On Monday, failed vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan falsely claimed he and Mitt Romney came up short due to unexpected "urban" turnout, adding that issues were irrelevant, despite all polling evidence to the contrary.
On Tuesday, the far-right congressman went further, telling ABC that President Obama doesn't have a mandate to pursue his own policy agenda because voters "re-elected House Republicans." Asked specifically, "So, you don't think he has a mandate?" Ryan replied:
"I don't because then they would have put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House of Representatives. See I think these ideas that we talked about, I think they're popular ideas."
The obvious response to this is to point to the electoral reality. Obama won 332 electoral votes, and is only the second president of the last 10 to win 50% of the popular vote twice. In House races, most Americans backed Democratic candidates, not Republicans, but GOP officials gerrymandered district lines to make it almost impossible for Pelosi to take back the Speaker's gavel, even if a majority of the American electorate wanted a Democratic majority.
Ryan's argument, in other words, is pretty hard to take seriously. The re-elected president lacks a "mandate" because he only won a majority of the popular vote, a large majority of the electoral vote, and a majority of voters supported Democratic congressional candidates? Presidential mandates are now dependent on gerrymandered House district lines? C'mon.
But let's not miss the forest for the trees.
Ryan is making the case against a presidential mandate as a justification for obstructionism. His argument, in effect is, "The president may appear to have earned a mandate, but Republicans are inclined to pretend otherwise."
This isn't an attitude that will lead to progress over the next two years.
Leave a Comment:
In other words Ryan says "Democracy sucks!"
If everyone that voted for the Liberal cause lived in their own country so they would never have to deal with or see the likes of another Conservative, would we create a sustainable society?
Maybe both sides need each other
The two party system has its benefits...But not with these two parties. As the GOP fades into irrelevance, I can easily see the Dems remaining in the center while a new party challenges them from the left.
We do not need extremists on either side.The extremists do not bring about consensus for change.They are unwilling to listen to the opposition.
But yes we do need both sides of the coin in order to seek the best for the whole. This is because it seems human nature is to play god and dictate rather than govern.
lasrgenose, What you see may be caused by the fear that moderate reasonable Republicans might be forced to join the democratic party and if so they will attempt to turn us to the right. Not an unreasonable idea. We on the left are far more flexible than the nut jobs in control of the GOP. However as we just witnessed, the left has a limit on just how much crap they will take.
Which you people are ignoring. The House is still Republican, and going to be even more obstructionist if possible. But not to worry, you all are going to get your much cherished tax hike on the rich. And everybody else.
Let's see if I can get this prediction right.
Shooter the only reason we even have a 'fiscal cliff' is because the House Republicans walked away from the table to begin with, and we ended up with this Jerry-rigged ass of a deal.
Secondly The President and The Dems had already agreed to Entitlements being on the table, or did just not pay any attention to this the last time around? The Republicans are the ones stone walling a deal, because Grover has them by the balls.
Thirdly the House is still under Rep control because the state districts are gerrymandered, so they will more than likely win them. Rigging the races isn't the same as wining the races.
Calvin, so what? When it comes to taxes, it's everybody or nobody. Take your pick.
Actually Shooter it's up to the Rep to choose, either have taxes raised on everybody, or just the people over 250k. It's not The Dems that's all or nothing, you need to check your own party.
The whole argument over the tax rates is mute anyway. Because they were never supposed to be permanent to begin with. Bush has all of you in this delusion after he left office. Because he seriously has people believing that, you can give away a surplus, cut taxes, never send a dime of that surplus to pay off the debt, start 2 wars and add Medicare Part D, and never have to actually pay for it. All while sending the economy in free fall.
The "so what" is, it's about time for the Rep and you to either start acting like Adults and help figure out how to fix the mess your party had the biggest hand in creating. Or just simply shutting the f*ck up.
Raising the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.5 % is not a big deal to those so taxed but does recapture a great deal of Social Security ppayments made to the uber wealthy. Wall St doesn't like it but we don't much care for them either.
Say goodbye to "carry interest" for hedgies at 15%. Taxes are not now nor have they ever been "everybody or nobody".
The Republicans are like children, crying and throwing their toys when they lose the game fair and square. I'm not sure they can get away with obstructionism this time around. We've all pretty much seen their modus operandi and I don't think they can pull it off again. Really, I wish they would all stand up and just say it.
"We were elected to do the same thing as George Bush, take care of the richest of the rich and the rest of you can go suck rocks."
Calvin, let me make myself perfectly clear. I prefer all the Clinton rates rather than just the over $250k. Since that's the default setting, that should make you happy, yes? I get hit either way, so I'd like some company with my misery.
If Bush cuts for the wealthy are history then I'd like to see everyone's taxes go up. And it seems I'll get my wish.
When it comes to taxes, it's everybody or nobody. Take your pick.-Shooter 242
Shooter, I think the majority of American people have taken their pick and have decided we should pay taxes on a progressive rate. The more you make, the more you pay. To those that more has been given, more should be expected.
LMAO @ Shooter, who posted: "I get hit either way, so I'd like some company with my misery."
If you truly are one of the 1% (and not one of the stooges of the 1%ers) it will take alot more than Clinton rates for you to feel anything let alone "misery".
Poor Shooter, one of the downtrodden 1%ers, Poor lil baby.
Seems like Shooters one of those children who thinks if s/he isn't being coddled s/he's being abused.
.
So you would like to see someone who is trying to survive on the minimum wage (approx $15000/yr), who is already paying $1148 in payroll taxes, have their federal income tax increase from $785 to $1177??
I strongly suspect that you don't know what misery is if your conscience lets you think that way.
Democrat candidates for House polled nearly a million more votes than Republicans. Without the gerrymandering, Pelosi would be House Speaker again.
Ahhh the projection mentality rears it's ugly head again. What has this election told us? It has told us that Republicans keep accusing Democrats of being "envious" of the wealthy because those Republicans are envious of the wealthy. And it has told us that Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because it interferes with their wealth envy (I want to be wealthy, if you raise taxes on the wealthy then you'll be raising my future taxes, so therefore I'm opposed to it). And now we see that someone who is going to see his taxes go up (I'm assuming Shooter is calling himself a part of the upper 20%) wants to have everyone else's taxes go up SOLELY because it will make him feel better. Cause you know if something bad happens to me it should happen to everyone. No one should be allowed to be happy if I am miserable. THAT is the Republican brain. Project everything I feel onto everyone else. I'm sad therefore YOU have to be sad. I want to be wealthy therefore YOU have to want to be wealthy. I want the wealthy to spend whatever they want on whatever they can because when I am wealthy I want to spend whatever I want on whatever I can. It's all about ME and what I want and what I am feeling. And once I have mine you can go screw yourself cause I don't care about anyone else besides ME.
Good job Shooter- keep proving that the "stereotypes" of Republicans are actually truthful statements reflecting your psychological state. It helps Democrats win more seats.
Also, for the record Bush won re-election in 2004 with roughly 3 million votes and 34 electoral college votes. Obama won re-election in 2012 with 2.8 million votes and 130 electoral college votes . In 2004 this was a mandate for Bush's social security reform and was evidence that the Democrats needed to move to the right. Yet in 2012 what's it evidence for? Oh yes...Ryan's social security reform and evidence that the Democrats need to move to the right. Can we call just finally agree that these people don't know what they're talking about and need to be ignored?
Tom, we have a progressive income tax system, and half the country doesn't pay any. What's your problem?
Mind, isn't the Clinton prosperity based on all the Clinton rates? How much does this person get in Govt benefits like EITC? Howmuch is this person's refund? In short, let's see some documentation that this person actually pays income tax at all.
Trainer, come back when you have something other than a whine.
Cartoon, considering that raising taxes on the 2% does nearly nothing for the deficit, the only reason for it is that Democrats want to have their taxes go up SOLELY because it will make them feel better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html
A. nothing in your reply to me refutes anything that I said
B. your replay is a red herring which means you're admitting the Democratic plan does cut from the deficit
C. you plan doesn't refute the Democratic argument
D. your plan doesn't address the Democratic argument
E. your plan doesn't prove the claim you're making
Good job you just proved, yet again, that you're using projection politics in order to make yourself feel better about what you inevitably know has to happen. Good job.
Again this is probably why it's best for you to actually start reading the articles you link to instead of just blindly following headlines and then copy+pasting them to the blogs you're writing at. Doing so makes you seem the fool, not your opponents.
@Shooter - A single person without children does not qualify for EITC based on that adjusted gross income. Here are the limits for qualifying for 2011:
Shooter,
I don't have a problem with people not paying Federal income tax because they make so little. These people are paying all sorts of taxes anyways and you know that.
It bothers me that there are so many that that have no empathy for the poor. There are so many people that are working to the best of their abilities at jobs that pay little. Not everyone was born with the ability to be an engineer, or a doctor or a lawyer and make big bucs.
It appears people may not get my point from above so let me attempt to re-explain: the part where I'm talking about "I am better than the poor" that's when I'm trying to channel the Republican mentality. Shooter is displaying, whether he likes it or not, that the selfish attitude I reflect in my post is real for Republicans. Anyways sorry to insult anyone's intelligence in saying that; I just know that sarcasm is so goddamn hard to hear through posts. The point I'm trying to get at is the same point I've been trying to since I started blogging here: that conservatives/Republicans are arrogant as hell. That's all that post was meant to convey.
Cartoon, your original comment was unintelligible, so was the second. Meanwhile which part of "nearly nothing" didn't you understand.
Tom, it's hard to be real sympathetic to the poor when they get free food, unemployment insurance, free medical, transportation subsidies, housing subsidies, free phones, and free money.
We spent a trillion dollars on means tested poverty programs last year. Enough to send every household with a tax return $10,000. Maybe you should get on board with my idea that the trillion should be sent to us the citizens rather than blown on bureaucrats.
Mind, your person sounds like a student. Even burger flippers get $8/hr these days. And you still haven't demonstrated that this person pays any income tax at all, after his refund.
Cause if I say it's so, I don't have to respond to it! This is especially hilarious because you already responded to my post thus proving that even this BS is crap
If only this were factually true
If only this were factually true
I just assert without fact!
Thus proving my jealousy!
Lol please come back when you have an intelligible comment to add
I predict that Ryan will be more visible in the next 5 days than he has been in the last 3 months.
Except for a sad debate performance and some bad press "washing" dishes, he was all but absent from a campaign that purportedly was running on his ideas.
I don't think Boy Blunder liked being left behind, and the fact that the ridiculous math he brought was roundly dismissed caused him to stamp his feet in anger.
Now he's back, and he's sure gonna show us...
Stay tuned.
If you're right, then maybe the MSM will finally realize that every argument Ryan makes is "pretty hard to take seriously." Then again...
Just like his marathon time!
He's a hero in his own mind.
AND dumber than Palin.
It is more than a little ironic that those preaching 'personal responsibility' to the 47% seem incapable of accepting personal responsibility for themselves. "It's not our policies that were rejected," they say, failing to even catch a glimmer of what and why the American people rejected them.
Still living inside the bubble.
I think the biggest lesson we've all learned from this election is Republicans only believe polls that show they are winning. Everything else is skewed and therefore not worth bothering with.
Oh, and let's not forget that beginning with the Miracle debate, Romney was no longer a champion of conservative issues. That pretty much counts as an admission that the mandate is against the Ryan/Romney plan, regardless of who became president. And who knows what the popular votes would have been had there been shorter lines in urban areas, no billboards or flyers displaying false voting information, voter id laws or Tea Party vigilantes disguised as "concerned citizens" at the polls.
He still "doesn't have time" to explain his math.
Jill Kelley should be learning a big lesson in this where she thought she had some influence and power and in the end gets burned from the very people she supposedly trusted. Trust is a very elusive thing that can never be quite obtained, especially when she runs in circles of huge egos and arrogance that will sacrifice everything just to cover their butts. Jill Kelley got herself involved in the Generals little Party Circle, got caught, and now will pay the price as they push her to oblivion. But Jill Kelley can always find refuge or pay back by writing a book about those dirty little secrets about the abuse of power. Sounds disgusting, yea it does, but some people and perhaps too many are just like that.
Probiotics and fiber can unblock his reasoning process. It is difficult to process new stuff if the system is clogged with useless things.
?
Seems to me the Republican has no problem spewing poo.
.
Ryan forgets that Nancy Pelosi is not Speaker of the House because she was running against Gerry Mander.
NOBODY expects the urban voter turnout!
At least, not when you've spent lots of time and money trying to suppress it.
Our main weapon is surprise...
surprise and ruthless efficiency...
surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Ayn Rand.
And those red hats cover the tinfoil ones so nicely.
So he's delusional (still). Essentially he is saying that his ideas are so popular that it enabled his party to retain control of the House, yet those ideas had nothing to do with the Presidential election, which was determined by unexpectedly high urban voter turn out. The man belongs on Fantasy Island.
Does he realize that there was heavy urban voter turn out because people were strongly opposed to his ideas or is he just pandering to the base? Will more people have an epiphany (like true the vote's founder) and target the "urban voter" in the next election? Will republican state legislators double down on their war on voting?
If you were paying attention, Romney's sudden rise after the first debate was due, in part, to his seeming shift to the CENTER. Saying he was for keeping "pre-existing conditions" (although his camp was quick to clarify he meant if you already have insurance, which totally voids the comment) and denouncing the tax cuts he'd been running on for months prior made him look (and I use the term "look" because it was a facade) like the moderate the majority of Repulicans, and Americans in general, were looking for. You'd think that would clue in the GOP that extreme policies are not welcome. However, the RWNJ continue to cling the notion that America actually wants the Conservative agenda, they were just out-voted by Obama's "urban base" that just wants "stuff". I urge everyone to write to their congress reps, House and Senate, and demand compromise from BOTH sides to get what needs to be done, DONE.
I think if Paul Ryan were not in public service, the world would get along just fine. He hasn't yet caught on that he lost because he and his ideas are not acceptable to the majority of Americans. The less we hear from this bully, the better.
You don't have to look far to see where he gets is "urban turnout" ummm data http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/pa-officials-plan-no-probe-despite-extraordinary-turnout-totals-for-obama-in/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl23%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D234246
News flash, there are Hispanic 'hoods in Philly too. Then there are 'hoods like mine - next door are the Brazilians and 2 doors down from them are the Chinese and 2 doors down from them are the Cubans and somewhere along that line the Albanians live. Going in the other direction from me 2 doors up are the African Americans and 2 more Brazilian families. Across the street the Russians live. At Halloween I saw middle eastern parents bring their children around and Indian or maybe Pakistani too (the parents were having more fun than their children!)
The point being - there are a lot of immigrant populations that might have been offended by the self-deportation "policy" of the GOP candidate. Also, when a political party actively tries to take away one's vote, as the GOP did in PA, that party will pay the consequences. People were mad as hell and weren't going to take it! There's your 98% vote.
A proud "URBAN" voter!
And the bigger point is that you are "rubbing elbows" with all those newcomers to the Melting Pot, while Republicans are busy building gated communities- complete with the 21st Century version of a sign saying "No Irish Need Apply."
Again, I have to quote Joe Biden. "All politics is personal."
I am amazed that dems want to call republicans obstructionists when they are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do. Hold the line against more taxes, follow the constitution, balance the budget and quit spending like there is no tomorrow. Obama thinks the path to prosperity is to spend, spend, spend. And he has no plans to deal with entitlement programs except to expand them. What kind of agenda is that? It is not fiscally sound!
We Dems call Republicans obstructionists because that's what they've been doing for the past 2 years. Fillibuster a record 68 times to stall Obama's jobs bill, no jobs bill of their own to offer, 33 votes to repeal The Affordable Care Act, even when it was upheld by the SCOTUS as being Constitutional, a record number of abortion-restricting bills...shall I go on? The TeaBaggers were swept into Congress in 2010 in response to perceived over-spending but spent those two years NOT on jobs but social issues and hell-bent on obstructing Obama. (do I need to remind you of Mitch McConnell's public declaration of the PRIMARY goal was to keep Obama a one-term president) The president offered a 10:1 cuts-to-spending ratio that was resoundly rejected. The offer has dropped to 1:1 with better leverage thanks to the American people. The GOP should have taken the better offer when they had the chance.
You're stupid and don't know what you're talking about. Spend, spend, spend???? Where? What?
Obama has cut more waste than Bush, he set up a program to investigate medicare fraud that saved the tax payers millions of dollars.
When we cut them off from THEIR FREE money, then maybe we'll get them to do the job they were sent to do???
And he has no plans to deal with entitlement programs except to expand them.
jes33, you need explain to me exactly how he intends to do this. Seems like you're just typing talking points.
OK...be 'amazed'. First of all your 'premise' is not true. So there is THAT. You don't understand Obama's policies not do you WANT to. The amazement is all in the 'GOP TALKING POINTS'. Nothing we can do about that.
jes, you really need to stop listening to buzzwords and start looking at numbers. Annual federal spending growth rate under Obama budgets: 1.67%; under Bush budgets: 9.6%. Pointing a finger doesn't mean that you've gotten the point.
Sorry you don't know what constitutes sound fiscal policy. Whether you're talking about personal, business or governmental finances, which interact to produce "the economy", the option of borrowing money in order to secure future goals is always there. In most cases, it is entirely justified to borrow money in "flush" times and reduce debt in "lean" times. The federal government, unfortunately, is the last backstop available to provide circulating cash when personal, business, city, county and state governments are not in a position to do so. When all else has failed, it is the responsibility of the national government to push the rest of the national economic train down the tracks, lest it start rolling backwards.
Gee, aren't subsidies to Big Oil and Gas and corporate jets and Agribusiness ALSO entitlement programs? Why can't they take responsibility for themselves. They are simultaneous makers and takers, but they won't give up anything.
jess33, admitting that a few of your deeply held beliefs about Obama may be incorrect is not abandoning god, country, or party.
Obama doesn't get Every Single Thing wrong. Not humanly possible. And your party doesn't get Every Single Thing right, again not humanly possible. Somewhere in between those extreme points is the reality of the situation.
Trying to defend the indefensible does more discredit to you than adjusting your opinions to a more realistic and dare I say rational view about the people in your government.
Ryan basically said, Romney and I lost because the voter suppression we set up in urban areas didn't work, so, now we're going back to Washington to obstruct everything we can.
I wish there was a way to suspend their pay. See how they like not getting a pay check!! We pay this monkey's salary...
Repubs have situational amnesia on the deficit. Why are Obama's deficits larger than spendthrift George W. Bush? Well, Bush crashed the economy before he left office, meaning that programs in place for decades, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, were suddenly called upon in great numbers, and had to be paid for. And of course, a stimulus package had to be passed to keep the country from sliding into a full-blown depression. Sure, the stimulus could have done better, but considering that half the package was in the form of repub-demanded tax cuts, proven time and again to be the least stimulative measure available, it did the job of stoppng the bleeding. Finally, recall that one of the first things Obama did was to put the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the annual budget request. Bush funded the wars through 2 "emergency" requests to Congress each year, claiming it was impossible to predict how much they would cost each year, despite ample precedent to the contrary. The numbers were added to the national debt, but not to his annual budget figures, artificially lowering his annual deficit by 200-300 million each year.
As a Democrat, I don't like this "but we won the most votes in the House election" line of reasoning. It's totally specious and cheapens our image. Adding the votes from a Dem landslide in one district to a Republican squeaker in another and then declaring it shows the Dems should've won BOTH districts is like determining the World Series on total number of total runs scored, not number of games won. To paraphrase Megyn Kelly (shudder!): it's Democratic math we do to make ourselves feel better.
And we don't need to feel any better--the Dems have a mandate based on the Presidential election, which was about issues. In other words, we won the World Series!
What is being expressed is that more Democrats than Republicans voted for Representatives. Democrats aren't claiming any extra seats or anything, what they are saying is that any talk by Republicans about their receiving a "mandate" based on the number of Representatives is flawed.
Had Congressional districts not been so extremely gerrymandered in the Republicans favor, and based on the vote totals by party, there is a an excellent probability that Rep. Pelosi would again be Speaker in January.
The gerrymandering was legal, therfore Republicans get the majority in the House. What they don't get it talk as that majority represents a majority of those who voted.
It doesn't and they don't.
The republicans liked to call Pres. Obama the food stamp president seemingly not acknowledging that it took a crashed economy to get more people on food stamps. Then they would not work with him on the American Jobs Act so people could get work.
The republican party is the reason that there are so many unemployed and also on food stamps. It's a disgrace of a party.
And a good chunk of those people receiving aid and food stamps are teapubs.
And mentioning it once again, federal programs send more Blue State money to the Red States than the Blue States get back. Red States are takers that won't take responsibility for themselves.
Can I just say I THANK GOD everything single day since November 6th that this guy didn't WIN the top (2nd) spot?
Poor delusional Paul "Lyin'" Ryan! Even his hometown of Janesville, WI, went for his opponent in BOTH his races!
All this talk about a mandate is, shall we say, hooey. In 2004, when GWB was reelected with just a slightly larger majority than he had in 2000, Reps said he had a mandate, Dems said he didn't. When Clinton was reelected in 1996, Dems said he had a mandate, Reps said he didn't. If Obama ends up with 53% of the popular vote, does it constitute a mandate?
And what really does constitute a mandate, anyway.
In reality, the people who voted for Obama gave him a mandate to continue on the path he's on. The 47% who didn't vote didn't give him a mandate. That's all. Will this cause Obama to change course? Of course not. Was it a complete and utter rejection of all things Republican? Uh, no, Romney did get 47% or so of the vote.
Really, discussion of a "mandate" is just silly. Obama will continue support what he supports, and Reps will continue to fight those. Were you expecting Ryan to do a complete 180 since the election?
Let it go.
W didn't use the term mandate, he said he had political "capital" and he was going to spend it on the programs HE wanted. He wasted that capital more poorly than Rove spent the plutocrats' campaign "donations."
Well the mandate thing comes from wayyyyy back in the day. If people want to argue that they are opposed to Jacksonian politics OK then I'm with you- the concept of a mandate is stupid. But don't be hypocritical about it. If G.W. Bush can claim he has a mandate by roughly the same margin of victory (in terms of the popular vote) then so can Obama. Either hold the same standard or stop playing the IOKIYAR game.
Seems like Ryan is still living in the "Faux" News anti-reality world. He still thinks that just because Republicans say it that makes it so. Didn't he learn anything?
You and romney lost because you had no solution to offer other than a return to the 50's, a mandate for hate and bigotry and a campaign of lie after lie.
Is that clear enough for your ego inflated mind to grasp mr. ryan?
Ryan needs to get over himself. He needs to go to confession and say, I'm a bad loser, I'm arrogant, I'm a liar, I'm a control freak. Then he needs to say three Hail Marys, a few Our Fathers and go out and sin no more by shutting the f--- up!
Paul Ryan *fails to make* the case against a mandate
Fixt.
;)