Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gestures as he speaks during a campaign event, Sunday, Nov. 4, 2012 in Minneapolis.
/ AP Photo/Mary AltafferPaul Ryan
The Wisconsin representative may have fallen short of the vice presidency in 2012, but his run gave the once-little known House Budget Committee chairman national name recognition. And he certainly seems open to leveraging it in a run for the Oval Office four years from now. Check out this paragraph from a story on Ryan in Monday's New York Times: "Contrary to his fear that a campaign would wear him down, aides said, Mr. Ryan was invigorated by the race. He particularly enjoyed his time spent in Iowa, where his wife, Janna, visited her grandmother's home for the first time in many years." It's quite the, ahem, coincidence that the one state his aides say he "particularly enjoyed" spending time is one that plays a central role in the nominating process.
After Romney loss, will spotlight land on Ryan?
In his role as Budget Committee chair, Ryan will be a major player in negotiations over avoiding the "fiscal cliff" and other policy debates with the Obama administration over the next four years. With Romney seemingly poised to exit the national stage, the self-proclaimed policy wonk is arguably the leading spokesman for the GOP's governing agenda. And he showed in the 2012 campaign that his advocacy for dramatic cuts to entitlement programs was not necessarily the electoral albatross that some Republicans feared.
It doesn't help Ryan, however, that he is a white male who could be seeking the nomination during a period when his party is desperately trying to improve its standing with female and minority voters. And the fact that he is a longtime Washington insider with little executive experience could open him up to charges that he lacks the experience necessary to run the country.
"THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" MR. OBAMA.. IS AMERICA'S LEADER HE WAS ELECTED BY AMERICA TO LEAD OUR NATION. "SO LET HIM LEAD" "SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"
"THIS IS WHY "WE THE PEOPLE PUT HIM IN OFFICE" SO FOCUS ON THE BALL ONLY, COMPROMISE WITH THE PRESIDENT AT ALL TIMES & WORK WITH HIM..THIS IS YOUR JOB..YOUR JOB IS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT YOUR PARTY THINKS ABOUT YOU ! !
" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT PRODUCTIVE TO ANY PARTY OR AMERICA TO HURT AMERICA BY NOT WORKING WITH AMERICA'S LEADER THAT "WE THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY"
(One of you may be walking in his shoes someday and you will remember this message)
If the republicans want votes, stop catering to the rich and corporations. Make them pay their fair share of taxes. Stop your assault on women's rights. Work for the people who put you in office, not the lobbyist, rich and corporations that are trying to fill you pockets with money so you will do their bidding. Work with the other party to fix what Bush screwed up.
Start doing this and maybe you might get some votes, don't and maybe next election, you may not have a job.
Remember Akin, Mourdock, Rivard, Walsh, Smith and Koster? All republicans that made statements against women's rights and abortion. All were defeated, kicked out of their government jobs by THE PEOPLE.
That should be a wakeup call for republicans.
The latest recession was in housing because both Rep and Dem voted to give Fannie and Freddie unlimited reign in making home loans. Banks were punished for NOT making loans that were deemed losers. The government said the government would back those loans. When the loans started going bust (proving the original bankers position of bad loans) the economy tanked. This government policy caused the banking and investment industry to hide high risk loans and spread them (something the government knew the entire time and was OK with because it furthered their cause of universal home ownership). When the loans went bad, the economy tanked and some how the government program was not held accountable. Why?
Bush didn't cause the recession, the housing bust came from Freddie and Fannie and the government forcing bad loans.
When they're questioned by reporters they should learn to take their time and think about their answers and only answer the questions they are asked and answer with intelligence and think about the repercussions of the answer they're about to give!
If the republicans want votes, stop catering to the rich and corporations. Make them pay their fair share of taxes. Stop your assault on women's rights. Work for the people who put you in office, not the lobbyist, rich and corporations that are trying to fill you pockets with money so you will do their bidding. Work with the other party to fix what Bush screwed up.
Start doing this and maybe you might get some votes, don't and maybe next election, you may not have a job.
Remember Akin, Mourdock, Rivard, Walsh, Smith and Koster? All republicans that made statements against women's rights and abortion. All were defeated, kicked out of their government jobs by THE PEOPLE.
That should be a wakeup call for republicans.
What I would like to bring to light is the fact that the majority of Americans do not support a person or party imposing their belief of morality or spirituality upon other people. The issue of gay marriage is exactly this argument. Gay marriage is about FREEDOM, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the citizens fighting for the right and pursuing the matter. It is NOT the business of the religious to prevent these CIVIL RIGHTS of others, including their grown sons and daughters. Not their business! NO BUSINESS whatsoever prying into private lives of private citizens! NONE!!
If the GOP can come to terms with this basic truth, I'm willing to hear the remainder of their arguments. Raise your family according to your own beliefs and stay the hell out of mine!!
What I don't hear from 'FREEDOM, Liberty and pursuit of happiness' Democrats is the answer of the following contradiction. How am I free to pursue my own happiness when all of my property belongs to the collective? I enjoy sailing for instance. However the government thinks that my property should be taxed heavily and annually because it is a sign that I am 'rich' so the ability for me to continue to own a boat is in question. The boat makes me happy. It is mine, I paid for it, so why do my rights to happiness get crushed by 'freedom loving Democrats'? I see no difference in oppressing people's right to enter into physical relationships and taking their property to support the 'common good'. If property ownership isn't an individual right, then how can you pursue any happiness that involves enjoying property (boats, planes, cars, homes, vacations, etc...)
So, I agree with Democrats defending individual rights to voluntary romantic relationships but they need to fix the contradiction of denying individual rights to the fruits of their labor.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
They couldn't even win even with all those Republicon governors doing voter suppression and disenfranchisement. And with KKKarl Rove's group doing election fraud.
Without all that right wing fraud Obama would likely have won by at least 10 million votes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You are such an idiot. You really are. GET OVER YOURSELF. Gee, you really are uneducated