Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2016

Paul Ryan Gingerly Climbs Aboard

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:33 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Paul Ryan in his hometown newspaper, the Janesville Gazette:

. . . Sure, count us among the majority of Americans upset with the direction our country is headed. But that’s not enough. We agreed that we must focus less on what we’re against and more on what we’re for. So, long before we knew who our nominee would be, we decided we would present the country a policy agenda that offers a better way forward. We know what we believe in, so let’s bring it to the country.

[. . . ]

That’s why next week my colleagues and I will start introducing a series of policy proposals that address the American people’s top priorities. These plans are the result of months of work by House Republicans.

The concept from the start was simple: If we had a Republican president ready to sign bills into law, what would we do?

This month, we’ll show the country what a better tax code looks like. We’ll outline a plan not just for repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a better system, more focused on patients, choices and lower costs. We’ll offer a plan to restore the Constitution and the separation of powers that decades of executive overreach have eroded. We’ll present the ideal national security and foreign policy to keep Americans safe. We’ll show how we can reform rules and regulations so they’re spurring the economy and creating jobs, not destroying them. And we’ll offer a better way to help lift people out of poverty and into lives of self-determination.

It will be a positive, optimistic vision for a more confident America.

It’s short of all that’s required to save the country, but the goal was to focus on issues that unite Republicans. It’s a bold agenda but one that can bring together all wings of the Republican Party as well as appeal to most Americans.

One person who we know won’t support it is Hillary Clinton. A Clinton White House would mean four more years of liberal cronyism and a government more out for itself than the people it serves. Quite simply, she represents all that our agenda aims to fix.

To enact these ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That’s why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for [the presumptive Republican nominee] before discussing policies and basic principles.

As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas.

[The presumptive Republican nominee] and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging.

But the House policy agenda has been the main focus of our dialogue. We’ve talked about the common ground this agenda can represent. We’ve discussed how the House can be a driver of policy ideas. We’ve talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we’ve talked about how, by focusing on issues that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary.

Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.

It’s no secret that he and I have our differences. I won’t pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I’ll continue to speak my mind. But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.

As a right-wing nutjob I think having a potential House majority in conflict with a Presidential administration is more often than not a very good thing. Even when they both are nominally of the same party.

– JVW

15 Responses to “Paul Ryan Gingerly Climbs Aboard”

  1. Bang! (Somehow seems more appropriate than “ding.”)

    JVW (eabb2a)

  2. Paul Ryan had been (reduced to being?) concerned about whether Donald Trump would sign his bills. If not, there would be little point in endorsing him. This was already known.

    It is interesteing that it took about 4 weeks to get that (semi-commitment at least) out of Donald Trump. Donald Trump told Paul Ryan what he wanted to hear.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  3. No, it took four weeks to finish the policy package they were working on. That, and letting the presumptive blowhard know just where he stands in the pecking order. In other words, the real “we the people will be steering the agenda, and if he wants to be a success, then he had better get aboard. That bit about separation of powers was a shot across the bow.

    David L (95f470)

  4. I would bet heavy on traitor ryan voting as a Clinton Republican.
    This dope is a proven liar.

    mg (f81376)

  5. Speaker Ryan would have been a big improvement in 2002 over Speaker Hastert, that’s for sure.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. mg, any speaker or president you really liked would never get elected.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. Speaker Ryan would have been a big improvement in 2002 over Speaker Hastert, that’s for sure.

    Yeah. Apart from the awful pedophilia (which we didn’t know about then), Hastert was little more than a vote counter in a role that needed vision and leadership. At his best Ryan has Newt Gingrich’s intellect and policy chops without his megalomania. But I know that in certain holier-than-thou quarters Ryan is just a RINO sellout because he honored the awful deal that Boehner cut on his way out the door. This is why Republicans can’t have nice things.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  8. “letting the presumptive blowhard know just where he stands in the pecking order.”

    Oh, I think Mr. Trump knows good and well where he stands in the pecking order. More votes than any previous Republican primary candidate ever, and 5 more states to go.

    And I suspect that in these 4 weeks of meetings Mr. Trump very carefully explained to Mr. Ryan how the cow ate the cabbage.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  9. And more votes against him than any nominee before as well.

    MD in Philly (6d89d7)

  10. “But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?” — W.B. Yeats

    “Woof, woof!” — Paul Ryan.

    gwjd (ff21af)

  11. Hahahahahahahahaha Paul Ryan.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  12. I hope Beldar stops by this thread because, all joking aside, I am interested to see how he reconciles his past expressions of respect for Ryan with today’s endorsement. This is not mockery. I respect Beldar greatly. I am just interested in what he has to say.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  13. You guys disturb me somewhat. I guess I am just old and wedded to some antiquated ideals of ethics or something.

    I seem to remember the whole world (not excepting myself) baying at this rich upstart Trump to sign a pledge, just one simple pledge. He eventually did pledge to support the eventual nominee of the Republican Party without running off and starting a new party and running against the R nominee.

    Well, we be right and truly hoist on our own petard. The scumbag turd is our nominee.

    Now, to my antiquated notion of ethics that means I am pretty much honor bound to support him with the goal of minimizing the risk of a D POTUS, Hillary, Sanders, or some upstart like Pocohauntus. I am honestly wondering why you fellows are working so hard to get a third party going or almost anything other than swallow some pride and do the right thing based on earlier cries demanding Trump not bold and go third party.

    Maybe the perspective of 70+ years has be realizing that no matter who is nominated by which party the nominee is an ignorant, narcissistic, utter and complete scofflaw. Even Reagan was a flawed human. He was flawed our way, hence the best choice.

    BUT NOT ONE OF THE #$)*(&@#ERS SERIOUSLY CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND INCREASED PERSONAL LIBERTY. So they were all, each and every one, scumbags. All we can ask is, “Is this candidate OUR scumbag?”

    {o.o}

    JDow (babe94)

  14. Atlas shrugged.

    Now his kids know what to get him for Father’s Day– T-shirts emblazoned with the well-deserved and highly appropriate phrase, “I’m With Stupid!”

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  15. 1. I never asked him to sign any pledge. Nor did I myself sign any pledge to back the GOP nominee whoever he was and no matter what. So how am I bound? How is Bill Kristol bound? He never asked Trump to sign any pledge either, so far as I know. Why should any Republican voter regard himself as bound?

    2. Trump proved that his “pledge” wasn’t worth squat anyway when he threatened to run third-party after having signed it. Evidently, his pledge was conditioned on the Republican Party treating him “fairly,” with “fair treatment” being defined unilaterally by Trump himself. In contract law, this would be called an illusory promise, and such promises cannot be considered as valid consideration for a binding contract.

    gwjd (ff21af)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4371 secs.