Hello brothers! Nice to be back. It's been an age.

For the record, prior to the GOP VP pick I was certain that Obama would win the November election by a landslide. However, as a result of the Ryan pick for VP I"m not as certain. You'll recall the point of a Presidential election, to win. And to do that in this country you must win the swing voters. Reps will vote for Reps, Dems for Dems. But it don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing.

So now I'm a bit nervous. Ryan looks the part. He's got a vibrant youthful look, he's handsome, he's articulate, he knowledgeable of the nation's budget, he's a family man. Nevermind his politics, that doesn't matter with swing voters so much. We want to know how a guy looks, how he sounds, what inflection he uses to make his points. Is he fit? etc. Therein lies the magic and this guy can almost go toe to toe with The One on all of the above.

I wonder why the GOP got it SO right this time? My theory....because they got it SOOOO wrong the last time. The making of Sarah Palin will go down in the history books as THE stupidest move the GOP ever made. A move that made them the laughing stock and nearly broke up the party.

I think the GOP is grooming Ryan for 8 years of the Presidency no matter what happens this time around.

What I don't get is why they led with Romney in the first place if they had this guy in the wings? Again, my theory....Romney's got doerayme and is willing to use it. A welcome gesture amongst the GOP. A purchased nomination! He's not the first.

Be that as it may, Ryan is now on the horizon. I think we may be looking at an 8 year reign down the road and I doubt the Dems will have a candidate to answer this guy's swagger.

Nice of you to drop in Dag.

I don't think any VP candidate has this type of power to swing an election. It's more like a percentage point here or there. In a close election, that might matter, but if you thought Obama was going to win by a landslide, it doesn't make sense to me that you're now worried just because of Ryan.

Hey it's Dag (The Hand Grenade) hammarsjkold, nice to hear from you. I'd agree that Ryan is about as good as they could have done.

Gosh, is that it all takes to be a president--make a good appearrance, be likeable, not mangle the English language (oh, forgot about GW and he couldn't manage the last part)...

Here is someone from FOX news (a token progressive) who is not thrilled with Ryan. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... z251rvLkSe

It was never likely to be a landslide. I can see a small bump for the Romney ticket since Ryan was announced, but it's of the order of a couple of points - enough to make a close race closer - and will likely be overshadowed by more significant changes in opinion over the next month.

Oh, and hi Dag. going to stick around this time?

Mind you, Ryan may get picked up for a few inaccuracies in his speechifying...

'audatious untruths'

danivon wrote:Mind you, Ryan may get picked up for a few inaccuracies in his speechifying...

'audatious untruths'

Please. Really?

You need to check the fact-checkers. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/f ... ns-speech/

Let's see the plant was notified of its closure in December, 2008 and much of its workforce was laid off at that time (during the Bush Administration). Obama's speech was in February, 2008 well before the plant was notified of its closure. Taking that speech and linking it with dashing the hopes of people Ryan knew who worked at the plant is outrageous, particularly since Obama's bail-out plan is credited with saving the U.S. auto industry (or at least most it). Obama makes a speech in February, 2008 says we would your like to be kept open for 100 years. The plant is then closed before he ever takes office so there was nothing Obama could have done about that (yeah I know they made some trucks for a few months after that, so what). Obama's plan help to save many other plants similar to the one that was basically closed before he took office ( a plan Romney opposed). Yeah, I would say Ryan trying to say Obama was in any way responsible for the plant closure is deceptive. Looks like your fact checker auditors are full of "hot air", DF.

He said they were about to lose a major factory. And then said the plant was closed within a year. See how that indicates that somehow Obama made a promise to keep that plant open in February, 2008 and did not keep the promise (even though he was not president when the speech was made and even though the plant was closed before he became president).

freeman2 wrote:Let's see the plant was notified of its closure in December, 2008 and much of its workforce was laid off at that time (during the Bush Administration). Obama's speech was in February, 2008 well before the plant was notified of its closure. Taking that speech and linking it with dashing the hopes of people Ryan knew who worked at the plant is outrageous, particularly since Obama's bail-out plan is credited with saving the U.S. auto industry (or at least most it). Obama makes a speech in February, 2008 says we would your like to be kept open for 100 years. The plant is then closed before he ever takes office so there was nothing Obama could have done about that (yeah I know they made some trucks for a few months after that, so what). Obama's plan help to save many other plants similar to the one that was basically closed before he took office ( a plan Romney opposed). Yeah, I would say Ryan trying to say Obama was in any way responsible for the plant closure is deceptive. Looks like your fact checker auditors are full of "hot air", DF.

He said they were about to lose a major factory. And then said the plant was closed within a year. See how that indicates that somehow Obama made a promise to keep that plant open in February, 2008 and did not keep the promise (even though he was not president when the speech was made and even though the plant was closed before he became president).

Do some work. Read his speech.

You're just wrong.

I read it very carefully. Here is the quote from your web site from Ryan's speech:

"President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

So first he said that people when they listened to Obama and voted for him like the sound of that in Janesville where they were about to lose a major plant. I'm not sure they knew the plant was going to close before they voted for Obama but we will leave that aside for the moment. He said "that plant did not last another year". That statement was related to Obama's statement that if the government supports the plant it will be there for a hundred years. But how could that possibly be Obama's responsibility when he was not president when the decision was decided to close the plant? And when Obama did become president he decided to support the auto industry with a bail-out package--it did not help this plant but it helped a lot of others and Obama wold not have been in on deciding which plant got closed--that would be up to the auto makers. (and Romney was against the bail-out).

Clearly, he made it sound like Obama promised to support the plant in Janesville but he failed to deliver on that promise. That was deceptive.

Please come up with something more that "i'm just wrong".

For starters: http://mrctv.org/blog/politifact-lies-a ... e-gm-plant

"He made it sound like" would not be a lie in any event. However, the plant shut Dow after Obama was in office (see link).

Obama did fail to support it. According to GM, it could be opened again. So, again Ryan is right: Obama failed to do as he said.

What about the other alleges lies in Ryan's speech?

By the way, if the plant closed in April 2009 (after announcement in December 2008), and Obama said what he did in Febriary 2008, Ryan is still incorrect to say 'that plant did not last another year', I make it 14 months.

And still, saying 'plants like this one' is not the same thing as 'this plant'. Where is the clear promise by Obama to keep Janesville open? I haven't seen it yet.

danivon wrote:What about the other alleges lies in Ryan's speech?

By the way, if the plant closed in April 2009 (after announcement in December 2008), and Obama said what he did in Febriary 2008, Ryan is still incorrect to say 'that plant did not last another year', I make it 14 months.

Killer point.

A more charitable interpretation would be it didn't last a year after Obama's inauguration. Obama was making promises for what would happen after he was President. Ryan was calling him on that.

Read this section and tell me if Obama has delivered on his promises:

Courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations, here is the transcript from Obama’s speech at the plant in Janesville on Feb. 13, 2008, in which then-candidate Obama says precisely what Ryan quoted him as saying:

“I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.”

Right after that, Obama promised that his energy plan would “invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that will pay well and can’t be outsourced.” Then he says all of his plans “must be done in a responsible way, without adding to the already obscene debt that has grown by four trillion dollars under George Bush.”

I really like how many times Obama went after Obama about the debt. Remember? Bush's deficits were "unpatriotic." I wonder how candidate Obama would critique President Obama? Call him a "commie?"

And still, saying 'plants like this one' is not the same thing as 'this plant'. Where is the clear promise by Obama to keep Janesville open? I haven't seen it yet.

Wow! He was in Janesville! That is some spin! It's wrong--see bolded above--but, nice try.

As for the Guardian critique:

In early 2010 Obama created a bipartisan committee known as Bowles-Simpson to figure out how to balance the budget and hand its recommendations to the president. The final draft of the committee's report failed to win the necessary support of its members, however, falling three votes short. Paul Ryan was on the committee, a fact that he neglected to mention in his speech. In the straw poll on the final draft, he voted "no" – against the plan that he now accuses the president of ignoring.

President Obama walked away from the recommendations. Ryan voted against it for specific reasons. Ryan proposed a budget, which passed the House. Obama proposed 2 budgets that could not garner a single Democratic vote. It is inarguable that Ryan led MORE than the President on debt and entitlement reform.

In our democracy, it is not all that common that the Presidency and both houses are in the control of one party. How do they pass a budget? Compromise. The President and the Senate, led by Harry Reid, have sat on the sidelines whining that the House won't cave in. The Senate should have passed a budget. The process then would have gone to a committee. That could not happen because the Democrats were playing politics, led by the Man who would not even make serious proposals--at least not public proposals.

In fact, the downgrade was the result of refusal of Republicans in Congress to vote to raise the debt ceiling, despite pressure from the White House and most outside analysts.

This is garbage. The downgrade was the result of the refusal of the President to lead--either in getting a compromise or in doing anything to avoid needing to lift the debt ceiling. Blaming it on the Republicans is like blaming Obama for the recession itself. The reckless spending that led to the need to lift the ceiling was not their choice, nor was the failure to forge a compromise.

Sorry, Congress passes budgets, not the President. Congress passed the budgets that led up to the deficit, and included deficits. To claim they have no responsibility and the President has all of it is laughable. Additionally, the concern over the triple-Arating that led to a downgrade was based on the worry that Congress would not increase the debt ceiling to a level that would allow it to carry on as previously budgeted.

The failure to get a compromise is not simply Obama's. He would need both sides in Congress to be willing to move. They were not. One side in particular decided to link the debt ceiling to other matters, something that had been rarely done before. And which was the source of the need to compromise in the first place.

I am also aware that in your system, the President does not have much power over Congress. Not even to force his party colleagues to do as he wants. To make it Obama's fault that Reid did not compromise as much or as quickly is yet another example of this personalisation of all problems to the President.

Back to Janesville...

Perhaps events between Feb 2008 and Jan 2009 meant that trying to help was too late. Perhaps the problem was that in the intervening 11 months the incumbent government did too little to assist the plant and those like it.

Besides, is Ryan saying that the autobailout should have been bigger, to enable Janesville to survive, or does he agree with his running mate that it shouldn't have happened at all?

Not that Romney is consistently opposed to failing companies being rescued with a bit of Federal money. Apparently Bain & Company (which begat Bain Capital) after it hit big trouble in the early 90s did a deal that cost the taxpayer $10 million in written off debts. The Romney campaign have been toutong how Romney saved Bain and Company and bank savers. Seems that he 'didn't do it on [his] own'.

Bailouts for me, but not for thee, Mitt?

danivon wrote:Sorry, Congress passes budgets, not the President. Congress passed the budgets that led up to the deficit, and included deficits.

How many budgets have been passed since Obama took office?

While the President does not pass budgets, who signs them into law?

Does the President bear no responsibility for the operation of the government?

Does the President have no responsibility to lead on economic/budget issues?

To claim they have no responsibility and the President has all of it is laughable.

Who said Congress has "no responsibility?" On the other hand, Republicans, led by Ryan, have actually passed a budget. What have Democrats, led by the President, done besides whine?

Additionally, the concern over the triple-Arating that led to a downgrade was based on the worry that Congress would not increase the debt ceiling to a level that would allow it to carry on as previously budgeted.

Hmm, if that is true, and the debt ceiling was lifted, why did it get downgraded and/or why was the downgrade not reversed?

Where is the President's plan to reduce the deficit? Why does the President have no call to lead the country considering we're $16T in debt and heading for 20 in 4 years? At what point does the Man have to put forth a real plan?

The failure to get a compromise is not simply Obama's.

But, a real leader cannot simply quit. The country deserves more than that.

Did you see the AP interview he did? The President said he would compromise in his second term. So . . . why not now? Why not a year ago?

He would need both sides in Congress to be willing to move. They were not.

A leader would have put out a plan publicly and shamed the Republicans and Democrats into coming to the table and working out a deal. Instead, the President played golf (more than 100 rounds) and set records for fundraising.

Show me what a President spends his time on and I'll tell you what his priorities are.

One side in particular decided to link the debt ceiling to other matters, something that had been rarely done before. And which was the source of the need to compromise in the first place.

Because they had no other means to force spending cuts.

I am also aware that in your system, the President does not have much power over Congress.

Not true. He has a bully pulpit second to none. He can go to the American people and make his case. Of course, the only thing he ever really pushed that way was the healthcare bill that people did not want.

Not even to force his party colleagues to do as he wants. To make it Obama's fault that Reid did not compromise as much or as quickly is yet another example of this personalisation of all problems to the President.

When did the President pull these people together and say, "We've got to get this done. Let's work together and do it?"

You and liberals can blame the Tea Party, Boehner, and whatever boogeymen you'd like. Real leaders, like Reagan, find a way to convince others. He and O'Neil got something done because it was necessary. Democrats have wanted to raise taxes today on the promise of future cuts. Historically, that has not worked well--we get the taxes and no cuts.

Back to Janesville...

Perhaps events between Feb 2008 and Jan 2009 meant that trying to help was too late. Perhaps the problem was that in the intervening 11 months the incumbent government did too little to assist the plant and those like it.

Prove it.

Besides, is Ryan saying that the autobailout should have been bigger, to enable Janesville to survive, or does he agree with his running mate that it shouldn't have happened at all?

Obama promised something. He didn't deliver. That's not complicated, is it? It has nothing to do with Romney or Ryan. They didn't promise to keep a plant open.

Not that Romney is consistently opposed to failing companies being rescued with a bit of Federal money. Apparently Bain & Company (which begat Bain Capital) after it hit big trouble in the early 90s did a deal that cost the taxpayer $10 million in written off debts. The Romney campaign have been toutong how Romney saved Bain and Company and bank savers. Seems that he 'didn't do it on [his] own'.

Bailouts for me, but not for thee, Mitt?

No citation? Whatever.

On the other hand, Obama's big claim to fame was organizing public housing residents to make demands on government.

We saw many testimonials to the previously unheralded selflessness of Romney--caring for many, many people and going out of his way before he was in the public light.

Where are the similar testimonies about Obama? How he changed lives before he became President? How he sacrificed of his own time and money to provide for those in need, to comfort those who were dying or grieving?

The President promised to change the world. All he has done is run up the tab.