Paul Ryan refuses to debase himself, unlike certain of our acquaintances

To borrow Ms. Vicki’s phrase-ology, Paul Ryan is living rent-free in liberal-progressive-socialist heads. The more Speaker Ryan succeeds the more carpet they chew.

  • Charles Pierce of Esquire, a frequent guest at MSNBC,  calls Ryan a “zombie-eyed granny starver.”
  • Comrade John Nichols resorts to more name calling. Paul Ryan at Christmas is Ebenezer Scrooge. (Why? Tax cuts.) (Seriously.)
  • Continuing the content-free attack, aging hippie Joel McNally is “amazed at how successfully [Ryan] has convinced so many fans in the Washington press corps to portray him as a sincere, honestly motivated, conservative choir boy instead of simply another sleazy, unscrupulous, right-wing politician.”

Zip-it, hippieThis is what passes for policy analysis in the fever swamps.

So Michael Wolff’s haunting of the Trump White House was hippie Christmas to our acquaintances.

Fire and Fury is damning for both the Speaker (who fancies himself as something of a policy wonk) and the President,” Comrade Nichols chortles. “Trump’s election would change Ryan from a perceived rival into a faithful, if agonizingly inept, Trump retainer.” Trump’s “toady.”

Paul Ryan, “inept”?

They call me MISTER Speaker

Nichols (who fancies himself something of a political pundit) quotes Wolff:

“Trump saw a chastened Ryan as suddenly and satisfyingly abject, submissive, and useful. Bannon wanted to get rid of the entire Republican establishment; Trump was wholly satisfied that it now seemed to bend to him.”

Paul Ryan

Mr. Speaker

Pure poppycock! A little history, if you can stand it: During the 2016 campaign, you may recall (it was eons ago) Ryan famously said he was “not there yet” on Trump, even as The Donald was the presumptive nominee. He later refused to defend Trump’s tweets. For their part, Trump-Bannon (at the time, a team) sought to defenestrate Ryan with an odd character named Paul Nehlen in the GOP primary. Trump-Bannon sent in surrogates such as Sarah Palin to southeast Wisconsin. Nehlen got all of 16% of the vote. Sixteen percent!

Bottom line, neither got their first choice. They were stuck with each other. Trump could either work with his Republican Speaker or make Nancy Pelosi a happy woman. Ryan could either work with his Republican President or make John Nichols a happy socialist. You know their choice.

In any event, Trump had not the votes or the wits to replace Ryan as Speaker. And Trump has come to realize he needs Ryan and McConnell more than he needs Bannon, who is not only out of the White House but, as of today, out at Breitbart as well.

More despicable, really, is Nichols’ effort to demean Ryan’s legislative skills. Nichols chooses to quote Wolff (we assume correctly):

As the debate over “repealing and replacing” the ACA advanced, Ryan offered the administration “absolute assurances of his hold on the legislation. It was, he told the president during his several daily calls, a done deal. … As history records, there was no big victory. “Repeal and replace” crashed and burned.

Could we have a little history here, s’il vous plaites? Did we forget? Paul Ryan’s House of Representatives passed Obamacare repeal. Voted for it! Comfortably. It was in the Senate that the effort failed. Paul Ryan delivered. Just as he delivered tax cuts for Christmas. That Scrooge! We should all be so “inept.”

‘Please don’t go’

It frustrates our acquaintances on the Left to no end that southeastern Wisconsin loves Paul Ryan. They’ve only elected him 10 times without fail. When it was briefly bruited that Ryan might retire, his hometown newspaper pleaded, “Please don’t go, Paul.”

Small wonder Ryan should want to leave. He’s endured withering, often unfair criticism from both the left and right not to mention a parade of protesters stalking his home in Janesville. … For many politicians, “spending more time with family” is code to cover up their real reason for leaving. But Ryan has been sincere in his dedication to his family, notably insisting on coming home during weekends as a condition of accepting the speaker job.

The The Beloit Daily News observed, from close range:

Here’s what we know in Rock County: Ryan takes his family obligations seriously and is especially torn as his children age. He didn’t move his family to Washington; he commutes. … It’s that kind of genuineness that always made Ryan a rising star in any setting. …

That’s not to say we think Ryan is always right or we’ve never taken issue with one of his stands. … It is to say we think Ryan is a good person, and heaven knows that’s what America desperately needs in public office.

The Janesville Gazette concluded:

Ryan exhibits a kind of humanity and decency too often missing in politics today. … Through it all, Ryan has refused to debase himself by hurling insults at his critics. 

Maybe someday, our acquaintances on the Left (for they ARE our acquaintances) will learn to practice the same civil discourse. A few facts would help.

Platinum subscriber dross: Who calls Paul Ryan a policy wonk? That would be most national writers, including Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, actually.

Advertisements

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Republicans and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Paul Ryan refuses to debase himself, unlike certain of our acquaintances

  1. Tom Paine says:

    Ryan?
    You’re missing the big picture. Perhaps you might listen to Mark Levin’s radio program (podcast, Jan.9).
    No, not the entire program……..that is too depressing. Just listen to the first 15 minutes. Your perspective will be challenged.
    { you’re welcome}

    Like

  2. Gary L. Kriewald says:

    RE: “Has #MeToo Become the Great Terror?” This just in! One hundred French actresses, including the incomparable Catherine Deneuve, have thrown major shade on the harpies of the #MeToo crusade. In a letter to Le Monde, they warn of a new wave of “puritanism” sweeping the film industry (and society at large) based on the flawed and dangerous notion that there’s no moral distinction between a woman getting a pat on the butt at the office Christmas party and full-on rape. Being French, they also defend a man’s right to seduction (within reasonable limits). The closest historical analogy I can think of to the #MeToo crowd is the Temperance crusaders of the 19th century (only this country was loony enough to take them seriously). Now we’re getting a replay of their antics but instead of crusading against demon rum, the villain is men and their uncontrollable sexual appetites. Carrie Nation couldn’t stand the notion of any American being allowed to have a beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner. This kind of moral absolutism led inexorably to Prohibition and all its attendant evils. Finally the adults have stepped forward to curb the self-righteous adolescents screaming for the right of women to be treated like helpless children. Vive La France!

    Like

  3. AnonyBob says:

    Dave, a couple of your recently acquired commenters seem to delight in calling those they disagree with names: idiot; imbecile; etc. I’m all for spirited debate, and even for some sharp elbows, but this is just rude. It also shows they’re weak at arguing. How about a comment from management? You’ve not been shy about slapping me down when you thought I crossed a line. Or is this the accepted new normal here?

    Like

  4. Gary L. Kriewald says:

    Someone send the memo on Dictum #24 to Michael Wolff and every late-night TV talk show host. Their ceaseless (non-creative) name calling–all directed at one target–makes this site sound like high tea at Downton Abbey.

    Like

  5. AnonyBob says:

    Dave, I admit this technically is trolling because it’s not a subject of this post, but I gotta ask Splat and the other Trump apologists here:
    After today’s “s***hole” comments, can you PLEASE tell me how your president is not a blatant, ignorant and ugly racist? I know you supporters don’t care, but I’m just asking. And as a follow up, why on earth would he think any Norwegian would give up their higher quality of life to move to this rapid-descending-to-third-world-status country? (We do have a wanna-be tinpot dictator.)
    MAWA! Make America White Again!

    Like

  6. Tom Paine says:

    Yo Bob,
    Your brief comment asks a lot. Though not a Trump apologist, let me ask a few rational questions about your response. First, I like Blaska’s page and his comments, though like many, I don’t agree with everything he says…..contrary to your broad assumption [ “I know you supporters don’t care, but I’m just asking.” ]

    Now, regarding your characterization of Trump’s comment:
    I’ll agree, Trump is not the brightest bulb on Christmas tree. Ignorant, yes, but at least slightly more intelligent than the congressman who opined that Guam was likely of capsizing. (Agree?)

    “blatent…ugly racist,” ???
    Well, that simple analysis contains a host of emotional assumptions that I would like you clarify –>
    a. What exactly is “racist”? Nigeria, or for that matter Zimbabwe, Haiti, Cuba, Pakistan and Afghanistan, suffer not only low standards of living, but varying degrees of political corruption, gender oppression, and absence of meaningful civil/human rights. To label these nations as poor environments is factually accurate, IMO, though I’ll refrain from using Trump’s actual words. These are not nations where I would live, nor where I believe most here would want to live.

    Do you assume that our immigration policy should be designed to enhance OUR nation? If so, why should we not base entrance on merit? Or, do you believe our immigration policies should be based on a policy of social welfare for some (but not all) of the world’s poor?

    Of limited means, I have no interest in paying for xxx thousand or millions of poor people to enter OUR nation. In fact, I don’t know of any nation that has unlimited, open borders for immigrants, without regard to their health, culture, income, skills, language, and criminal history. So, unless we as a nation are totally BLIND to the characteristics of those who seek to live here, we will, by necessity, discriminate who will be allowed to enter, and who will not.

    Assuming you are not for unlimited immigration, what criteria would you use to separate those who are granted entry, from those who are not? You seem to deplore racism and discrimination, so how do you square the circle while SHOUTING from your lofty position as a peasant on the Blaska Manor?

    Like

    • AnonyBob says:

      You’re getting lost in the weeds here, Paine, or deliberately obfuscating. This is not about immigration policy. This is about the leader of the free world dismissing with crude obscenity entire (dark skinned) countries. By then wistfully asking why we can’t get people from the whitest of white counties, he made his views known in stark terms.
      “A simple analysis” you say. It is. It is a clear and simple situation staring you right in the face. How do you, and other Trump supporters, call it? Dave had the integrity to agree with someone he doesn’t like agreeing with. You? Splat? Dave not B? GLK?

      Like

      • madisonexpat says:

        Too you it is ALL about racism as is everything else. To us unwoke voters it IS all about immigration as so was a lot more of the presidential campaign than you understand. Ann Coulter was right on when she pointed out that your party was intent on importing the worst of the worst countries whose leaders were understandingly willing to let them go and Democrats were thrilled to let them in and to hell with the rule of law.

        Like

      • AnonyBob says:

        Ann Coulter. Now there’s an authority. Now who’s getting all wee-wee’d?

        Like

      • Tom Paine says:

        Dearest Bob,

        I assume we can agree that Trump has a simple mind that is incapable of a level of inquiry and analysis that transcends Disney-speak. (Agree?)

        Now, for you to suggest that I’m “lost in the weeds,” clearly demonstrates, like Trump (albeit from the Left), your inability to think deeper than Foghorn Leghorn. Just as Trump can’t “understand,” neither can you. Hence, your consistent tautological response.

        You failed to answer any of my questions, even though I answered your original query. I can only conclude you were afraid of my questions (because they negated the tautological nature of emotional screed). If you were not afraid, please answer them in your next reply. The only “simple situation staring [me] right in the face” is your emotional imperative for self-flagellation as a liberal who has failed to study history, economics and critical thinking.

        BTW, if my original questions were too difficult, let me try these. Perhaps one or more might pierce your tautological mental constructs –>

        What African nation(s) do you believe are equivalent to Norway, either by culture, technology, lack of corruption, civil rights, economic wealth, literacy, public health or any other measure?

        If African nations are not inferior, please explain why so many of the world’s immigrants are NOT moving TO African nations, Haiti, Cuba, or Pakistan; and, when given the choice, continue to stream into Norway, Sweden, and Germany in dramatic numbers?

        If there is equivalence between the US and other poor nations, please explain why so many Blacks in the US are not following the legacy of Marcus Garvey — since we so often are reminded the US is systemically racist, yada, yada?

        Like

  7. madisonexpat says:

    ABob,
    You decry name calling then call President Trump bad names. His s…hole remark is crass and unbefitting a politician, which he ain’t. His statement however is true and trust me after living several years in the third world, half those people will look around and privately say, “he’s telling us?”
    Your first 100 or so trips to the fainting couch were funny now they are just old. Last week some Prog friends were gleeful at Wolfe’s “revelations” and sought my opinion. “Meep meep” I said. “Here’s your Acme catalog. You’ve got him for sure this time.”
    So President Trump talks like we do which includes naughty words. We’ve all used this word, except for saints and liars.
    I’m sure you never have ABob but we do so really, its nothing to get all wee we’d up about.

    Like

  8. old baldy says:

    splat:

    “which he ain’t”. Unfortunately for all of us he is a politician, (note he was elected by a minority of voters using the accepted political process), albeit a pretty poor one.

    Trump is an embarrassment to the institution of the president in many ways, this s***hole comment is just another example of his rapidly expanding body of embarrassing comments and actions. Truly not the actions of, like , a stable genius.

    Like

  9. old baldy says:

    If you say so, splat.

    Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      I do. I also say I am not tired of winning. Tax reduction passed. Norks are talking to the Sorks instead of firing off missiles. Dems losing DACA negotiations. Meanwhile you’re all pearl clutching at potty mouths. Enjoy.

      Like

  10. richard lesiak says:

    Let’s re-draw our state legally and see how well Ryan does. He’s been pretty comfy in that silk stocking district. Haven’t even heard of him having one of those invitation only town-halls in a long time.

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s