- Who We Are
- Speak Up!
- Take Action
Mitt's demonstrated little "Whigginess" so far, and MWP wont endorse either of the "corporates" in principle. We like TJ! This Presidential election is all up to you!
Yet, I am curious to know what members and others here think about it.
My first, and yet only, Whiggy take away was to observe that Ryan is, hands down, more of a leader than V.P. Biden. In fact, V.P. Biden represents the follower as self proclaimed leader more than anyone else in the mix, followed closely by his running mate.
Do I agree with the Ryan budget? No. Too simplistic in my non-exhaustive read, and still does nothing to sow the seeds of an true economic revival BUT at the least he is focused on the issue of fiscal restraint,or lack thereof. At least he is trying to lead. On part of the revenue problem anyway.
Mitt doesnt get good marks from me on the leadership score, but its due in part to lack of data. If he succeeds, I can only HOPE we are plesantly surprised. ( many leaders, like heros, are quite accidental). There may be a Whig hidden in his soul, just a-waiting to come out of the closet! ( remember, a true sign of leadership is when someone marches against their own party, based on a realization of new truths in the common good. Its happened in Whig history. It may happen again!)
Another takeaway and maybe the fact that drove the choice, was the healthcare legislation. ACA. It seems to be known "on the inside" that the MA plan is killing the state financially. Its a somewhat close parallel to ACA, same basic model. It's efficacy may soon be in serious question. When this is public, the whole issue of healthcare is back on the front burner. The Reps will clearly attempt to use it to their political gain, as the two 'corporates' had set this up as their ideological battlefield years ago.
It would be unfortunate to have a second shot at PROPER healthcare legislation ( see our non-expert discussion and see how much common sense it makes in the healthcare thread), and BLOW it again as the two corporate political parties wrestle with their own self-interests, as well as their large contributors', and claim its for our own good. The ILLUSION of LEADERSHIP once again.
This issue requires leadership and true strategic planning, and an honest discussion of its realities, not its ideologocal framework. (we speak of the triangle of effect to frame the discussion properly, methodologically)
If the MA experience is any guide, and demographic cost trends continue, we will literally bankrupt this nation in short order if something isn't done. About healthcare, about federal SPRAWL, and about this logical disconnect between citizens wanting fiscal responsibility AND access to free Federal programs. ( Even in Ryan's home state of WI )
The issue runs deep because there is a large infrastructure, both corporate and governmental, built to run healthcare somewhat the wrong way. ( It isnt all bad, yet facing huge demand increases and suffering from inefficient legacy practices.) Policies framed along two party lines, like a Civil War battlefield, completely ignore this fundamental principle.
Or put another way, policies debated along ideological lines miss the true system dynamics altogether, allowing whatever defaults are in place, to remain so. Both public and expert debate must be METHODOLOGICALLY driven to a solution that achieves close to max effect with minimum, or acceptible costs. Its the max effect we need to more clearly define.
Sorry to digress to ACA and such, and speaking of digress...
WISCONSIN!!! Boy-o-boy it seems to be ground zero for the neoREP revival. The Dems have to be a-scared by the WI WAVE! Insecurities due to their lack of leadership are drivers, as is common at the individual level, which they must recognize viscerally. I wonder what John R. Martin, our man in WI,thinks about WI being so central to this neoCon revival? Actually, they'll LOVE JR's book!
Part of me, the Whig part, is glad the two corporate parties will be REQUIRED to address these issues soon, as it could sow the seeds of their eventual marginalization in American politics.
At the same time, MWP needs to gear up the Rountables and start a quasi-public "think tank" post haste! Other truly "agnostic" public policy experts must also chime in Loud and Clear. That's LIMA CHARLIE!
There is no "logical common sense" opposition to the ideologues until WE, THE PEOPLE, MAKE IT!!!!!
I was initially somewhat put off by the decision because I was hoping he would pick someone who was not such a lightning rod (I suppose it could have been worse on that count) and someone more moderate. Now that I have had time to think about it, I can see the pro's and con's of the decision.
Ryan will certainly fire up the conservative base a little, although most of the Southerners I know (I am one, though currently displaced to the Northern Plains) are not particularly thrilled that there is not a Southerner and/or Protestant on the ticket. He is conservative though, so that may assuage some of those concerns. However, I think while Southern voters will probably hold their nose and vote for a millionaire Yankee from from Massachusetts and a Catholic from Wisconsin, I just don't see a majority getting all that enthused in a way that you really need to win an election against an incumbent, particularly when the South is a GOP stronghold.
On the Pro side, however, at least Ryan's selection will at least force some sort of public conversation about the future economic needs of this country, particularly paying for future retirement entitlements and the budget that are slated to go bankrupt in a few decades. We do desperately need to have that conversation as a nation. While I am not a big fan of Ryan's budget, at least he is attempting to propose something other than the financial status quo, which is not working. I think President Obama is trying everything he can do to shift the conversation to non-economic and non-budgetary issues because he is really weak on jobs and deficits and all that. So, instead, he seems to want to talk about gay marriage and other culture war things that are really not primary issues facing the country right now. I think Ryan will force some discussion on that issue but how much is anybody's guess.
And while we may not agree with Ryan's vision on matters financial, I think you are right about his being able to actually lead. The current Vice President is not a leader, and, in fact, his political handlers have to be very careful when they let him out of his cage because he shoots his mouth off all too often, usually about stuff he does not understand or grasp fully. He comes off looking like a fool, which is not a particularly good leadership trait for someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency, as they say. I have to ask myself, if I was currently still in the military, would I have confidence in either of these men as commander in chief? Ryan, perhaps, though the jury is still out. Biden, no way.
So, I don't know. I personally would have chosen a VP from a state that is an electoral toss up. I really don't see, even with Ryan on the ticket, that Romney wins in Wisconsin. I could be wrong, but that's just my perception.
The current VP, did he really utter that gaffe? Gosh, I'd have him drugged into consciousness if I was C-in-C. He may or may not notice it. "Joe, did you take your smart pill today?" :o)
As a Vet, I really dont like bustin' on the serving C-in-C as such, but man, sometimes their foolishness goes way too far.
I do beleive it is in part that the Reps plan on throttling way back off ACA and the only philosophical way the peeps will buy it is if Mitt flipflops into Paul's arms. Lovingly, with a caress. Seriously, simply wondering if it was the driving issue, budget deficits, ACA etc as opposed to the geopolitical issues that you mention which typically help drive the choice.
Good comments there FT.....!
Picking Ryan only solidified my intent to vote for a third party candidate - most likely Gary Johnson. (I wish the MWP would field a candidate.) Ryan supported TARP and the Auto-bailouts. Anti-War advocates should fear Paul Ryan because he is a staunch Interventionist. Also, the Ryan plan lacks specifics.
Fwiw, most "staunch" interventionists likely NEVER WORE A UNIFORM! Especially not with NCO's stripes. I have to ask how this is squared with fiscal prudence?
I find it amusing that many conservatives attack Obama as a liberal ideologue who's never met a payroll, and Romney picks as VP a conservative ideologue who's never met a payroll.
Twitch, its the nature of dysfunction and points to their own insecurities, which ought be natural given they cant get ANYTHING done right, and they know it.
You've witnessed an individual railing on another? 90% of the time, the negative attributes used in the volley are the same attributes that the accuser is guilty of. Odd quirk of human nature, and apprarently, the theory or observation really, works in the aggregate.
I like Paul Ryan as his choice for VP, possibly the best choice. Kudos to Mitt Romney for his courage to take on entitlements (which, in my opinion, is one of our biggest long-term problems.)
BAM! You hit the nail on the head, but I'm not even sure you were 100% aware of the size of the target. Entitlements. Did you mean people permanently living on the social welfare system, or the elites holding onto their entitlements and priveledge.
Because this Whig thinks them to be one in the same. BOTH need to be addressed.
I'm not an expert or policy wonk so I would have to do research. What I know is the long-term trend for entitlements (much like oil) is up, with a strong, upward bias.
Some thoughts though. How about calling social security an insurance policy i.e a person pays premiums and hopes they don't have to use it (also called means testing). Also, Newt Gingrich has an interesting retirement model that they use in Chile. Portability - with all the instability in the workforce I personally would like to take my own health insurance and retirement with me independent of where I work.
As for social welfare, I would have to do research
Paul, apparently any real policy experts arent heard in Washington anyhow. Policy has become a cobbled together mosaic of special interests typically, and crazy redtape on top of it all. 4000 pages. They cant be serious, right?
The underlying trend you infer is demographics. As the baby boomers age, their health costs rise dramatically, and there are LOTS of them, so you have what amounts to a doube compounding effect.
In a healtcare system with plenty of middle men, information assymetries and lack of perfect competition so nothing can be truly efficient.
Odd, but part of me thinks that a further "commercialization" of the system might be in order to foster competition. See ads like " get your cat scan here - special this week!" is something which may actually help. BUT, it cant happen here in this insurance company driven system, where the consumer doesnt want or need to shop around. This simple change, putting skin in the game, would help ALOT.
Also likely is that health insurers need to be regulated like utilities. This is my own, non-expert, policy conclusion. Their lobby will try and give me a heart attack if I put that out there publicly, but it seems logical if we keep speaking of healthcare as a "public good".
Not excited about Ryan - he lies too much for me -not that any politician in the major parties is overly honest. (See Factcheck.org) I like Mitt's stance on trade with China and consider it a critical issue facing our economy and since I don't believe a Whig can win this year he gets my vote.