On April 15th, 2011, at 2:53 in the afternoon, the House of Representatives voted 235-193 for the Paul Ryan budget for fiscal year 2012. There was not a single Democrat willing to cross the aisle in support of the bill. And there were only five Republicans who failed to support Ryan’s budget (including one who abstained). This article in The Hill reads like the authors were too lazy to look up the roll call. For example, this needs to be corrected:
Many Republicans in tough races this year, especially in the House, voted for Ryan’s proposal, which makes it hard for them to distance themselves from it.
It is not “many Republicans in tough races” but “all Republicans in tough races this year” who voted for Paul Ryan’s radical plan to voucherize Medicare. Of the four Republicans who voted against the bill, one (Ron Paul) is retiring, another (Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones) is a genuine moderate, another (David McKinley) is from West Virginia and is probably safe for reelection, and the last (Danny Rehberg) was smart enough to know that he didn’t want the Ryan Budget hanging around his neck while he ran for Senate in Montana. There isn’t a single member of the House who is in a tough reelection fight who voted against the Ryan Budget. The best you can do is Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington, who wisely missed the vote altogether. EVERY OTHER SINGLE REPUBLICAN in a tough reelection fight is on the record supporting the voucherization of Medicare. ALL OF THEM.
They all walked out on the plank together, perhaps thinking that there is safety in numbers (at least, from Tea Party primary challengers), and Mitt Romney just took Ryan by the hand, walked out on the plank, turned around, and sawed the plank off the ship.
The Republicans’ entire plan for combatting the charge that they voted for voucherizing Medicare was supposed to be the ridiculous and misleading charge that the Democrats voted to strip $700 billion out of Medicare. Never mind that it was actually subsidies in Medicare Advantage that were cut, and not benefits. Paul Ryan’s budget plan included those cuts to Medicare Advantage, too! They planned to tell a blatant falsehood, that they hadn’t also voted for those cuts in Medicare. And they thought they could reach parity with that lie.
While few Republicans said having Ryan on the ticket would help them, they argued they can neutralize the budget issue by attacking Democrats for cutting $700 billion from Medicare in their healthcare reform law.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) circulated a memo to lawmakers and candidates on Monday, obtained by The Hill, that they say offers a road map for winning the debate over Ryan’s proposal.
It calls for candidates to follow the model the party used to win an open seat in Nevada last summer in which now-Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) hammered his Democratic opponent on the spending cuts.
The main focus of such a strategy, according to a slideshow and video circulated by NRCC Political Director Mike Shields, is to stay on the offense and tie Democrats to Obama’s healthcare law, an argument Republicans believe they can win.
The presentation tells candidates to fight back on Medicare until the issue becomes a tie then refocus the debate on the economy. To do so, Republicans are advised to tie their opponent unequivocally to Obama’s law, highlight the law’s cuts to Medicare and offer counter-messaging that uses credible outside spokespeople — like seniors, or, in Amodei’s case, his mother — to convince seniors that Republicans are in the right on the issue.
It was a dubious strategy to begin with, since it relied on a really deplorable set of falsehoods. But now that Paul Ryan is on the ticket, they’re stuck with the fact that Paul Ryan designed a budget that made the same cuts they’re trying to inoculate themselves with. AND THEY ALL VOTED FOR THOSE CUTS. Ryan is too high profile now, and their strategy is sunk.
But one Republican strategist who’d seen the NRCC’s memo worried that the plan offered little new advice, and having Ryan at the top of the ticket lent additional credibility to Democrats on the issue.
“It becomes more difficult. The Republican argument and Democrat argument on Medicare now aren’t on equal footing anymore — Ryan being on the top of the ticket gives Democrats more credibility,” the strategist said. “There’s going to be more resonance when the Democrats attack our guys. It’s going to be a part of the national discussion, there’s going to be more credibility on this now, and we’re not going to be able to wave them off as nonsense.“
In other words, the big lie will no longer work. The big lie is inoperable. And the writing is on the wall.
“There are a lot races that are close to the line we’re not going to win now because they’re going to battle out who’s going to kill grandma first, ObamaCare or Paul Ryan’s budget,” said one Republican strategist who works on congressional races. “It could put the Senate out of reach. In the House it puts a bunch of races in play that would have otherwise been safe. … It remains to be seen how much damage this causes, but my first blush is this is not good.”
Noted liberal governors like Rick Scott of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas are fleeing from Ryan’s Budget like their hair is on fire. And it’s not hard to see why. It’s appalling that, prior to Ryan’s placement on the ticket, the Republicans felt confident that they could use Super PAC funding from billionaires to make a lie the equal of the truth and “to wave [the truth] off as nonsense.” But they don’t really think that they can pull that off anymore. Whether or not Romney can separate himself from Ryan’s Budget by proposing his own budget, it will be acknowledged that Paul Ryan created a budget (which the House Republicans supported) that made the same cuts in Medicare as Obama’s Affordable Care Act. In addition, they also all voted to voucherize Medicare.
The House Republicans have been rendered defenseless, armed with nothing but the most indefensible lies. And they know it.
“The House Republicans have been rendered defenseless, armed with nothing but the most indefensible lies.”
Hope yer right, but they’ll be armed with a gazillion dollars, and when has lying ever been called on them?
Also available in orange.
A minor correction: Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) was in a swing district, but after redistricting it’s now a safe R seat. To be fair, the redistricting had not been announced at the time of the 2011 vote – but it also wasn’t clear at that point that Reichert would run for another term rather than retiring (particularly if he faced another tough challenge).
His Ryan budget non-vote surely was based on the possibility he’d still be running in a swing district in 2012, but it was only a possibility (and not a strong one) at that point. And, as it turns out, he’s only facing nominal opposition in his newly drawn district this year.
And hence one can hear the distant hum of a realization that Romney’s Ryan will now make the whole Party fear they will lose the House again and seats in the Senate. Never thought I’d say that outloud, but Romney’s choice is going to put the whole Party on defense and even low information R voters may get a clue.
I’m curious to see what effect (if any) Ryan’s selection as running mate has on races even further down-ballot, such as state legislative races.
I actually suspected that Ryan could be a liability in exactly this way.
The problem is that the Will Saletans of the world are the people who will be reporting on this.
If I were directing the House races for the Dems I would make a standard commercial in which pictures of each Republican who voted for gutting Medicare can be inserted.
I’ve already gotten campaign emails about the “Strickland-Ryan” budget (I live in SoCal – Strickland is Julia Brownley’s GOP opponent).
It’s happening.
Read today’s diary Paul Ryan’s Budget and Catholic Backlash. I can understand why the Bain CEO has no notion about the poor, especially growing up in Mormonism.
Somehow I don’t see this leading to any stories about Ryan being denied Communion, as we saw with Kerry back when.
Same Bishop Timothy Dolan your diary mentions had a tremendous quote yesterday on Hardball,
“Ryan’s Plan fails Christian Moral Criteria”
Almost fits on a bumper sticker and draws in a broader Christian in general backlash.
To think that Bishops and Nuns within the Catholic Church could become not just the defenders of the poor but the leaders who finally call the Republicans on the carpet for deliberately misusing the faith they flaunt at every turn could finally allow religion to retire out of politics.
I’m glad the Bishop did some study since this exchange of letters. Perhaps he became aware how the Jesuits rebuffed Paul Ryan’s theories how to deal with the rich and the poor. In addition, I don’t believe the Jesuits are inclined to appreciate a Bain Capital CEO who profited from funding by Salvadoran ARENA families.
I see the talking point for dissing the Nuns on a Bus is that they have been Soros funded. Sigh.
between billionaires Soros and Adelson confronting the Presidential battle Obama vs. Romney. So the sisters are with Obama, that’s logical looking at the GOP War on Women. The Vatican and U.S. bishops vs. the nuns. Soros funds the sisters, does this imply Adelson is funding the Vatican? Was that the secret of the pope’s butler? LOL
More Vatican news: The sisters will remain under the bishops’ control for the next five years. After the talks and decision, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 76 year old Cardinal William Levada has retired. His successor will be Ludwig Mueller, Archbishop of Regensburg and a close friend of Peruvian Liberation Theologist (LT) Gustavo Gutierrez.
The answer is: Voting Machines. Look up, Chris Hood, that. too. also.
Go look at the evidence of thefted elections. Just too much money at stake to go down in flames.
They’ve lived in that briar patch for the last few decades…
I’m not as interested in the effects on the “tough races”. I’m interested in which races have now shifted from being “sure things” to being “tough”.
For 40 years conservatives have approached politics as the stealth capture of government after the 1964 campaign proved that honesty about ideas and angry faces didn’t quite make a winning combination. Ryan’s selection now outs their agenda.
How about this one:
SD voters, Nielsen :
Mitt Romney 49, Barack Obama 43
Kristi Noem 47, Matt Varilek 46
Kristie Fiegen 43, Matt McGovern 41
Chris Nelson 54, Nick Nemec 30
Before the Ryan selection, Varilek (D-Challeger) was 1 pt down from Noem (R-Incumbent)
Do you think those results are real, or just a bounce due to the increased scrutiny and press play? South Dakota can get pretty weird.
Would have been a great year to run another 50-state strategy, doncha think?
yeah.
Especially since it begins to look as tho the outside $$$ might have been able to make a real difference.
Actually, they have one defense that I would bet money, if I had any, that we’ll be seeing soon: “We didn’t really want to pass the Ryan Budget, we just wanted to send the President a strong message that we need fiscal responsibility in this country, and that we need to start looking at the budget and making the tough decisions that will carry us out of this horrible debt. We knew Obama would veto it anyway, so it was safe to vote for it.”
If they’re smart–and they usually are–that’s the line they’ll take.
I can see a problem with this defense: it plays into the “Do-Nothing Congress” frame. They’d be admitting they were deliberately wasting the Congress’s time, and the Dems could helpfully point out many other instances of such grandstanding on the people’s dime.
However, when faced with the choice between that and admitting they’re serious about the Ryan budget, I’d cop to grandstanding. But I doubt it’s in the Republicans’ nature to do that.
No doubt, the true fire breathers among the teabaggers will double down and stand with the Ryan Plan even as Romney and Ryan do their best to run away from it. But for the others with some notion of self preservation, they’ve got nothing else to turn to.
Not to mention, “Obama was going to veto it anyway” is in keeping with the GOP strategy of painting him as a do-nothing President.