Although Paul Ryan undoubtedly has some political and personal skills and will inject some much-needed energy into the Romney campaign, it isn’t too hard to figure out why Democrats are elated about his selection. First, let’s look at what picking House Republican Paul Ryan didn’t do.
1. It didn’t help Romney with women.
2. It didn’t help Romney make any inroads with blacks, Latinos, Asians, or Muslims.
3. It didn’t boost confidence in a Romney administration’s preparedness to handle foreign policy, a la Dick Cheney.
4. It didn’t force the Obama administration to defend new territory.
5. It didn’t deflect attention from Romney’s tax returns/avoidance.
6. It didn’t help Romney move to the middle.
7. It didn’t isolate Romney from the wildly unpopular House Republicans.
And let’s look at what picking Ryan did do:
1. It forced Romney to try and fail to distance himself from Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Romney now says he would have signed Ryan’s budget, and he therefore owns a budget plan so unpopular that people don’t even believe it was actually proposed.
2. It locked Romney in to a plan that raises taxes on lower middle class folks while effectively zeroing out his own taxes.
3. It locked Romney into a program that voucherizes Medicare, and twins him with a candidate who wants to privatize Social Security.
4. It, therefore, weakened Romney substantially with white working class voters and with seniors, who both hate the Ryan Budget with a white hot passion once they learn the details of it.
5. It saved the Obama administration the cost and difficulty of tying Paul Ryan and the House Republicans to Mitt Romney.
6. It created the best conceivable opening for Democrats running in difficult heavily-white states and districts.
7. It turned a battle of personalities, which polls showed Romney was losing narrowly, into a battle of ideologies, which polls show Romney will lose decisively.
For more on those polling numbers, take a look at Ron Brownstein’s latest piece. Mr. Brownstein also sees the Ryan pick as potentially disastrous to Romney’s chances.
Ryan’s ambitious budget blueprint, as passed twice by House Republicans over the past two years, crystallizes the GOP’s highest policy priority: shrinking the size of the federal government, largely by dramatically restructuring entitlement programs led by Medicare and Medicaid. But the GOP today is increasingly dependent on the votes of older and blue-collar whites who — while eager to scale back government programs that transfer income to the poor — are much more resistant to retrenching entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that largely benefit the middle-class.
If we assume that we are talking about voters who are leaning Republican because they don’t like paying taxes that are then spent on the truly poor, you could hardly do worse than to propose raising their taxes, slashing their earned benefits, and giving all the money to the rich rather than using it to aggressively pay down the deficit.
What this means is that the Romney campaign will have to leave any semblance of the truth completely out of their campaign rhetoric. They will have to do whatever it takes to prevent white working class folks and seniors from believing what every independent analyst is telling them. And they will have to stoke whatever anxieties they can to convince these voters that Obama is not on their side.
It’s a recipe for a very racialized campaign. It is not going to be pretty. I don’t think Romney is good at playing that kind of game, and I’m not sure Paul Ryan is even willing to play it. At least, I’m not sure Ryan is willing to play it to the hilt, in Sarah Palin style.
That means, we’re probably talking Super PACs: Billionaire-funded racism, in the Donald Trump mode.
I don’t see any other way this works. If they aren’t very aggressive, Obama will begin to peel off a share of the only remaining areas of Republican strength. And that will have a huge impact on the House and Senate races.
The bulk of the campaign money is now in the SuperPACs, at least on the GOP side, so the actual candidate can bunker down and let their anonymous/deniable/unaccountable allies carpetbomb the political landscape.
Don’t know if it’ll work, but I think they’ll try. One thing they won’t do is truthfully explain their policy proposals.
The RMoney team have concluded that the Presidential race isn’t about two politicians, but about competing brands, and in business, the brand with the most marketing spend behind it generally wins, regardless of its intrinsic relative merits over the competition. So this isn’t about people or truth or facts or policies, its about corporations spending hundreds of millions on associating RMoney with feel good stimuli, and Obama with fear, hatred, resentment and envy. The Ryan pick maximises the marketing spend available. It’s as simple as that.
On the merits, Ryan (and the coming Team Obama campaign against him), puts Florida and PA (old people states) out of reach.
Only thing I can think of is that team romney has waaaaay more confidence in FL/PA racism and/or voter suppression efforts than I would.
More likely, team romney is just a bunch of dumbasses.
I was saying Obama was a 100% lock for reelection for years and years now, even when others were getting squirmy over his poll numbers or the economy.
It’s now a million-trillion percent lock. And possibly even some other made-up numbers for exclamation.
I’m not sure why Romney chose to fight explicitly on Obama’s chosen field of battle. He let the President dictate the entire terms of engagement.
As for Ryan, this all begins with that Republican caucus summit a couple of years ago when that goober was the only one who displayed any basic literacy (if not numeracy, because he’s still a fucking Republican) compared to the rest of the yahoos who got clowned by the President. Ryan was the only one who seemed vaguely cognizant about fiscal issues beyond scary, scary earmarks. And the President recognized it, and brought up his Medicare voucher plan then and there before the midterms even happened. He’s been running against Ryan’s policies even before the GOP took back the House and the infamous budget was even written or passed.
Smart man, that Barack Obama.
I love how this puts Ryan and his policies firmly in the spotlight. If the Dems can manage to convince the public that his various plans are real, the GOP are on the record all over the place as a party and as individual candidates extolling these plans, so the association is already there, even in the dim public perception. It could be the single best thing to happen to our chances in the down-ticket races.
The one problem is that this makes Ryan’s ideas, however toxic, mainstream. It lets Fluffyhead and his fellow whores treat Ryan’s ideas with seriousness.
The GOP have been doing their damnedest to make Ryan’s policies mainstream as it is. Up to this point, it’s been a dog whistle for their own true believers, but now that they’re taking it on the Presidential campaign trail, it’s a whole ‘nother ball game.
It’s unmistakable, and well documented that the GOP have been kissing Ryan’s ass for his economic policies going back years, it’s just that nobody outside of the right-wing circle jerk has any clue what that actually entails. Compare it to Birtherism: it plays well to the base, but as soon as you put some sunlight on it, it evaporates in a puff of derisive laughter.
It’s true that repeated attempts to mainstream an idea, no matter how ridiculous, can become with familiarity to be somewhat normal. The lesson isn’t lost on me that the John Birch Society can now openly sponsor GOP debates, for example. But the GOP was already injecting these Ryan policies into the general discourse, semi-surreptitiously. Now they have to own them–or they will if the Obama reelection machine makes them own it, as they undoubtedly will.
I agree 100%.
I believe now that 1) FL is Obama country 2) AZ is a swing state for this election and 3) Obama can begin focusing on down-ticket races.
The most important thing is that a NATIONAL campaign be made to FORCE the Repukeliscum to defend the Ryan monstrosity. If this is done in a concerted manner, and the clear message about the REAL RYAN BUDGET, we could see a re-alignment.
Plus we can get Ryan out of Congress. He has named his dogs “Boomer” and “Sooner”. What kind of Wisconsinite names their dogs “Boomer” and “Sooner”? These are OK names, not WI.
Probably one that got his big break in politics working for a congressman from Oklahoma and then married an Oklahoman woman.
…What the fuck is this nonsense? “Disloyalty” to the state of Wisconsin, really? Work a little harder, please.
Sorry, Bazooka, but I got news for ya! That shit really does carry water for low info voters.
Scott Brown is probably a senator now because Martha Coakley refused to go to a RedSox ball game and press the flesh.
Jerry Brown in ’68 dropt 5 polling points in Michigan, because he unknowingly wore a Buckeyes hat in Detroit rally.
There are plenty of other examples. Coakley is probably the only one who could track an actual loss to it, but still, you don’t fuck around with sports loyalties in low info voter elections.
Meh, turns out it was the senator from Kansas not Oklahoma, though I guess his wife is still an Okie either way. Not that it matters much. Fuck, I now know more about Paul Ryan’s stupid family than I ever needed, times a million.
Zeroing in on pet names is still beyond weak sauce.
At the end of the day, when you weigh your bushel baskets, the fruit from the low branches counts just as much toward the total as the rest. These things matter to people, even if they shouldn’t.
You are obviously a low information voter. This kind of moronic shit is what makes it for many. The details matter, and especially in the midwest where hatred of Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Michigan is important. Also most people hate Nebraska.
The Ryan pick really underscores why Romney would be such a terrible president: time and again he’s demonstrated his total malleability to pressure from the loudest and the best-funded of his constituents.
I don’t see how this isn’t suicide for his campaign, and for what? What other possible motivation for this pick could there be except pure water-boweled fear in the face of criticism from people so obviously insane that they can’t see past their ideologies to the necessity of winning.
If you can’t run an even half-competent campaign, you can’t hope to govern the most powerful nation on the planet.
But it will make for a funny cartoon:
Ryan driving a wienermobile with Mitt tied on top — and that’s just the beginning of how much fun could be had with this imagery and their draconian policies.
Wow — I want to see that one!
Reminds me of early stories about the Romney bus circling the parking lot outside Obama rallies and honking the horn. Wouldn’t you love to see someone do that outside a Romney rally with a weinermobile? Is Tom Robbins available? Somebody should check.
Calling Wavy Gravy!!! Calling Wavy Gravy!!!
Your list reminds me that the Ryan pick not only is disastrous in the economic debate — it’s also disastrous in the debate over control of ladyparts. On the question of abortion, Ryan takes a really radical position, not wanting to allow abortion even for rape, incest or to protect the health and life of the mother (your pregnancy might kill you? OK, then die…).
On this and a raft of other culture war issues, Romney has tried to be as vague and weaselly as he can get away with and still get the nomination. Ryan has been clearly on record with extreme positions. This sets up a great way to hound Romney: “You running mate thinks abortion should be banned even if the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. Do you agree?” Even if Romney won’t give a straight answer, asking the question enough times will have the same effect as asking him repeatedly about his taxes– it will convince voters that there’s something there they should know about.
rmoney has already given himself and his surrogates and his superpacs winking permission to go all birther on the muslim usurper:
yeah, rmoney’d prefer a clean fight … with an opponent that can’t hit. but he’s not gonna get that fight. obama’s not about to relent on a winning attack.
so the rightwing nutjobs will finally get the “all-out” campaign they’ve been whining and bitching for since 2008. the campaign that they claim mccain denied them, but conveniently forget fox news et al. gave them anyway.
which is just fine, since it didn’t work then either.
Yes, and let’s also see Mitt’s birth certificate because there’s something fishy about that “miracle baby” story.
So AG got his Libertarian after all, democrats seem to be happy. At least we have a common denominator going ahead. [In article links added are mine – Oui]
This is not “my libertarian,” oui. My libetarian was first and foremost an anti-PermaGov infiltrator. On evey level. This guy? Insider as it gets. His ‘foreign policy” is as economically imperialist as it gets, all gussied up in neo-copnservative language. (Neo-conservative…the opposite of neo-liberal. Both are simply hustle positions on the “America First” bandwagon.) Tactics are the only difference. Strategy? Short-term wins at all costs.)
Like this from 2009:
Translation? Sure.
Translate the rest yourself. It’s all here if you know the simple code.
Now for “my” libertatrian’s views on foreign policy.
End of story. Not much more to say. Bet on it.
AG
Ryan’s dust up with the Nuns on a Bus hasn’t been squared which could translate into the Ryan choice having a negative impact on the Catholic voting bloc.
Certainly there’s a core belief in the Catholic faith in the value of recognizing the poor and those in need as people who must be lifted up.
Can’t wait for this!!! dust up between Ryan and the nuns. Who do you think will come out of that dust up looking good? [hint: saw a video of sister Simone from Indianadem’s links and she’s amazing]
Ryan is scared spitless of her and if there ever is a one on one, it’ll have to come as an ambush. But my nickel (I only do nickel bets) is on her finding a way.
All good Catholic boys are scared spitless by the Nuns. It’s one of the reason women becomes nuns.
Yeah, remember Sister Mary Stigmata aka The Penguin?
Nice summary, Boo, and worth keeping available for future reference.
I can only think of two possible strategic reasons for Romney’s choice. One, they’re looking at superior GOTV enthusiasm as a trump card that, along with the voter suppression in the swing states, could win the turnout battle to squeak through to a win. I know here in IL, the teabaggers are galvanized and I believe their promises to have many thousand canvassers on the ground that might not have been motivated before. The flaw in that thinking is that the sword cuts both ways. I can’t think of a VP choice this side of Palin who could do more to galvanize the left side of the Dems.
The second possibility for the choice is simply that they were looking at a teabagger rebellion, possibly an indie candidate, and this was their desperate move to prevent that.
Strategies aside, does this mean we’re looking at a genuine ideological campaign season? If the Dems want to make it one, this has absolutely given them the power to force it, and Obama already seems ready to go there. “The Ryan plan will reduce Romney’s taxes to less than one percent” is red-hot powerful, and not there’s no way Romney can etch-a-sketch away from it. He’s forced to either back it up or spend campaign season squabbling with his running mate. Maybe even better, Obama will also be pushed into more egalitarian stances that he won’t be able to finesse his way out of in his second term. Big time win-win.
Open-book poll: among credible choices Romney had for VP, would any have done more to close the Dem enthusiasm gap?
It didn’t help with getting Jim Robinson, the owner of Freerepublic, to support Romney either:
“Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney
. . .
I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon “bigot” on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I’m a bigot.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917406/posts
Boo…it sounds like you’re trying to talk yourself into the fact that this was a bad pick!
You are missing the point…this election isn’t just about winning the election…it’s about effecting the political debate in this country…
Why do you think that Ryan won 65 percent of the vote in a district that voted overwhelmingly last time for Barack Obama? Even though, according to you and other Democrat talking heads, he is worse than Darth Vader?
Here’s why…it’s easy to demogogue Ryan’s plan by running ads of him pushing Granny in the Wheelchair off a cliff…Ryan himself can’t respond to the ad…
It’s quite another when Ryan himself can explain to voters why his plan works…then he wins…depsite his “evil” plan…Carter counted on Republicans’ election of radical right-winger Reagan on covering his sorry-ass record…they lost.
Ryan Medicare plan is brilliant, and will have the single biggest impact on improving prosperity in this country than any other policy I can think of…the single biggest factor in this country’s decline is LACK OF COMPETITION in Health Care and Education…Romney and Ryan will fix it…
You guys are in trouble and you know it…
When Ryan and Biden debate, the moderators will attempt to crucify Ryan’s plan…but this time, Ryan will have 90 uninterupted minutes to speak to the American people directly…
We Win!!! More importantly, we shift the discussion from how to steal money from the one percent to how to create maximum prosperity in this country.
This is exciting!
Finland: no competition in education or health care. Number 1 in education, lower health care costs, better outcomes, and everyone has access.
No. Competition is a recipe for disaster and inequality. So is this bullshit neoliberal “equal opportunity.” Only egalitarianism will bring prosperity.
Why don’t you move there? Family ties? Lack of resources?
Why don’t you address why they have achieved these outcomes with a view of achieving equality rather than bullshit screeds of freedom and liberty? Why don’t I help you find your tongue? It’s because you have no answer, and you want the peasants to wallow and beg from the rich, the way things were in the days of feudal lords.
Or you could address the argument.
Okay…let’s try this.
There are many, many ways to measure the well-being of a country…there are so many that you can’t keep track of them individually…
What if I valued “upward mobility” as opposed to “equal access to health card (however the hell that is measured”…
So, let’s look at the ultimate measure…
Which country on earth, BY FAR, has the most human being wanted to emigrate to that country (legally and/or illegally)…
That’s right, Progs, the good Ole’ USA!!! Not Finland.
Give me a measure of a country’s overall desirability that the number of human beings wanting to emigrate to that country? Bueller? Bueller?
Finland is applying boot to sphincter in upward mobility as well…
From your link:
“Most studies find that, in America, about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income are passed on to the next generation. This means that one of the biggest predictors of an American child’s future economic success — the identity and characteristics of his or her parents — is predetermined and outside that child’s control.”
Link to earlier comment, Paul Ryan is 5th generation of Ryans from Janesville, WI – Ryan Incorporated Central was formed under the management of the fourth generation of Ryans
You didn’t answer the question!
I see all the republican’s are parroting their talking point as directed: You didn’t answer the question!”
Since the facts contradict your upward mobility argument, let me address your “desirability” argument by analogy. You are asserting that since America has more immigrants than any other nation (stipulated, although as a % of total population America isn’t #1). That same logic would say that greater market share implies a greater quality product, but we know that expert marketing can increase market share for an inferior product (q.v. VHS vs. Beta). I believe it can be argued that America has the greatest marketing in the world (heaven forbid we call it propaganda) and that may well account for a large chunk of the immigration difference.
It still doesn’t change the fact that quality of life is better elsewhere, and we progressives would like to make adjustments to increase the quality of life here. We aren’t going anywhere – we’re going to improve our nation, progressing to a better state of affairs.
Perhaps those conservatives who don’t like the way Pres. Obama is changing the USA might like to consider voluntary self deportation to a country/region/era more congenial to their values? They could always follow their money to Switzerland – except the Swiss won’t have them…
Frank…trust me…if Obama wins, many Conservatives with the means will indeed go elsewhere! See Ya!
Good. Leave. Do it now? Please?
If Obaman wins…Yes!!! Well, my money anyway…I have a house and family here!!!
Ah, I see. You want to have the benefits of our economy without actually putting money towards it. Hypocrite.
Get your UNGRATEFUL ASS out of the US, and go GAWD only knows where. Nazi Germany was defeated in WWII, and that’s the only country you fascists fit into well. All the rightwing dictatorships have been destroyed.
Maybe you could go to Myanmar. Or wait a min, it’s really Burma. Lot of child prostitutes there too, and many repukeliscum swing that way – Limbaugh likes them young.
Well US liberals have been fleeing the USA since the Vietnam draft and have generally adapted well and been made welcome in most parts of the world I know reasonably well. However I have a hard time figuring out where US conservatives (apart from their money) would be welcome. Israel, probably. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Korea perhaps. Yurp notsomuch.
The problem is that if you base your philosophy of life around Randian principles people tend to relate to your money rather than to you. If your money runs out, so does your welcome. Perhaps you should consider declaring parts of Appalachia, the Deep South and Bible Belt a different country. Wait.. that was tried before wasn’t it? How did that work out?
Huh. For a minute there I thought you might be worth an argument, but all you can come up with is a variation of “love it or leave it”. Too bad. Bye.
Why can’t Ryan respond to the ad? He’s got hundreds of $millions in rightwing corporate bucks behind him. His problem is far from being lack of media access. It’s precisely because nobody except the extreme right likes his “plan” once they know what’s in it. The debates will only make that problem worse for the GOP.
But you’re right about one thing. This is exciting: the campaigns are finally forced to talk about real policy stuff instead of just sniping. And when they do, you lose big time now and into the future. If the Dems stand their ground, as they seem ready to do, this may be the year the Reagan revolution takes its last gasp.
Ryan’s constituents know what’s in it..they voted overwhelmingly for him! In a slightly Democrat-leaning district!
Why would Ryan spend money defending a Republican Congressional candidate in New York? Really?
In the recalls, the only success that Dems had in the last round was in WI-1, where they recalled another fascist.
Got the senate back.
We will do a 2-fer – crush the fascist Ryan nationally and locally.
THis fall is going to be a major crush on you fascisti.
GW1776, like Gerald Ford smashing the ice cream cone onto his forehead, has accidentally hit on a good point:
“this election isn’t just about winning the election…it’s about effecting [sic][hey, I’m surprised GW can spell ‘election’ correctly] the political debate in this country…”
Let’s go back to 2008 – Obama won, promising “not this time”, but then hired Emanuel, Summers and Geithner and screwed the pooch. But the Republicans have now pushed the debate so far off the ledge that we’re all thrilled just to see Obama get reelected. But Ryan will have pushed the debate way to the right. He’ll lose, but this will give Obama the license to himself move even farther to the right (he’s already worse than Clinton was – and Clinton was horrible).
So yes – this election isn’t at all about winning – it’s about enabling the corporations to continue to ruin our lives, using Obama, who now seems reasonable as he screws us.
Thanks, Obsessed.
I’m curious: (should that be a colon, or a semi-colon?)…how do “Corporations ruin your life”…
Walmart? They provide goods and services and an affordable price? How does Walmart make you worse off?
Apple? Exxon-Mobil? I know you likely think gas should be free…but let’s say you personally had to go find an oil well, get the oil out of the ground, then turn it into gasoline, then transport the gasoline to your car…does Exxon-Mobil “ruin your life”?
McDonalds? You like Big Macs and Fries?
Maybe you’re a smoker…Phillip and Morris? (Whoops! They had to change their name to Altria!) (I don’t smoke, but fully support smokers!)
Johnson and Johnson? Procter and Gamble? Do you want me to list the sheer varities of products that these companies provide that you could not possibly produce on your own behalf?
Oh My God!!! The evil corporations!!!
3 questions:
All those companies you mention (yes, including Phillip AND Morris – both of them!) have successfully lobbied Congress to deregulate the system to allow them to game it and create a situation where much of the middle class now works directly for them and can no longer afford to:
As for your other argument – you’re correctly expanding on the “you didn’t build that” Elizabeth Warren argument(the real one, not Romney’s silly edited one). We need infrastructure and the private sector is part of that infrastructure just as the public sector is.
The question is: for a given infrastructure need, which sector will work more effectively in our behalf?
Apple, Google and Microsoft work better in the private sector and we benefit from their competition.
We don’t benefit from Exxon and Shell competing. If the government bought gas cooperatively from the world market and sold it to us without making billions in profit as middle men, how could gas not be cheaper? And if gas could be made cheaper by processing it in a way that would give everyone cancer, who would be more likely to avoid doing so – Exxon or the government? So who will give us better and safer gas? (hint: the government) And who will give us cheaper gas? (duh) And who will think ahead and make the tough choices to bring in a new energy strategy to replace the gas that’s killing the planet? (duh?)
Follow the money, GW. Exxon makes billions in pure profit every quarter. Why do we need them as middle men? What innovations are they giving us? They’re like the mob – taking a cut of all the action.
But more important is the issue of REGULATION. We all know why capitalism works better than communism – competition, motivation, natural selection in the marketplace, and so on. But it only works with the government acting as a referee and imposing regulations to keep the system working fairly and for the benefit of the tax payers who are providing the infrastructure on which the private sector depends.
Letting capitalism go unregulated allows the strongest players to game the system and emerge completely dominant – just like the monarchies of the pre-capitalist era. It leads to an all powerful ruling class and what we call democracy and capitalism will be a distant memory. That’s what’s happening here now, and unless you, GW, are worth significantly more than a million bucks, you too are on the wrong side of this. With no regulation it’s a fight to the death and whoever wins will have all the money and all the power and everyone else will be enslaved.
So, GW, if you’re worth 250 million, it makes sense (sort of) for you to try to convince the rest of us that the Ryan plan isn’t the most ridiculous scam ever foisted on the middle class. But otherwise, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
They work, but it’s unknown if they work better. And like almost everything in this country, they either wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t work well if not for the public sector. If not for the public sector, France and Spain might still own most of this country. The most notable industry that private, competitive enterprises created in this country was slavery.
But you agree that energy and health care should be handled by the public sector, yes?
As for software development … I don’t know – on the one hand, a lot of brain power gets wasted with management forcing engineers to write code aimed at marketing, but on the other hand, have you ever tried to find a functioning computer in Cuba? I think I’ll take my chances with google and microsoft duking it out. Creative stuff is sausage making, but all-powerful corporations skimming massive profits from transactions involving basic human needs is another thing entirely.
Apple,Google, and Microsoft are giant monopolies who owe their positions to having better lawyers in “Intellectual Property” disputes. They succeed by crushing competition in the courtroom.
Indeed. I’m a patent examiner. And there is a lot of bustle here on how we deal with “open source” in the future, and how it plays a role.
Speaking of open source, I think Linux works just fine despite no competition. Microsoft and Apple make their money not on selling their software, but on the “tech support” that companies need to pay for to keep their systems running in the event of an error.
So maybe you can tell us WTF is the matter with patent examiners that they grant patents to insane BS like Apple’s patent for round corners? Seriously. Almost every day there’s some new patent granted at least this absurd. Is it the quality of the Patent Office, or are their hands tied by idiot legislation, or what?
Doesn’t happen often. And when it does, that person and that patent become both jokes around the office, and as learning tools for new people.
Put it this way: we get 550,000 patent applications every year. And the only ones you hear about being granted are the ones that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place. Kinda like, “You don’t see the good we do, only the bad.”
Anyway, that’s a “design patent,” and I don’t know how they get treated/issued. In my area, I would have rejected that based on “design choice.” But it’s a design patent…those are dealt with differently.
Also, the European Patent Office grants patents with far less scrutiny. Many things that make it past them do not make it past us, barring major corrections.
And finally, I am speaking FOR ME ONLY, and not on behalf of the USG, or USPTO.
Linux competes with itself. There are more varieties of Linux than I can count.
Right. But not for money. There’s money in services built around Linux, but not for Linux or open source software itself. That’s what made it grow so remarkably fast, not corporate “intellectual property” competition. But the point I was trying to make is that innovation — innovation that changes the world — is not some kind of corporate monopoly. Far from it.
OK, got your point now. Running Gentoo myself. Still booting XP for a couple of programs that don’t have Linux equivalents, notably TV capture, but I’m working on that.
The dirty little secret of open source is that having source code isn’t that much of a help without a design document. One still has to read all that code and figure out what it means. Think of having a novel, but all the paragraphs are on separate slips of paper so you have to figure out what order they are in.
FYI, Google’s Android is a face built on the public domain operating system Linux. That same OS runs the servers at outfits like Google, Amazon, the London Stock Exchange, NASA, most of the national labs worldwide, and Linux or other open-source OSes run 99 of the world’s fastest supercomputers.
The World Wide Web’s software was not copyrighted and enabled the Internet we’re using right now. It was developed at CERN, the European government-sponsored lab. The computer itself was developed under the Brit military. Neither MS nor Apple invented much of anything. Google at least does get credit for inventing the winning search algorithm, but not the search engine. And so it goes.
IMHO it’s not helpful to stick any sector of economies into a private or public “lock box” and pretend that either can exist in isolation. The whole 20th argument over communism v. capitalism isn’t helpful. It’s both and neither and varies over time and place. A simple equation is that the more individualistic and less communal a culture, the more government control and distribution is required for basic goods and services. Capitalism works well in Japan because of a cultural communism. It will never work in China — or not work for long.
Google would not exist if not for the internet and the private sector didn’t create that. There are plenty of inventions that the private sector can take credit for creating but few would have gone much beyond the inventor’s workshop if not for collective — government action/policies/funding.
Agree that water, sanitation, energy, transportation, education and health care are much too important and too large not to involve the public sector. Owned and operated by the public would be the most cost effective, particularly if the public didn’t abdicate its ownership responsibility.
I was using google as a public sector industry to contrast in my argument to GW that the health and energy industries should be “publicized”, but what you three are getting into is much more interesting.
With regard to the technology industry, what do you guys see as the main issues as regard public vs. private and regulation or lack thereof?
What are you defining as “technology industry?”
I’d like to hear your definition, and then your thoughts on what’s right and wrong with it and how it is and/or could be impacted by the types of private versus public issues we’ve been discussing in this thread.
(I was looking for an example of an industry that benefits from competition between private companies)
The problem is that competition among individual private companies has nothing to do with benefiting an industry. They compete to increase their company size, market share, and profits. If the market size increases, so much the better for them. The owners then extract the wealth as quickly as possible and leave behind unrecognized costs for others to deal and/or get so big that governments step in and bust up the monopoly and the process starts anew.
The lives of humans throughout recorded history is suffused with technology and it interacts with culture, religion, art, etc. Technology is everywhere and nowhere.
Obsessed…chicken and egg…without the Private Sector producing wealth that the Public sector can appropriate, there is no Public Sector…who was there first…
Imagine “First Rational Man” (the first “Ape” that could be plausibly described as a “Man”)…builds his hut…grows his crop…hunts his dinner…no government needed…only the Private Sector..
Then “Second Rational Man” appears…builds his hut…grows his crop…hunts his dinner…they’re both happy…all Private Sector, no Public Sector!!!
Uh-Oh…First and Second agree to exchange something…perhaps a bushel of tomatoes for a pig…Second rips off first by taking the tomatoes, and not giving the pig…
NOW we need the Public Sector…an arbiter of disputes, first and foremost…so first and second hire third muscular warrior, neutral and objective, to settler the dispute…
They HIRE him…We (private sector) HIRE You (public sectors) as referees…you are paid by us…you obtain your wealth from us in exchange for what you provide…you are NOT our masters, to take from us what you please…you are there to protect the rights of all human beings, not to steal money from undesirable groups and individuals and give it to desirable groups and individuals…We PAY You to built roads and bridges…When the true story of you statists is told, and at least 51 percent of the people hearing your story reject it, you lose…
God help us that Ryan puts the true narrative of wealth creation in public view…
There’s no evidence that bartering was ever used in a widespread manner. Only debt was used to exchange goods…and then money was invented. Then things went downhill. So no, there was no private sector because there was no real idea of “private property.” You fail.
Of course…debt for future goods and services…your saying the doctor never fronted medical care for chickens to be delivered later? Really? Wake up, dude…
I am impressed at your Marxist dedication to the moral philosophy of “From each according to ability, to each according to need”…great philosophy…
One question…how do propose to enslave the able to help the needy?
Good luck, Comrade!!!
And then what happened when the debt got built up too high? It was forgiven, widespread, fullstop. Which is what should happen now. Of course, you vulture capitalists would never agree to that…unless it’s for banksters. “MORAL HAZARD!!!”
Again, no real idea of private property.
He’s not worse than Clinton, this is bullshit. I lived through the Dick Morris days and the tepid 1996 re-election campaign. Obama’s re-election effort is the strongest by a Democrat since 1964.
It’s absolutely the strongest reelection effort – and 2008 was the strongest initial election effort. When I say “worse than Clinton”, I mean worse in terms of screwing the middle class.
NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall raise some issues in this regard.
“Ryan Medicare plan is brilliant, and will have the single biggest impact on improving prosperity in this country than any other policy I can think of…the single biggest factor in this country’s decline is LACK OF COMPETITION in Health Care and Education…Romney and Ryan will fix it…”
Um, Mr Romney is running for a term from 2013 to 2017.
He will hate being President and no doubt screw it up because being President is not like being a CEO. You have to convince people to do what you want without being able to fire them and there’s no evidence Mr. Romney can. Hey, but maybe he wins and gets a second term from 2017-2021. By 2021, the number of people on the new Medicare will be 0. On the other hand, the President implements the exact same mechanism for health care choice starting in 2014 with a larger population pool. If you want this decline reversed, your choice in November is clear.
Schmidt knew by Oct. that McCain was going to lose. Romney, cut-throat vulture capitalist that he is, must know – better than we do – that the election is already lost. The electoral math was an inside straight to begin with and his avalanche of gaffes and mistakes has been arguably worse than Palin’s.
So put yourself in Mitt’s place. You know you’re going to lose badly. You’ve made so many embarrassing gaffes that you can’t stand to look at yourself in the mirror. You’re bitterly pissed at the Republican right – who harrassed you all the way to the nomination you felt you had coming – and who got you off on the wrong foot with all of the Bain ads – and who forced you to take fatally-ridiculous positions on immigration et al.
If you’re going to lose anyway, you might as well salvage what you can of your ruined reputation and you might as well get some payback. If this plays out as Booman says – and I don’t see why it won’t – Romney will have deflected blame to the people who screwed him instead of allowing them to make him the goat. The tea party stabbed Romney in the back, but at least he can take them down with him.
If that seems far-fetched, give me any alternate explanation for Romney making a move that’s so damaging to not only his own chances but to congress and the senate as well. I don’t think it’s about winning any more – I think it’s about vanity, pride and anger.
Let’s say Romney had run as he did for Mass. governor, and the Republicans had given him the nod, unscathed, and he picked a moderate Latino woman for VP. He’d have a pretty decent shot at it, no?
Wishful thinking…
Romney is in great shape…
Obama cannot win with a mid-forties approval rating…the two best polls, both tracking polls, as of today…
Rasmussen Romney by 2
Gallup Tied, with Obama only garnering 46 percent. No incumbent President has EVER garnered more than ONE percent of the two-party vote over and above his approval rating…
Romney has weathered Obama’s disgusting personal attacks quite well…now he sets the agenda with his convention, the debates (no teleprompters, Barack), and his money advantage (Obama blew his lead…he’s begging donors for money…Ryan’s pick will accelerate Conservative donations!)
I can’t wait!
Honestly…as a radical right-winger…I am SHOCKED that Romney had the balls to do this…unbelievable!!!
>Rasmussen Romney by 2
Earth to GW: go here … http://www.270towin.com.
How do you get Romney to 269? (And now that he’s put congress in doubt, you’d better go for 270 to be safe).
All the state polls are based on registered, not likely, voters…Republicans turnout in higher numbers to begin with (traditionally 2 to 3 points higher than registed voters), and are more enthusiastic this year, as measured by Gallup, than Democrats, giving Romney a likely five percentage point result from who actually votes as compared to registered voters.
Obama leading in a state polls is irrelvent…if he is not currently polling at least 49 percent in a given state, he will lose that state…
270? Easy. We will take back Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. I am worried about Virginia, but we’ll offset that with Wisconsin (!), Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe Colorado, maybe Nevada. Hell, maybe even Michigan!
Do the math…if the election were held today, Obama loses any state where his is below 49 percent and where his lead is less than five points…
GW1776 is right.
We have to work extra hard on turning out Dem voters!
Jesus, a troll and a remarkably stupid and dumbfuck one at that.
Listen, dumbshit, Romney was being killed by Obama. That will keep up. This little diversion will last about 4 days, then we go back to crushing Romney and the fascisti for their insane tax return issue.
We are gonna crush you turds in Nov. We are getting the House back, and keeping the Senate.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/romney-picked-ryan-over-advisors-early-doubts
Not that his advisers have served him well up to this point, but you know…
As far as anyone knows, Romney is all about money. Putting Ryan on the ticket will probably open the plutocrat spigots even further. Money given directly to a campaign as a funny way of remaining with the candidate. Maybe it’s just a simple business calculation of the kind he’s used to.
when romney loses, no one will care what he says. no one will care what he thinks. he’ll deflect no blame. ask john mccain how much blame was deflected by his vp pick.
he won’t get any airtime to make his case. the teabaggers and freepers will be crying that romney the rino held back ryan the reaganaut, just like mccain the mushy held back palin the pitbull. romney will get no credit for picking their dream-vp-who-shoulda-been-on-top-of-the-ticket-with-someone-other-than-the-nominee.
I think McCain’s reputation, what little is left of it, has benefited from the focus on Palin being a major reason for the loss. McCain was running a surprisingly bad campaign, making a lot of the same errors as Romney. Each guy was forced hard to the right against their better political instincts, and suffered for it. McCain still commands some modicum of respect. Romney – pre-Ryan – was heading for a Dan Quayle-level legacy.
If Ryan turns this into a wave election, why wouldn’t pundits look back and say what I did – that Romney would have done much better – maybe even won – if he’d been allowed to run as a moderate?
This is a very thoughtful article and links to two other good ones.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106035/picking-ryan-isnt-bold-its-highly-risk-averse
If Schmidt didn’t know until October that McCain would lose, he’s not very good at his job. GWB had made the GOP brand so toxic that by 2008 the Democrats would have had to nominate a Bob Dole or Dukakis for McCain or any of the other wannabes to have a chance.
Had Obama been real smart, he would have continued calling it the Bush recession. (It was the Hoover depression for years.)
Mitt doesn’t know that he’s lost or that he didn’t choose Ryan. It’s just not clear if the smart big money or the dumb big money made the choice.
“Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate could deepen the intrinsic tension between the Republican policy agenda and the voters it relies on to win elections.”
I can’t believe he just came out and said it.
INTRINSIC TENSION – He’s basically conceding the unspeakable “what’s the matter with Kansas?” contradiction: the Republican agenda advances the economic interests of a small minority at the expense of a large majority. And yet, until recently, they’ve managed to get a majority of the people they’re screwing to vote for them. INTRINSIC TENSION. Yeah, that’s one way to put it.
I’ve been arguing for years now, that the end product of the inevitable fear of rightwingnuttery their accelerated move towards extremism would likely produce, is an increased interest in self-interest unseen in the rightwing ranks in this country before in the “little people” that put and keep them in office.
Neither economic nor the personal financial adversity it has brought to so many, give a shit about the ideology of their victims. Many of those victims are gonna imo, become what I’ve long called “CONverts” once they realize from the clarity the coverage in the coming months and the debates bring, which party has their interests more in mind.
This is why I’ve long thought that the house is certainly in play, and that BHO is gonna approximate or even exceed his numbers the last time around, because of an exodus — a “peeling off” as you put it — whether the impact is felt largely through a complete crossing over and a vote for him/dems, or staying home outta disgust.
The truth is an existential threat to the conning cons at the top of that particular heap, which is why they have for a long time now, been granted a license to lie without fear of political or financial reprisal by cons big and small. The difference now however is, is that little doubt is gonna remain that they are coming after their own in what should and will be in many cases, unacceptable ways.
The only bad part about all of this, is that it has created an environment in which
That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. Would they support him?
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [WH chief of staff William] Daley recalled. … Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.
third way BS like that can be openly entertained and the rightwingnut kooks used for the fall guys.
It is my hope that BHO and the dems win in a measure required to get their way, so that we can see if the dems are like those our parents were and supported, or if they too are part of the problem in need of a fixing.
It was not insane. It put at his disposal a lot of free media time that might have partially sat out. He kissed Rush Limbaugh’s ring and curtsied to King Sean Hannity and Queen Ann Coulter. That sort of advocacy shores up their base for Romney, exactly where he was weakest after the primaries.
It was extorted from him.
Now we can have a debate about exactly what kind of commonwealth (if any) the United States is.
Exactly the framing the conservatives and Goldwater used in 1964–but without the ground prepared.
The GOP once again is trying to capture the gold ring of power to destroy the government. But this time, unlike `1968, 1980, 1988, 2000 — they want to be up front and talk about it.
Here is where the Occupy movement has laid the perfect counter-narrative.
The point about Romney tying himself to the House Republicans is important. He can’t shy away from their failures and the stupid things they wasted time on.
This makes the House races come to the forefront as Ryan will also be running for the House. This is like tying a tin can to your own rear end and wondering what the noise behind you is about.
It also doesn’t help the Senate Republican up for re election this year. They are now associated with extremist Paul Ryan. Even Mitch McConnell doesn’t want to be that obvious.
The coatail effect is going to be interesting to watch.
The Ryan voting record, policy positions, etc. here.
Ryan probably sealed his selection when he wet his pants while shaking Romney’s hand.
Excitable boy.
Yes!!! I can’t believe they posted that picture – I mean, Ryan has no control over which picture they use, but OMG!!! presidential material, I think not. Just put that picture side by side with Obama and Hillary and team watching the feed from the Seal VI team getting bin Laden.
You’ve got your own, bonafied GOP troll, BooMan
Sounds a lot like the not-dear departed Liberty For All.
My thoughts as well. Same better-than-thou attitude. I simply couldn’t recall the old moniker.
This one is stupider and more sanctimonious. More fun to kick his ass, tho.
You know, it’s been so long that I actually forgot how much fun it is to shred trolls. And like in AD&D, they regenerate too.