This story about Congressman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) is kind of old but worth reading. This part is telling:
Of the 50 most conservative lawmakers on that list — a group dominated by Southerners — Ryan was one of only three whose districts were won by Obama. None of the other 49 had a seat that resembled Ryan’s — a blue-collar, Rust Belt district that leans modestly Republican but has alternated in national elections between red (Bush in 2000 and 2004) and blue (Obama in 2008).
“A lot of guys get to vote how they want, then go home and go fishing. . . . I’ve got to vote and then go home and explain what I did and why I did it,” says Ryan, who has topped 60% in five straight elections and won 64% in 2008. Of the 34 congressional districts that voted for both Obama and a GOP congressman, only one lawmaker (New York’s John McHugh) won a bigger majority than Ryan, according to Congressional Quarterly.
The whole thing here. Interestingly, the Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning has an editorial which seems like a good illustration of how Ryan is perceived in Obamaland. It says that Rep. Paul Ryan’s “plan for reducing the frightening federal deficit calls for some harsh medicine. Just for starters, Ryan proposes privatizing or placing limits on spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the nation’s big three but much-depended-on entitlement programs. So the reaction from readers to a recent piece on these pages outlining the Republican’s plan was surprising. The expected fear and loathing was in short supply. Instead, many of those commenting seemed relieved that someone, somewhere, was proposing something that might actually work. . . . The grass-roots reaction to Ryan’s plan suggests that a political leader willing to talk about them honestly and specifically will be rewarded, not punished.”