan.
If you are against deficits in an economic downturn and during a Democratic administration, but voted for all the measures that ran up the deficit under Bush and erased Clinton’s budget surplus, you might be Paul Ryan.
If you say you are pro-life, but supported to the hilt an illegal and unjustified US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, you might be Paul Ryan.
If you accused climate scientists of conspiring to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change,” but are yourself a Koch brother-backed conspirator for the 1%, you might be Paul Ryan.
If your proof that climate change is an illusion is that it still snows in the winter, you might be Paul Ryan.”
Brad, just saw this from one of our favorite political observers. Wanted to share.
“Those that claim that (unlimited secret campaign contributions) are all about free speech need to explain how speech can be free when one side can buy all the microphones.” E J Dionne
As observed here more than 6 months ago, Republicans have rarely run two lawyers on the same ticket. No doubt doing so casts unwanted suspicion on the “two-party” sham voters have faced since Ronald Reagan.
Herman Cain would have been my top choice for veep, but Ryan will do very well. And to those wondering what impact Ryan’s selection has on swing voters, that ship sailed earlier this year with the unemployment rise I had also forecast.
An electoral landslide is highly doubtful, but the popular vote promises just that (unless we believe polls over-weighted by Obama supporters and routinely being shunned by likely voters of other political persuasions.
J, are you referring to what has been stricken/retracted?
““Those that claim that (unlimited secret campaign contributions) are all about free speech need to explain how speech can be free when one side can buy all the microphones.” E J Dionne”
In which country is that happening? It is fairly common knowledge that Democrats will spend pretty much the same amount as Republicans.
And what does that money buy? Sheldon Adelson spent $10 million on Newt Gingrich. How’d that work out?
Money only keeps you in the game. Results determine the final score.
But SD II, he has nothing to hide and will not even show all the detail forms of the two years of federal tax returns he has filed.
This of course is the most important election evar. Never before has America faced such extremists! And if you have any doubts as to their extremism just think about the sinister things they are hiding!
Needless to say, if you don’t vote for OUR team THEY will destroy the American way of life as we know it!!1!
E J Dionne..”In making Ryan his running mate, Mitt Romney guaranteed that this election will be about big principles, but he also underscored a little-noted transformation in American politics: Liberals and conservatives have switched sides on the matter of which camp constitutes the party of theory and which is the party of practice. Americans usually reject the party of theory, which is what conservatism has now become.”
Our fellow South Carolina citizen puts the PR pick into perspective!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/14/colbert-talks-up-ryan-and-romneys-dope-chemistry/
J, you keep complaining about that tax return issue, and let us know how that goes for you.
Meanwhile, the adults in the room are going to talk about budgets, how to save Medicare, and get the economy going again.
Bryan, where’s you humor? The adults may not realize that it’s the administration of a budget that counts. Ask Nikki about that. That’s where the action is my friend.
Bryan, to the best of my knowledge, J is also an adult.
Speaking of Medicare — I’m at an AARP session to discuss that very issue. It’s like the Social Security one I attended last month.
I go into this one as more of a blank slate. I’ve given less thought to this than to SS.
SS and Medicare are the real things that count. I’m on both. Are you?
“I’ve given less thought to this than to SS.”
Uh oh.
How about collecting information from a variety of sources and then forming an opinion? And when you decide on a solution think through as many of the possible unintended consequences that could result.
I’m guessing the solution will be “make rich people pay more”.
That’s what I’m here to do, Doug — collect a variety of ideas. But I doubt I’ll come out of this with a clear preference the way I did on SS. If there were such a clear better approach, I think I’d have at least glimpsed it by now.
Right now, I’m listening to views from one guy from the Brookings Institution and one from the Heritage Foundation. You’d no doubt be dismayed that they agree that premiums should be increased slightly for people with higher incomes. Still don’t know whether I agree with them. I need to hear more. Guess I’d better go back to paying attention…
“Those that claim that (unlimited secret campaign contributions) are all about free speech need to explain how speech can be free when one side can buy all the microphones.” E J Dionne…..J
The other side of the coin. Those that make such ridiculous claims forget that in 2008, Barack Obama collected close to $1 billion in campaign contributions. The sources of about 1/3 of the money could not be identified. In 2004, billionaire George Soros and the billionaire who started Progressive Insurance were willing to spend their entire fortunes to defeat George W. Bush. Obama supporters are constantly hosting dinners for campaign cash at the going rate of $38,500 a plate and collecting millions at each event.
So, stop spouting the damn hypocrisy and demonizing of the Koch brothers and other wealthy conservatives when both sides are just as guilty of spending millions and millions to influence an election so they can put in place their own ideological and political agendas.
As for tax returns, the Reid claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years was totally unsubstantiated and so far, he has not come up with the name of the “unnamed source”.
Personally, I am for full disclosure from all political candidates to include tax returns, college records and transcripts, and proof of claims of great deeds and accomplishments. Until BOTH sides make full disclosure, the call for one to disclose and fail to do so yourself is as Obama likes to say, “Not fair”.
When your damn skirt is clean and pure as the driven snow, then you have the right to make a judgement call against the other side.
One more point. Colbert is a comedian/satirist. Taking him as a serious commentator on political issues is as realistic as believing “Quest for Fire” was a historical documentary film.
You can’t do anything without having money (a revenue stream).
The professional repubs are worried that the RR team are blowing it and to be some 90 days from the election and you’re strengthening your base! It’s all about the budgets (taxes) of Mitt who has not spelled his out and PR who has espoused a draconian scenario with his written proposals and his many video appearances on its provisions. Many people are stupid, but not all of them and lets hope our voters come to some knowledge of the real facts related to the real agendas in this election.
I retired some 7 years ago from a Fortune 100 company with some 41 years service of dealing with elected officials from every level of govt. There are some good individuals who have a perspective beyond their Sunday School experience and simple pronouncements when it comes to making our communities and country a better place for all.
You want to talk about money and greed, take the CEO of my former employer’s insurance company which provides our retiree medical insurance. He made $105M last year and the company has bought CVS. Vertical integration! Let’s see how much they rebate this Oct.
Take Gov Scott in FL who when he was head of the Hospital Corp incurred the greatest penalty for defrauding Medicare that has been levied to date. That’s the same company that Sen Frist in which Sen. Frist had a large ownership.
Some individuals have a level of educational attainment, but have no idea of the real world and lack wisdom. One of the best advice comments I’ve heard lately for us older individuals, is as my retired attorney friend commented as we talked over a great BBQ lunch was, “get a younger doctor and have an older lawyer at your service.”
Much earlier, SDII asked, “How many people came out to vote for Obama because he picked Joe Biden as his running mate?”
I wouldn’t know, since I voted for McCain. But I thought picking Biden was a plus, just as picking Palin was a minus.
But not enough to make me prefer Obama to McCain, as much as I liked Obama (as I said often in 08, I saw that as a “win-win” election, either way).
I can’t remember a case in which the veep choice was the deciding factor for me, ever.
Oh, and Bart, I didn’t understand E.J.’s comment the way you did. I didn’t think he was complaining the Dems are the ones without cash, but saying that whoever is disadvantaged, it’s not right.
But to know for sure, I need to see his comment in context. Anyone have the link?
@J – “But SD II, he has nothing to hide and will not even show all the detail forms of the two years of federal tax returns he has filed.”
What is Obama afraid of? Why are all of his transcripts and college details locked down? Was he a bad student, did he enroll as a foreign student, did he qualify for financial aid using falsified information? I saw an interview a week or so ago where a fellow college student of his, who would have been in the same small upper-level courses state that he nor classmates he still associates with ever heard of Barak Obama in any of their classes?
“SS and Medicare are the real things that count. I’m on both. Are you?” -J
No. I’m in my 30’s, so neither social security nor Medicare will be in existence when I reach 65. Heck, Medicare will be bankrupt in 11.5 years. I’m paying Medicare taxes right now and I’ll never see a dime of benefit if we don’t reform Medicare.
Old folks who don’t want to reform the system are just pulling the rope ladder up behind themselves. Nice move, y’all.
Do you old folks mind if we talk about trying to fix the programs that are going broke, or is that too “theoretical” for you and Dionne?
Brad,
Dionne is a liberal columnist for the Washington Post and in the past, worked for the NYT. Now, as a former newspaper editor knowing the Post and NYT are liberal publications, what conclusion would you draw on his comment? If you think it was to condemn both sides, think again.
Beer vendor unwillingly gives Obama a $25,000 donation.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/beer-stand-owner-obama-visit-cost-me-25000/1#.UCqUNaPAE5s
Steven,
It was a fox interview with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root
Bart, a couple of points…
E.J. Dionne is an unapologetic liberal (although he prefers “progressive,” I believe). That’s him. His publication has nothing to do with it. What’s relevant is what HE thinks and writes, not your perception of his publication. Do you expect liberal pronouncements from George Will or Charles Krauthammer because they write for the same “liberal,” as you call it, publication? Of course not — even less than you would David Brooks because he writes for the NYT.
(By the way, technically, they write for The Washington Post Writers Group. I’ve never fully understood what that means in terms of whether they technically work for the Post or not. I mean, are they Post employees? I don’t know. I’ll try to remember to ask E.J., or Kathleen Parker — another writer for that “liberal publication” — next chance I get. By the way, E.J. also works for the Brookings Institution, and is actually easier to reach there than at the paper.)
In any case, I don’t know what E.J. meant until I read the piece (I tried to find it earlier, but didn’t succeed). But to me, the principle works perfectly either way. It’s ridiculous to say it’s speech, in the sense of something everyone has a right to, when you can’t exercise it unless you have millions of dollars.
It’s spending, not speech, and should be regarded as such.
And I’m saying that from MY perspective, which is quite different from E.J.’s. I’m no more enamored of the claptrap coming from the ads that Democratic fund-raisers pay for than I am what comes from the GOP.
Brad, this is the WP link to EJ’s comments.
In humor one can learn a lot and be able to see other view points. I like Stephen and his approach to humor, but it requires a knowledge and understanding of issues (and human nature).
Another individual put it this way for those that go to SS. “How is your sense of humor? Are the times in which we live beginning to be reflected in your attitude, your face, your outlook? Solomon . . . says three things will occur when we have lost our sense of humor: a broken spirit, a lack of inner healing, and dried-up bones [Proverbs 15:13, 15; 17:22]. What a barren portrait! . . . Humor is not a sin. It is a God-given escape hatch . . . a safety valve. Being able to see the lighter side of life is a rare, vital virtue.”
Sorry, forgot to paste link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-paul-ryan-and-the-triumph-of-theory/2012/08/12/2fa48a94-e4a4-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html
Yeah, but if you laugh at Chuckles the Clown’s funeral, some people will still frown upon you…
How true!
Thanks for the link, J, but that’s not the one I was looking for. I was looking for the context for this:
“Those that claim that (unlimited secret campaign contributions) are all about free speech need to explain how speech can be free when one side can buy all the microphones.”
OK, I found it, or a version of it. (Apparently, he’s said this more than once, in different ways. As opinion writers tend to do.)
And it turns out Bart has it right that in this instance, E.J. is specifically saying the right has the advantage. But I think he pretty evenhandedly discusses the back-and-forth, making his case in terms of how THIS year there is extra advantage to the side with the money, as opposed to last time, when Obama had the money advantage. Here’s what he says:
“We do know that the playing field this year is tilted sharply to the right. Journalists often focus on the world of rich liberals in places such as Hollywood and Silicon Valley. But there are even more conservative millionaire and billionaire donors who hail from less mediagenic places. There is, for example, a lot of oil money in Texas. Then there’s Wall Street. Once a bountiful source of Democratic as well as Republican cash, it has shifted toward the party of Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. And then there’s Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, whose $10 million donation to the super PAC supporting Romney was reported Wednesday.
“Republicans argue that turnabout is fair play. Barack Obama shunned the public financing system in 2008 and vastly outspent John McCain. Democrats, they say, are complaining now because they are at a disadvantage.
“That’s at best half right. It’s true that Obama struck a blow against public financing, though the system was insufficiently financed and would eventually have collapsed under its own weight. And four years ago, Obama filled his coffers through the regulated system that limited the size of contributions and that required disclosure. This year, there are no guardrails, no limits on what can be raised and spent. A remarkably small number of very wealthy people will be able to do what hasn’t been done for generations.
“And their influence will be especially large in congressional races where the outside groups can swamp what the candidates themselves spend. Those who claim that this is all about free speech need to explain how speech is free when one side can buy the microphone and can set the terms of debate, especially in contests below the presidential level.”
But bottom line, he didn’t mean it in a neutral way, as I had hoped. So Bart had it right.
Here’s the complete column.
Brad,
O.K., a couple of more points from my perspective.
I have read EJ Dionne’s columns and if my memory serves correctly, he has made reference in the past to the subject of spending but in reference to the conservative side of campaign spending. So, when I read the comment, what other conclusion would be reasonable other than the one I come to? If Mr. Dionne had a history of writing columns that were not of the “progressive” nature, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and concluded he was referring to the millions and millions of campaign contributions to Obama in 2008 and this election cycle from bundlers and contributors who sent in enough, just below the reportable amount that constituted almost 1/3 of his campaign chest.
Then, the comment about being able to “buy” the microphone time would have been a fair comment.
You may want to read his column published February 5, 2012 in the Washington Post about the Citizen’s United decision rendered by the SCOTUS. I don’t think there is any doubt as to the target or targets of his comment. The key line from the column, “Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other.” is the thrust of his column.
What he fails to mention is that there are just as many rich Democrats and progressives as there are rich Republicans and conservatives. There are also union coffers full of funding that are used to attempt to sway elections their way. The decision in Citizens United was not a single edged sword, it cuts both ways and allows both parties to seek favor with “corporations” and other faceless entities for political support.
And as always, we will politely agree to disagree with my contention that the Washington Post and NYT are liberal publications who employ one or two “conservative” pundits for the sake of trying to appear neutral.
Brad,
Had already posted my reply before seeing yours.
J
“Another individual put it this way for those that go to SS. “How is your sense of humor? Are the times in which we live beginning to be reflected in your attitude, your face, your outlook? Solomon . . . says three things will occur when we have lost our sense of humor: a broken spirit, a lack of inner healing, and dried-up bones [Proverbs 15:13, 15; 17:22]. What a barren portrait! . . . Humor is not a sin. It is a God-given escape hatch . . . a safety valve. Being able to see the lighter side of life is a rare, vital virtue.”
I get the point and understand who the referenced comment was meant for. But just as an FYI, I do enjoy laughter, do have a good sense of humor, and have no problem with Colbert’s comedic routines – as long as they are taken in the proper context.
Jonathan Winters, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, Richard Pryor, George Carlin (one of my favorites), and many other comedians cds are in my collection. When I need a lift, I go to YouTube and pull up some of Winters old routines.
What I was referring to is that even though my namesake is that of a famous political satirist and entertainer, when it comes to serious political matters, I don’t take them serious. After all, they don’t have a vote in the hallowed halls of government that can and will affect the lives of the electorate.