« Kevin Drum begins to doubt his cult leader | Main | About that apparently self-enacting GOP House bill that would cut off Obama's salary while skipping both his signature and Senate passage »

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Beldar on Ryan and Rubio on Fox News Sunday today

Having now watched the promised appearance of Rep. Ryan and Sen. Rubio this morning on Fox News Sunday, I have this to say:

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) I've seen Sen. Rubio do a much better job responding to probing questions in the past than he did in responding to Chris Wallace's questions this morning. Rubio frankly looked over-coached and nervous today. So I'm going to reserve judgment about his prospects for being on the 2012 GOP ticket (which, of course, he continued to insist are zero, while expressing respect for the voters' choices in such matters).

But I thought Rep. Ryan was amazingly good. "We don't need a good politician, we need a strong leader." That one-liner left a mark, and Ryan wasn't making it by way of a personal comparison between himself and Obama. But the rest of his presentation which screamed — in subtext — "I am indeed just such a strong leader!" I literally found myself holding my breath (since guys, even very handsome guys with really sparkling eyes, don't make thrills run up my leg).

I haven't seen anyone I like as well yet for the top of the ticket in 2012, but I'm concerned that it may not be possible for Ryan to both lead the budget fight in the House and lay what is, sadly, essential groundwork in early primary states. If that prevents him from considering a run, I could respect and concur in that decision. But I'm here to tell you, and you can bookmark this post: If Paul Ryan is the GOP Veep nominee, Obama will either dump Slow Joe Biden (probably through some contrived health or "more time with his family" excuse) or at least find another excuse for there to be no vice presidential debate. Because Paul Ryan would eat Joe Biden's lunch and then drink his milkshake.

I haven't watched the panel discussion yet, so I don't know whether Kristol renewed his pitch for the Ryan-Rubio ticket. But I'm definitely warming to at least half of that idea, and still intrigued by all of it.

---------------------

UPDATE (Sun Apr 3 @ 11:00am): I realize this is very superficial, but am I wrong to think that Rep. Ryan and television actor Patrick Dempsey (a/k/a Dr. Derek "McDreamy" Shepherd on "Grey's Anatomy," below left) could be brothers whose dad only convinced one of them of the importance of daily shaving?

television actor Patrick DempseyU.S. Rep. Paul Ryan

As I was looking for a photo of Dempsey to make this comparison, I came by chance upon another one which also reminded me of both Ryan and Rubio:

actors Taylor Lautner of 'Twilight' and Matthew Morrison of 'Glee'

Rubio turns 40 this May, but he's almost as young-looking as actor Taylor Lautner of "Twilight" fame (above left). And I don't know that Ryan can sing or dance as well as Matthew Morrison (above right) of "Glee," but then again, I don't know that he can't. In any event, I have to commend both politicians on overcoming their tragic good looks to make a career in politics.

Posted by Beldar at 10:23 AM in 2012 Election, Congress, Obama, Politics (2011), Ryan | Permalink

TrackBacks

Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515edc69e2014e605a01f3970c

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar on Ryan and Rubio on Fox News Sunday today and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


Comments

(1) Milhouse made the following comment | Apr 3, 2011 2:28:41 PM | Permalink

Ryan has one big problem, besides being too busy to run in the primaries: he has no executive experience. He needs to spend this term leading the budget fight. Next term he should either try for Speaker or else prepare to run for governor of Illinois in 2014, which will put him on the president track. That is, unless whoever is elected president in 2012 asks him to be Treasury Secretary or OMB Director.

(2) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Apr 3, 2011 2:41:04 PM | Permalink

Dear Mr. Dyer: Good God. Take a look at Ryan's Wikipedia article See any private sector experience there? "He is a fifth-generation Wisconsin and Janesville native and a great-grandson of Patrick W. Ryan, who founded, in 1884, the family's construction business, Ryan Incorporated Central. He worked for the family business as a marketing consultant in the 1990s."

Worked for his old man as "marketing consultant" while being a Congressional staffer. How well does that stack up against Jimmy Bumpkin's running his family business and being state senator for four years and Governor of Gerogia for four years?

See any political executive experience there? Nope, I don't either.

How much experience in opposition do you see? This is important, because, as we are finding out about The One, how you conduct yourself in adversity determines much of what you can do. See: Reagan's 1976 run for the Presidency. It's worth noting that Ryan's Road Map came about when the GOP was in opposition.

Ryan has done far better than The One did while in Congress. He's taken his job seriously (unlike The One who can only take himself seriously, and to Hell with his responsibilities) and better still, used the sizable resources of Congress to learn. Thus, the hugely impressive Road Map. This is strongly in his favor.

Ryan is good man, who needs support for his ideas---a lot more than he has gotten from the GOP leadership so far.

This city boy is told that a dandy way to ruin a farm crop is to keep pulling the plant up by the roots every two days or so to see how everything is coming along. Drum, Sullivan, and Co. made fools out of themselves with their delirious raptures about The One. Didn't do The One any good either. Paul Ryan's career will develop by itself. Why join D, S & Co. as laughingstocks?

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

(3) DRJ made the following comment | Apr 3, 2011 8:46:58 PM | Permalink

I didn't stay around for the Rubio interview but I also watched Chris Wallace's interview of Paul Ryan. Ryan was excellent. He was so good I TiVo'd it to show the rest of my family, and they agreed.

(4) DRJ made the following comment | Apr 3, 2011 8:52:20 PM | Permalink

Why would Ryan run for Governor of Illinois? Isn't he from Wisconsin?

(5) Milhouse made the following comment | Apr 3, 2011 9:54:56 PM | Permalink

So he is. Wisconsin, then. Good; he'd be following a class act. I don't know why I'd thought he was from Illinois.

(6) Florida Home made the following comment | Apr 5, 2011 7:40:04 AM | Permalink

Another faux-interview with Senator Rubio on Fox News.

The Senator again trots out his routine sound bites about Government debt. At least Congressman Paul Ryan looked like he had done some homework and actually had a proposal to discuss.

Senator Rubio cannot even coherently defend his veto of the GOP proposed budget compromise, when the alternative might mean the Government defaults on its debt. Rubio dithers, and hides behind meaningless, evasive verbiage when asked a simple, direct question by Wallace.

On the subject of Libya, and Senator Rubio’s proposed Senate Resolution that would commit the US to ousting Gadhafi and giving recognition and total support to the rebels, Senator Rubio was again inarticulate. When speaking of NATO involvement, Senator Rubio now says “We should always try to have allies in this endeavor.” Yet only a few weeks ago he ridiculed efforts to get UN support, and ultimately NATO support, as being “weak and naïve.”

When asked if he would support having US troops on the ground in Libya, Rubio is non-commital. When asked if we should arm the Libyan rebels, Rubio says, “I think we need to learn more about who they are and how they're working. And when you talk about the Libyan rebels, well, that's a lot of different people. We need to learn about who they are and whether it would make a difference.”

What? Considering that Senator Rubio, through his proposed Senate Resolution, has urged that the US fully commit to backing the rebels and recognizing them as the legitimate government of Libya, shouldn’t he have already “known who they are and how they’re working”? How capricious can Sen. Rubio be with American money and blood?

Here are some questions that Chris Wallace should have asked Senator Rubio:

1. How much would you think it would cost the US in terms of time and money, to achieve the goals of your Senate Resolution? A ballpark answer will do. Would you be willing to invest more than that if Gadhafi and his loyalists prove tougher than imagined?

2. After Gadhafi is defeated, does your commitment to installing the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya include helping them establish political processes, a constitution, laws, public education, health care services, etc.?

3. After Gadhafi is defeated, does your commitment to installing the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya include rebuilding and modernizing the destroyed infrastructure of Libya? How much money are you prepared to commit to that?

4. Would you commit to a long-term presence of US forces in Libya for training the new Libyan army, keeping the peace, protecting the resources (oil fields) from any post-war terrorist or guerilla activity?

5. Would you fund your Libyan involvement by adding further debt to the US financial crisis? If not, how would you provide funding for your Libyan commitment? Would you take the savings from Congressman Ryan’s cuts to domestic programs, and apply that money to the Libyans?

Chris Wallace avoided the elephant in the room, and asked none of those questions. Perhaps he realized early-on that Senator Rubio only does soft interviews, and has no real answers or solutions.

But in all fairness to Senator Rubio, we need to recognize that on ABC's Nightline he did tell the world that he likes to listen to the hip-hop artist Nicki Minaj. At least he made a definite, clear commitment to something.

[Note: This same comment appears word-for-word on the L.A. Times website. I generally don't permit my blog to be used to spam opinions or products. If what you read here doesn't prompt you to some original thought, you're better off commenting elsewhere. This time I'm going to let it slide, but please don't do this again. — Beldar]

The comments to this entry are closed.