Monday, November 26, 2012

Paul Ryan 2016? - Walking a Tightrope over the Fiscal Cliff

Fresh from the campaign trail and mulling his options for the future, former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will play a pivotal role in negotiations over the fiscal cliff and faces a choice of two paths. 
The Wisconsin congressman, known for his zeal for budget cutting, could opt for ideological purity and emerge as a leading voice urging his fellow Republicans to resist tax increases and demand steep cuts in entitlement spending. 
Or he could use his role as House Budget Committee chairman to push for the best deal possible for Republicans but then demonstrate bipartisanship by getting behind a compromise. 
Either path holds perils for the Republican lawmaker, who became an instant focus of speculation as a potential 2016 White House contender following his failed vice presidential bid. If he insists on too hard a line in the budget talks, he could potentially open a rift with other leaders in his party and get blamed for scuttling a deal. On the other hand, any compromise could leave Ryan open to criticism from the Republican base and vulnerable to a challenger from the right in 2016.
Read the rest of this article HERE.

IMHO at THIS time, Paul Ryan if not viewed as the heir apparent for the 2016 nomination, surely is viewed as one of the top favorites.

I have to ask myself this. Because any success in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations will depend on the cooperation of both Republicans and DEMOCRATS. Will Democrats consider 2016 and Paul Ryan's potential run in these negotiations? After all, they won't have President Obama as a candidate.

On one hand we have the cliff and the fallout of doing nothing or very little and on the other hand we have a situation where any success in this process may raise Ryan's stature for 2016 even further. Will Democrats want to do that? .

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Paul Ryan will have a tough go of becoming the POTUS this next cycle. The media will pounce on him every chance they get, just like they did Palin, the only difference is he doesn't have Palin's charm. He was more stiff than Romney... he'd be dumb to waste his one chance. Palin saw the writing, he should be smart enough to see it as well.

His best play is to hunker down, and keep his eye on the prize via Speaker of the House. By 2024. '28, or 2032, he will be a shoe in for the Presidency.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Difference being, Ryan has a lot more experience than Palin ever had. And Ryan has never quit his job to be a media star.

Nina said...

"Difference being, Ryan has a lot more experience than Palin ever had. And Ryan has never quit his job to be a media star."

Got it in one.

Anonymous said...

Romney delivered the votes of Independents.

It was an epic fail on the part of the Republicans who stayed home.

Candidates who can actually fix the country won't run in 2016, cause that's not what Republicans are interested in.

Anonymous said...

I got a great idea for Palin, Jersey. Have her go back to AK, and run for that senate seat that's currently held by the democrat! Let's see how 'popular' she is in her own backyard!

Anonymous said...

It's good to see this site is still full of irrational people that won't sign their names to their posts. Your guy won the election, why do you even bother anymore? This blog post and my comment were about Paul Ryan, not about Palin. You people are so tiresome.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:56pm - Romney, possibly, had the skill set to fix the nation but he has proven he does not have the skill set to win elections. People want to able to relate to their politicians on some level... and Romney is only relatable to a small, subset of the American population.

Sorry.

But thanks for pushing him down our throat as the only person that could beat Obama... appreciate that.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Romney is completely relatable with his family values. You don't need money to have family values. However, if all people can relate to is how much material wealth and possesions someone else has or doesn't have, then most people in the country are already is socialist mode.

I think Republicans who stayed home missed the big picture. You can't get a "true" conservative without someone to fix the Republican brand and make it okay in the public's mind. For example, there would never have been a "true" liberal Barak Obama without a Bill Clinton predecessor. Likewise, that "true" conservative is not electable unless someone like a Romney fixes the Republican brand. He won the votes of independents and that was a huge start.

Instead, Republicans got fully behind and voted for someone like GW Bush (no private sector, 100% politician), who almost single handedly destroyed the Republican brand. But would not vote for Romney who would have enhanced the brand and would have paved the way for that "true" conservative.

Republicans are a very fickle and stubborn bunch. They know who they truly want is not nationally electable, yet are waiting for things to get so bad, a true conservative will have to get elected. However, that's not so--not at all.

No matter how bad things get, the Republicans have an image problem and will be blamed for the economy and whatever else no matter what.








Anonymous said...

I wish you people would get off the idea that Republicans ruined it for Romney... the same could be said about McCain. The difference this year would be that, the Republicans that weren't courted in the GOTV effort didn't show up and vote for Obama, like the Romney supporters did last cycle.

It has nothing to do with Republicans not showing up... it had to do with the Romney Campaign not getting the voters to the polls. The Obama Campaign got their base out by courting their base, like all other campaigns in history do, the Romney campaign didn't find it necessary.

You can blame Republicans but you're blaming the wrong batch of people. The people who didn't show up weren't voters active in politics, they were voters, that only, maybe, vote in Presidential elections, and this year they either thought that Romney was a shoe in... like he himself thought up until the moment he lost, or they weren't inspired to go vote for Romney... is that their fault, or Romney's?

So, the moral is, stop living in a bubble thinking there was some concerted effort amongst the Republican "base" to ruin Romney's Presidential possibilities. Most people don't pay attention to politics like we do, and it was Romney's job to get those people to the polls...

HE FAILED!!!

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

BTW, if I knew nothing about Romney, then there was nothing extraordinary that his campaign did to show me his family values.

And, if you think, that family values, is what make a person relatable to voters, then you are stuck in the 50's.

There's a difference between being wealthy and having 300 million dollars. The question for the voter becomes, why does this person with 300 million dollars want to be POTUS? Then they wonder, how will this person who has a elevator for his cars, possibly be able to understand the plight I am going through?

He never had a chance, I said so for the past 4 years and I was mocked and ridiculed by people on this site. I, repeatedly, said the press would treat him just as bad as they treated Palin in 2008, you gullible bastards truly believed that Romney was destined to be President and there was no way that the media would not see what you do...

YOU WERE WRONG!!!

Anonymous said...

He was so out of touch, he didn't even understand that it might look poorly if he bought a multi-million dollar home, in California less than 3 years before he wanted to appeal to people who cannot even afford to pay their bills every month.

OUT OF TOUCH, NEVER HAD A CHANCE, MADE NO INITIATIVE TO COURT ANY NEW VOTERS, BARELY HAD ANY INITIATIVE TO COURT HIS OWN BASE.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the 12:40 comment was by me.

jerseyrepublican

newark hawk said...

@ Anonymous 11:47 AM

You're absolutely correct that Bush 43 - like his father before him - destroyed the GOP brand.

The Bush 43 legacy - 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11, $5 trillion in deficit spending, 2 highly unpopular wars, Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of the housing market, Wall Street bailouts - will continue to haunt and hound the GOP for many years to come.

But you're wrong about Bill Clinton's legacy because both of his handpicked successors, Al Gore & Hillary Clinton, lost their presidential bids.

Bill Clinton was the first elected president ever to be impeached, and despite the media's best efforts - including FOX and Talk Radio, BTW - to whitewash it and cover it up, that impeachment will forever dishonor and disgrace his presidency.

Although much of the public has temporarily forgotten about Clinton's impeachment - just like they temporarily forgot about Newt Gingrich's resignation as Speaker of the House - all it takes is a few debates and television ads to remind them of it, as Romney proved during the GOP primaries.

Had Romney been as tough on Obama (and Clinton) during the general election campaign as he was on Gingrich during the primaries, we would now be awaiting the swearing-in of President-elect Romney instead of another 4 years of misery under President Obama.

newark hawk said...

@ jerseyrepublican

Romney did indeed reach out to conservatives with the most important decision of his fall campaign - his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Furthermore, Romney would never have needed to reach out to conservatives if not for the fact that he was mercilessly bashed, smeared and demonized by Talk Radio hosts during the GOP primaries.

The only Republicans that Romney was "out-of-touch" with were the gullible and ignorant fools who bought the propaganda & lies of Limbaugh, Levin, Beck & Company ..... hook, line and sinker.

Anonymous said...

NH, his selection of Paul Ryan was a poor example of reaching out to the base. especially since it wasn't a smart play electorally... he didn't bring any state into play. He opened up a can of discussions that were unnecessary and he isn't considered the culture warrior that Romney hoped he would be. Not to mention, you can't say, here I gave you Paul Ryan, now vote for me... and that's all.

But you still didn't recognize the fact that he didn't court enough voters... be it Presidential election voters that usually vote Republican in the Preseidential race, or new voters. There are not as many hardcore activists as you think there are, and if they stayed home this cycle, those numbers are a smaller percentage of Republicans, that didn't vote, than you suggest.

Like I said, a good portion of them probably believed Romney had the election in the bag... hell Romney and Ryan were surprised they lost as well.

jerseyrepublican

newark hawk said...

@ jerseyrepublican

I never said that it was "hardcore activists" who stayed home on November 6th.

I simply said that the millions of Republicans who stayed home were those who rely on Talk Radio for their political news & information and believe that whatever Limbaugh, Levin, Beck & Company say is gospel.

Anonymous said...

Except now we learn that Romney got more votes than McCain. So, there goes that theory, JR. But "nice try".

Ellie.

newark hawk said...

The way that "conservative" Talk Radio hosts relentlessly hammered and pounded Romney during the GOP primaries, you would've thought that Washington, Adams, Lincoln and Reagan were running against him, not Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Perry.

Does anyone here REALLY BELIEVE that any of Romney's primary opponents would've defeated Obama were he/she the GOP nominee?!?!?

If you do, I'd sure like a taste of whatever it is you're drinking.

Anonymous said...

NH - So you believe the millions of Republicans that didn't show up to vote were hardcore Republicans that listen to talk radio, as opposed to just registered Republicans that don't really follow politics except for maybe the month before the election? Seriously? I follow politics pretty closely and I don't even listen to talk radio. Take a few weeks off.

Jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Ellie, what theory are you referring to?

Jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

You need to read you own comments, JR.

newark hawk said...

@ jerseyrepublican

You keep saying "hardcore" this and "hardcore" that - perhaps you're the one who needs to take a few weeks off from your computer screen.

Romney won the GOP nomination thanks to Republicans who DON'T listen to Talk Radio - why would these very same Republicans stay home on November 6th?!?!?

Sorry, JR, but your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

newark hawk said...

Romney also did very well among Independent voters, and last time I checked, they're not big time fans of "conservative" Talk Radio either.

Anonymous said...

NH - when I write "hardcore" Republicans I am referring to Republicans that closely follow politics, not the registered Republicans that only vote once every 4 years during the Presidential General election. These are the Republicans that Romney did not GOTV. They don't vote in primaries, they only vote in general elections, they don't listen to talk radio and Romney did not get them to come out and vote.

jerseyrepublican