Paul Rayn

Remarks of Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) – As Prepared for Delivery | Committee On The Budget

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

No wonder he has all of his staffers read Atlas Shrugged.  He earlier gives a capsule of his, and now in effect the official Republican, view of government:

We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that “the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

The critique of this perspective brings some dangers with it, as no one will want to be viewed as an enemy of “liberty” and “responsibility,” but it will become obligatory if Ryan continues as lead spokesperson on the Republicans’ defining issues.  Ryan himself may be vulnerable to political attack – sponsor of a “roadmap” to end Social Security and Medicare as we know them, a history of sacrificing his own principles on key votes.  Ryanism itself can eventually be revealed as desperately narrow, the ideological preference of a small minority, utterly inadequate to the times.  The advantage of attacking it, or defending against it, is that the Left might in the process re-develop a better sense of what it is actually for.

46 comments on “Paul Rayn

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Amusingly, to me, John Stewart focused on the second passage on the Daily Show, and he, or his writers, completely missed the difference between Ryan’s definition of government and a liberal-left view – which expands upon “promote the general welfare” and “secure the blessings…” in a way that goes far beyond a mere safety net, and asks, and began asking more and more insistently during the Progressive Era, whether narrow constitutionalism was sufficient to those ends.

  2. fuster wrote:

    no that’s the one that started with the indigs winning, then King George losing and climaxed at Gettysburg and Ford’s Theater.

    Got it.

  3. I just watched the Daily Show repeat and you are so right. The writers completely blew it. What Rayn said may link up with Stewart’s personal Dem vision, (slanted in according with his financial and racial biases), but it certainly wasn’t something a democrat would say.

  4. @ CK MacLeod:
    I was unable to view it, but I bet it was funny. He’s been hugely funny and right on most of the time. His humorous criticism of Obama (some right to his face) has been particularly apt and in the right measure. Like everyone else, Stewart has his prejudices and because he’s so funny those prejudices are well hidden.

  5. I tried again and did get to view the video. Wow. I know it’s a mistake to go there, but miggs? Come on. Doesn’t that video resinate with what CK’s been trying to help you understand? Can’t you budge just a little?

  6. No, I don’t Stewart has been one of the largest culprits in making the nutroots, and Journolist idiocy, more than Kilbourne, who already had
    taken out the patent on incivility, recall the crosshairs on W, hardy har har,

  7. @ Scott Miller:
    He ran a Round Two with O’Reilly last night – and, all things considered, was quite gentle, but firm. The problem, of course, is that Megyn Kelly can stare right into the camera with all of her fierce prettiness and really seem to believe her own bullshit. She really doesn’t seem to believe that anyone on Fox goes Nazi on their enemies. She is dead solid certain of it, and a little upset that anyone could believe anything else.

    Looking at her makes me think of the few times I’ve had to deal with authentically insane people in my life – schizophrenics and others. I don’t think she’s schizophrenic, or maybe she’s professionally schizophrenic – drops into “mode.” But it’s still scary to me. I can barely access the mental space I had to be in to watch that stuff all day long – “it may be be bullshit, but it’s our bullshit, and our bullshit’s better than their bullshit, dammit.” Nowadays, I can’t stand it all, except in pre-digested form.

  8. fuster wrote:

    what does Air America have to do with anything?

    That was a joke. “Air America TV” would be MSNBC, as though it’s the only alternative to Fox, and as though we can all safely assume, on the basis of no evidence, that they’re comparable to Fox in some relevant way.

    I’m sure that migs just wanted to show how ““it may be bullshit, but it’s our bullshit” works, or doesn’t, in practice.

  9. miguel cervantes wrote:

    hardy har har

    I like that part. Hardy har har. Is that how it’s spelled? Not that it matters, but I’m going to use that one again. It’s even just fun to write…hardy har har…especially without any punctiation, it’s freaky looking in a good way. Thanks for the reprisal, migs.

  10. Schultz, Maddow, now Uygur, Senator Franken, the whole Mos Eiseley
    crowd. Mind you Fox is an inperfect vehicle, (Shemp, Geraldo Riviera
    Huckabee,) O’Reilly doesn’t impress a great deal either.

  11. CK MacLeod wrote:

    I don’t think she’s schizophrenic, or maybe she’s professionally schizophrenic

    I think the psychological term you’re looking for is schizo-effective. I think that’s how it’s spelled.
    Maybe I should change my name to Hardy Har Har. What do you think?

  12. fuster wrote:

    nd the correct term is lying for dollars

    That’s the “effective” part. In my days in Hollywood, I never met anyone who was a good enough liar to just lie on that level without there being some kind of matching mental disorder behind it.

  13. I would say Megyn is much more sober than O’Reilly, by a long mile, She did the best interview of that popinjay Sheriff Dupnik for one

  14. Scott Miller wrote:

    In my days in Hollywood, I never met anyone who was a good enough liar to just lie on that level without there being some kind of matching mental disorder behind it.

    either that or you didn’t discern that they had the ability.

    spend some time in Washington DC.

    listen to cops testifying and being cross-examined.

  15. I think Megyn is probably totally honest, and capable of being so because she’s totally brainwashed by her own defensive self-righteousness, something like O’Reilly in that respect, and like many of their viewers.

  16. I feel like I’m in one of Scott’s alternate realities from a Slider’s spec script, Ryan is calling for some sanity in budgetary policy, but like the late R.D. Laing, the sane must be pronounced insane, or something to that effect

  17. Yes, let us pretend that light rail and green energy are the solution, which bucket of ergot are you sampling from?

  18. Colin should counter with a fake trailer of The Rite, starring Anthony Hopkins. It could feature Megyn Kelly playing a possessed girl name Megan and her head could spin around every time she said something about Fox people never calling anyone Nazis.

  19. Hopkins gets possessed in the end, as I understand it. Now CNN and
    AIR America TV has violated ‘Godwin’s law’ so aggresively as to defy
    logic, so epic fail, now Beck has gone into common ideological fixations
    of the progressives vis a vis classic liberals, that’s something different

  20. @ CK MacLeod:
    I actually have a bigger problem with CNN than Fox News. What happens on Fox News is obviously just about entertainment. I realize there are millions of people taking it seriously, but no one with an once of discernment could possibly think it’s a real newscast. CNN on the other hand presents as real. Sometimes it actually does report the news. But it also creates it. Even now, Wolf B is stirring up the energy it takes to get a full blown war going in Egypt. Again, say what you want about Michael Moore, but he is the only one calling CNN on its manipulative ways.

  21. It prints the press releases of the Cuban government, and the erstwhile Tikriti mob, that presented it self as a government, it’s traded away, any trace of self respect it ever had, and yet it’s not
    as insane as the Soros project, MSNBC, so it comes across very
    ‘splunge’

  22. @ miguel cervantes:
    Pretty weak. No one actually called anyone anything. No apparent mention of Nazis. And no one making the Big Denial (which, if made, as far as we know would be accurate).
    @ Scott Miller:
    Eh – that amounts to an argument for not reporting the news at all. Anyone would impose a “frame” on events, just be selecting from among them.

    Can’t agree with you though about CNN being worse than FNC. Everyone assumes his or her own capacity to read between the lines, but what about the effect over time? FNC really does put out a line, echoed in when not directly lifted from rightwing talkradio, that gets parroted in all broadcasts and drilled into its viewers – making things easy for people like Stewart. MSNBC has pet themes, too, of course, but, for one thing, it has too small an audience to drive news coverage.

  23. Ok, that’s just funny right there, however one is reminded due to her coverage of Indonesia in the early 90s, that the events in Cairo, are
    much more like those that toppled Suharto

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*