Tomorrow night, Paul Ryan will speak at CPAC. National Review Online has obtained an embargoed copy of the speech. It’s powerful stuff. He’ll talk about how Republicans share responsibility for the fiscal crisis. And he’ll detail President Obama’s dismal record. But the big theme is that Republicans need to make 2012 more than a “referendum.” He wants it to be a “choice.”
“The easy way is always tempting,” he’ll tell conservatives, urging them to avoid a victory “by default.” Bold ideas, he’ll say, are the only way to win a mandate:
I know there are people in this town who are terrified at the prospect of an election with real alternative visions at stake. “Make it a referendum. Win by default,” they say. “Just oppose – we can win that way. Don’t propose bold ideas – that’s too risky.” I’ll admit, the easy way is always tempting. But my friends, if that’s all we stand for, then what are we doing at here CPAC – the place where so many giants of our movement came to advance their boldest ideas? The next President will face fiscal and economic challenges that are huge, almost unprecedented. He can’t resolve these challenges if he wins by default. He needs a mandate – not just to displace Barack Obama, but to preserve and strengthen the very Idea of America.
Everybody knows this is politically risky territory. Republicans have their battle scars on entitlement reform. That’s why some argue that we should downplay bold agendas and simply wage a campaign focused solely on the President and his party. I firmly disagree. Boldness and clarity offer the greatest opportunity to create a winning coalition. We will not only win the next election – we have a unique opportunity to sweep and remake the political landscape.
Another theme is GOP unity. He’ll take care, in the heat of the primary fight, to underscore the importance of a broad, engaged conservative coalition:
For all of the overblown talk about conservative divisions, our movement has achieved astonishing unity, not only on the destination we want to reach, but also on the specific path to get there. We have transformed the debate in Washington over our nation’s fiscal future.
While President Obama shirks his responsibility to advance solutions to our fiscal challenges, he can no longer hide from the merciless math of the balance sheet… His proposals have three things in common: they load massive tax increases on small businesses and hardworking families, they require bureaucratic rationing in government health care programs, and they hollow out our national security.
Every time we force the President and his party’s leaders to get specific on how they would solve our fiscal challenges, they show us an agenda that does great harm to our economic security, our health security, and our national security.
And at the end, when he talks up the “American idea” and the importance of “choosing” our destiny, Ryan’s words echo, in tone and text, one specific speech. That passage is being kept under wraps until the CPAC dinner. But believe me, it’s good.
Why oh why didn't he run
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause on examination of his record, too many people would label him as a RINO squish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul Ryan is Ronald Reagan now.. I thought Costa said Chris Christi was Reagan or Romney was Reagan, it's confusing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Paul Ryan on one point. Republicans should try to make it a choice rather than trying to win by default.
I am also sure that if the nominee is Mitt Romney, he will try to win with a barrage of negative ads rather than an actual agenda of his own. Does anyone even know what Mitt Romney stands for?
Of course, Mitt Romney's strategy is actually the better strategy to get elected. But, the American people deserve to have a choice. It is time for the more extreme forms of conservatism to repudiated once and for all. Then maybe instead of being delusional and acting as though the reason they had bad results in 2006 and 2008 is because they were not extreme enough, Republican politicians will finally realize that the American people are not really buying what they are selling. While the American people certainly have conservative instincts on certain issues, they have liberal instincts on others. The defining ideal of the American people is neither conservatism nor liberalism. Rather the American people are a practical people with a can do attitude who want to get things done and solve problems.
One of the problems this country will have if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee is that the now dominant more extreme wing of the Republican party will continue to foster the delusion that "only if" they had nominated a "true" conservative, surely they would have won. Republican politicians probably will only be willing to get back to work on behalf of the American people when they realize that the American people are not buying the purist conservative vision they are trying to sell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes leftist extremism exist on whatever scale you're using? Liberal purity? Can Democrats be too Democratic with a capital D?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen maybe instead of being delusional and acting as though the reason they had bad results in 2006 and 2008 is because they were not extreme enough, Republican politicians will finally realize that the American people are not really buying what they are selling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What year is missing there? Oh yeah, 2010. (Not to mention 2004 and the record setting 2002 off year gains in both House and Senate)
Is the argument that the GOP was conservative in 2006 and 2008? And somehow moderated in 2010 (or back in 2004,2002)
We might review some history. 2006 - Corruption charges within the GOP ranks coupled with Bush fatigue in a 2nd term off year (and his poor handling of the Iraq war). Lesson: Only Democrat voters keep their corrupt leaders in power. (I'm looking at you Charlie Rangel). What firebreathing conservative ideas do you remember in 2006? Amnesty maybe?
And in 2008, Sarah Palin actually pulled the old moderate man back to even, then a lead in the polls, until he muzzled her, threw her under the bus, and pulled that stunt about leaving the campaign to work on the financial crisis.
As to 2010, I'll await your explanation how that year showed " the American people are not really buying what they are selling."
I definitely agree with you though of the need to offer America as strong a conservative as possible to contrast with Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I am also sure that if the nominee is Mitt Romney, he will try to win with a barrage of negative ads rather than an actual agenda of his own."
In your opinion, is this a bad thing? Because that's the only way your candidate, one Barack Hussein Obama, will try to win. He has nothing else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't worry David, one day they will come for you too, and you will finally realize that the brick in your hand comes from the wall that separates you from tyranny. Of course, by then it will be too late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like Santorum fits in with the Ryan approach, while Romney's plan is a loser.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust in time to write him in during the primary, then draft him at a brokered convention.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm still not entirely sure why Romney didn't just run with the Ryan plan to start with.
It really would have been the easiest approach for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[Paul Ryan will] talk about how Republicans share responsibility for the fiscal crisis."
Will Paul Ryan talk about Paul Ryan's responsibility for the fiscal crisis? It's been obvious through much of the primary contest that Republicans have the long-term memory of a housefly; Paul Ryan is no Ron Paul, no Jeff Flake, no Jim Demint. Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts, Iraq II, and a whole slew of expensive federal expansions with no pretense of paying for any of them. By a factor of multiples, Paul Ryan is more responsible for the current federal deficit than Barack Obama.
"[The president's] proposals....require bureaucratic rationing in government health care programs...."
Any program with finite funding requires rationing, and Paul Ryan's own Medicare proposal entails more rationing than the current program -- that's how it saves money.
"....and they hollow out our national security."
The doubling of the defense budget post-9/11 is simply not compatible with fiscal responsibility. Sharp cuts are a necessity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. McMurphy, you choose a post whose topic sentence says that Paul Ryan is taking joint responsibility on behalf of Republicans in Congress (for whom he is indeed a leader and spokesman) for past fiscal recklessness. You choose THAT post to criticize Mr. Ryan for not taking responsibility.
So how seriously should we take YOU?
Mr. Ryan -- unlike Ron Paul, and unlike any Democrat -- has crafted AND PASSED through the House a comprehensive plan to balance the budget, rescue Social Security and Medicare, and restore economic prosperity. Ron Paul, despite many years in Congress, hasn't ever passed any legislation of consequence, and his current proposals cannot possibly pass either -- not even among Republicans in the House.
Dropping our defenses to 9/11-type events does not save us money on a net basis, even if being cowardly were somehow suddenly acceptable to the American people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you think the national reserve and monetary policy would even be an issue right now if it weren't for Ron Paul? How about the drug war? Military spending? Ron Paul has single-handedly changed the debate in the GOP away from obsessing over abortion and gays to other matters, for good or for ill.
As for our "national defense" . . . it's a joke. Where are our government-issued gas masks and guns? Where is our domestic air force? Where are the bomb shelters? Our military is away on adventures overseas, so we are largely defenseless. Make sure you stock up on duct tape in case of a dirty bomb!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. McMurphy, you choose a post whose topic sentence says that Paul Ryan is taking joint responsibility on behalf of Republicans in Congress (for whom he is indeed a leader and spokesman) for past fiscal recklessness. You choose THAT post to criticize Mr. Ryan for not taking responsibility.
If Paul Ryan takes responsibility for specific legislation he and his caucus authored, I'll withdraw my criticism. But I doubt that's going to happen. Instead, Ryan will likely speak in generalities, take no personal responsibility whatsoever, and declare a pox on the houses of both political parties. Like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan believes himself capable of dictating to the rest of us at what point our evaluation of his political career may begin. I'm glad that Ryan has proposed solutions to the massive budget hole he helped exacerbate, but who's to say he won't turn profligate again if Republicans retake Congress and the White House? Paul, Flake, and DeMint have been consistent all along; Ryan's been a budget hawk for as long as the guy in the White House has had a 'D' after his name.
Dropping our defenses to 9/11-type events does not save us money on a net basis, even if being cowardly were somehow suddenly acceptable to the American people.
Cowardice is being so fearful for our safety that we expend lives and money far out of proportion to the actual threat. The real damage inflicted on 9/11 amounted to a fraction of the resources we've spent in response. Moreover, no politically-feasible deficit reduction package can forgo significant defense cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI tend to agree with you, McMurphy, but this sentence in your original comment leads me to believe you're not as you seem: "By a factor of multiples, Paul Ryan is more responsible for the current federal deficit than Barack Obama."
Based on what evidence? Put the math together to support such a claim.
Otherwise, these are right on:
"Instead, Ryan will likely speak in generalities, take no personal responsibility whatsoever, and declare a pox on the houses of both political parties."
"Ryan's been a budget hawk for as long as the guy in the White House has had a 'D' after his name."
Paul Ryan should be asked to comment on the specific steps he would take to bring spending back in line NOW, not in 10 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on what evidence? Put the math together to support such a claim.
Using anaylses of George W. Bush's contribution to the federal debt as representative of Paul Ryan's, I arrive at approximately $5 trillion to Obama's $1.4 trillion. I think this substitution is fair given that Ryan was in office for the entirety of Bush's two terms and supported all of the president's major spending programs (every tax cut, both wars, Medicare Part D, TARP, etc.). I understand that as a member of the House, Ryan 's ability to modify legislation was comparatively minor; he was, however, presented with a binary choice. Tellingly, he always voted 'yes.'
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThus speaketh the self-proclaimed Bull Goose Loony. (Check the moniker). Shut up and go watch the World Series, genius.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot much of a response by way of actual argument, but I'm happy you caught the referrence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope Mr. Costa also takes in Gov Palin's speech on Saturday at CPAC. I believe it will be just as powerful and will be the clarion call for the pitiful herd currently stumbling through the primaries/caucusees/beauty contests
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse