Brendan Doherty praising Paul Ryan
Earlier this month, Bill Fischer, spokesman for the Rhode Island Democratic party, prophetically said in a statement to the press: “Paul Ryan may not be a household name to everyone in Rhode Island, but if you’re a senior citizen who relies on Medicare, you should know who he is and what he stands for, because these are the types of Republicans Brendan will be standing with and voting with, if elected to Congress.”
Well now that Paul Ryan is a household name, time will tell whom he proves to better benefit as a vice presidential candidate: Mitt Romney or President Obama. But his selection is certainly not going to help Brendan Doherty. The conservative-thinking, political newcomer is trying to parse himself as a moderate. But he’s has already suffered some from his close relationship with Ryan.
In May, Doherty told a Tea Party group in the East Bay that he supported Paul Ryan and his Medicare-cutting budget proposal. “I had a great opportunity to meet with Paul Ryan about a month ago and that’s his position and he’s digging his feet in and I applaud him for that and I support him,” Doherty said.
Later on the trail, Doherty said he wouldn’t vote to cut Medicare. But Paul Ryan donates to Doherty’s campaign and he *really wants to cut Medicare. “Furthermore, Mr. Doherty has gladly accepted $5,000 in campaign contributions from Mr. Ryan’s Prosperity PAC, further proof that Rhode Island’s seniors cannot trust Brendan Doherty to protect Medicare,” Fischer said in early August.
Perhaps this is why RIPR political reporter Ian Donnis said Doherty “walks a fine line in backing Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan.” (At least, I assume Ian writes his own headlines) in his statement on the selection.
Indeed, Doherty practically cops to the fact that Ryan is one of Washington’s most polarizing power players: “I do not believe that one political party is good and the other is bad. I do not believe that one party is for the middle class and the other is against it. I will focus on ideas that are formed through the cooperation of like-minded leaders from both parties, and those leaders then build consensus on both sides of the aisle.”
Great. If it’s true. But because Doherty is a political novice we have no idea what he will do if he ever gets elected to office. We know just since running for office he has changed what he thinks – or says – about Paul Ryan’s extremist budget proposal, among other issues.
Today’s New York Times calls Ryan’s plan ‘A Tax Plan That Defies the Rules of Math’. As a middle-aged boomer I directly benefit from the Medicare and Social Security that my mother depends on. Imagine if our generation had to worry about our parent’s health care coverage and basic income as well as our college age children. It’s hard enough as it is, but knowing my mother can see her doctors and has a monthly check from Social Security takes a huge weight off.
Hmmm. I wonder if a similar logic applies to pensions?
“Extremist budget”
C’mon now, seriously? This plan doesn’t even balance the federal budget for what, 20+ years? It’s a budget that still plans to increase federal spending over the next decade, albeit at a slightly smaller clip than the President’s proposal. That hardly qualifies as extremist.
Believe me, I harbor no love for Ryan’s plan, but at least he’s put an option out there. Whether it’s a feasible option or not is certainly up for debate, but it’s better than burying one’s head in the sand and pretending that everything is rosy when it’s clearly not.
While I guess Brendan Doherty is sincere in saying he hopes to find common ground between the two parties, I do find Paul Ryan’s budget plan extreme. As I understand it, it woud eventually cut safety net spending by about 1/3 in order to finance even more tax breaks for the wealthy. It is Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the low paid and poor people, already struggling, and giving to the rich. Truly a cruel man to suggest this, but reflects the attitude of much of the well to do, not the top 1% as Occupy had it, but the attitude of the top 1/3 or so.
I believe J Gardner is wrong to suggest there is no other plan. Asking the rich to pay more, cutting military spending, cutting subsidies to fossil fuel industries and big agribusiness, emphasizing better nutrition and preventive health care are all standard suggestions that have been out there.
By the way, even phasing out medicare poses a risk to existing recipients, if future taxpayers know they won’t be getting it, they will not support it for those that do. Ryan’s selection as VP removes any traces of being a “moderate” from Romney who panders only to the wealthy, the bigots, and relgious zealots.
“I believe J Gardner is wrong to suggest there is no other plan”
The only real alternative offered is the President’s own budget plan, which the CBO notes would make the economy worse in the long run relative to the current baseline. The rest of what you noted are isolated suggestions, not policy plans. It’s easy to offer those up when they don’t have to be fleshed out in a full bill.
“Ryan’s selection as VP removes any traces of being a “moderate” from Romney who panders only to the wealthy, the bigots, and relgious zealots.”
I am curious where you find him pandering to the ‘the bigots’ and ‘religious zealots’ or are those the standard left wing drop lines. You know like the ‘drop gun’ in the old cop shows. If you just drop those lines in, it justifies your hate.
As far as jgardner’s point, did the Democrats ever pass a budget when they ruled the country with a super majority? They couldn’t even come up with a bad plan never mind one that will work.
I beleive Romney is pandering to the anti-gay bigots by his proclaiming opposition to same sex marriage, he dropped a gay foreign policy advisor when the right-wing objected to him just because he is gay. He is also pandering to Jewish extremists in denouncing Palestinian culture, outrageous for someone who wants to be in charge of diplomacy, a form of pandering to bigotry in my opinion. Some see the hard line against (Hispanic) immigration he took in some of the primaries as another form of this.
Pandering to religious extremism is obvious, defunding planned parenthood, opposition to abortion (sometimes without exceptions) decrying the (imaginary) “war on religion” are examples.
All in contrast to his campaign for MA Governor where he took a very different line for a different audience.
Isn’t the President pandering to religious zealots by supporting Palestinians?
When has the President supported Palestinians?
And, really, the symmetrical point would be, not that the President has supported Palestinians, but that the President has insulted Israeli culture, which he has not done.