August 11, 2012
Romney Chooses Ayn Rand For VP
The republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney rallied his supporters today: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan."
Oh well. So this rich white guy with an empathy deficit wants to get additional votes by naming a rich white guy with an empathy deficit as his vice-president candidate.
That is not going to work well. Ryan looks like a nice guy but has a libertarian vision that makes no sense. His budget would eliminate the federal government except for military spending. He is proposing deregulation as a solution for all the problems deregulation created. His plans for medicare and social security will drive older folks into the Obama camp. (Obama has quite similar plans but at least he doesn't run on them.) That Ryan is a congress member certainly doesn't help. The congress has an approval rating as low as 18%. There is now only one protestant on the either party's ticket. Who then will those southern hardcore evangelicals vote for?
Is this a conspiracy? Do they really want Obama to have another four year term? I mean why pick a vice president candidate that moves that party's ticket even further away from the center? That has never brought more votes.
Posted by b on August 11, 2012 at 02:16 PM | Permalink
"Ryan looks like a nice guy" is very important. If image isn't everything, it's a close second.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 11, 2012 2:51:29 PM | 1
Same sh*t different smell...
US politics is just a comedy show...They have the choice of voting the lesser of many idiotic morons..Nothing new here :)
Posted by: Zico | Aug 11, 2012 2:52:46 PM | 2
I won't dare comment on this thread, as Americans are always telling us Europeans that we don't understand US politics.
I would have thought myself that, as we've had US politics thrust down our throats for years, we Europeans do have some idea, particularly if we've visited the deeply conservative areas of the Mid-West and the South, as I have.
When I go there, I am endlessly amazed that people can really be like that, but in logical terms, it's understandable, and so to be accepted. I am talking about ignorance of the outside world, and their subjection to slanted media.
Posted by: alexno | Aug 11, 2012 2:52:54 PM | 3
I think I mentioned once before my experience last February during the Republican caucus, where I went in support of the true libertarian, Ron Paul. As we were being shuffled around, a late middle aged woman volunteer started telling us how lucky we are in America because "this is the only country in the world where you can vote." I'm not kidding.
Now I don't think everybody is that dumb, but there are plenty who are. And they don't even know they are that dumb.
P.S. Paul Ryan is far from a libertarian. He voted for TARP, NDAA, the Iraq war, etc. A libertarian in the Ron Paul sense believes that government is a malevolent thing, that seeks to start wars, seize wealth and property and reduce personal freedom to the least amount possible.
Posted by: Lysander | Aug 11, 2012 3:25:15 PM | 4
The correct position in the upcoming election is to not vote at all. I'm hoping to de-legitimate the system by bringing down to less than 40% the number of eligible voters who actually vote.
Posted by: Lysander | Aug 11, 2012 3:41:02 PM | 5
apathy may make this race close, which is seriously dumbfounding.
Posted by: lizard | Aug 11, 2012 4:48:14 PM | 6
"Do they really want Obama to have another four year term?"
Looks that way. The Republicans aren't really trying.
Posted by: ruralito | Aug 11, 2012 5:53:11 PM | 7
If Romney wins, at least he'll have a gross defeat in Afghanistan on his plate. There's no avoiding that.
Posted by: alexno | Aug 11, 2012 6:03:01 PM | 8
Lysander @ 5
The US democracy won't respond to loosing legitimacy. The US public will still believe they have the best democracy in the world. If you want to force change, go with 3'rd party candidates.
Posted by: Alexander | Aug 11, 2012 6:37:26 PM | 9
Anyway, Obama will win no matter what.
Posted by: Alexander | Aug 11, 2012 6:49:58 PM | 10
I agree with you. My position too, exactly. The percentage of the eligible voters that vote hovers around 60% in the USA (60-70 in most other large democracies) and it's quite possible with the choices we have that it could come down to 40%. (The PTB know this too, so they are reducing the numbers of eligible voters with disenfranchisement (voter ID), felony convictions etc.) It's the only way -- the elections don't mean diddly.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 11, 2012 6:50:32 PM | 11
Oh, now I see what you mean.. Of course elections doesn't mean diddley squat.. With the fraud and all.. Sure. Go with the sofa-voting option. :)
Posted by: Alexander | Aug 11, 2012 6:53:00 PM | 12
nikon @ 13
There are entire cities underground with intelligence centers and analysts at several (more than two) locations in the US.
Posted by: Alexander | Aug 11, 2012 7:14:26 PM | 14
Well, on one level, it's a contest of style and tribal identification. Another rallying cry is the no tax (except to feed Pentagon) infantilism of a politically inbred republican party, that appeals to extreme religion, and right wing populist anger, in a very scary way. On the democratic party side, it is a pre-totalitarian kind of doublethink, an oozing Orwellian slide into police state normalcy, and a faux progressive mask that's beginning to scare me as much as the self-righteous hokum of the right. America (if you want to call it that) is becoming a more sinister theater of the absurd;--even to a greater degree than is usual.
The election seems to be about nothing. Both parties embrace tragic militarism and national hubris. Both parties are willing to strangle the middle class with the biggest shot of austerity they can muster, after the election dust has settled. Both parties are anxious to negotiate trade treaties that will nullify the rights of government to sue, or regulate, transnational corporations. Both parties are for the surveillance state and the militarizing of countless federal agencies, and police.
If things don't change soon; the mask worn by those who control us will no longer find it necessary to smile, or to indulge any of the trappings of a democratic process.
Posted by: Copeland | Aug 11, 2012 7:15:41 PM | 15
I come on here to read this blog every few days and I enjoy the articles. You have cOmpletely lost me though. Paul Ryan is a libertarian? Do you even know what a libertarian is? Give me a break dude!!!
Posted by: Mikeisalways | Aug 11, 2012 9:03:19 PM | 16
Is it jst because he has Paul in his name???
Posted by: Mikeisalways | Aug 11, 2012 9:04:16 PM | 17
Mike, I think a lot of politicians want to pretend to be "libertarian." I've had people tell me Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian. (WTF!?!?) For everyone, here is quick guide.
1) If you vote to bail out banks you are NOT a libertarian.
2) If you are pro war and want a globe spanning military, you are NOT a libertarian.
3) If you voted for the "patriot" act or NDAA, or in anyway restrict civil liberties, you are NOT a libertarian.
4) If you prattle on about the need to stop Iran's nuclear program, protect poor little Israel, etc. you are NOT a libertarian.
Now I can see how people on the left are opposed to the libertarian views in favor of free markets and opposition to taxes. But I think we all agree on the above four.
Posted by: Lysander | Aug 11, 2012 10:39:36 PM | 18
I love how libertarianism has become the new refuge of the morally pure. I you think of politics in these terms you are already lost.
Posted by: Northern observer | Aug 11, 2012 10:51:38 PM | 19
Romney to USA is as Merkel to Greece, more or less.
But: Let's parasite our own people, if there isn't any other left.
Posted by: auskalo | Aug 12, 2012 12:11:41 AM | 20
I'm betting Romney might just win..A few weeks from now, the Mossad will dig up a huge pile of sh*t and stick it on Obama to discredit him through their AIPAC and media handlers..
Israel's control over American politics is mainly through blackmail...
What's Obama going to campaign on? That's he's still the liberal he was and that he ended all the wars?
It's sad that the Americans only have to choose between dems and reps..You'd think for a country that size, they'll be fielding more political parties and choices...This is American democracy, dammit!!!
Posted by: Zico | Aug 12, 2012 2:21:21 AM | 21
I think Rove wants Romney and Ryan to keep folks yammering while he manipulates the senate race outcomes in key states. Let Obama have the White House, obstruct obstruct obstruct for 4 more years, let everything come crashing down as it must, and blame the Democrats. Our turn for the shock doctrine, no?
Better go plant some potatoes and cabbage.
Posted by: catlady | Aug 12, 2012 3:53:28 AM | 22
Romney may not care about wooing Independents because he still has had a problem in securing the Religious Right portion of his base. The choice of Ryan may help him in that. In addition, many Democrats and Independents are so demoralized about Obama that they may not turn out to vote.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Aug 12, 2012 4:34:08 AM | 23
The GOP takes its social policy from the Bible and its economic policy from Ayn Rand.
They reject Evolution but embrace Social Darwinism.
And as much as I admire the principles individual initiative and personal responsibility, I do not understand how they expect individuals and families with limited assets and incomes to be able to negotiate on equal terms with multi-billion-dollar corporations for terms of employment, financial services or health care insurance...
Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 12, 2012 6:25:40 AM | 24
They reject Evolution but embrace Social Darwinism.
survival of the unfittest?
Posted by: claudio | Aug 12, 2012 6:43:32 AM | 25
B, or any other enterprising reporter should go and shop various insurance carriers and see what medical coverage, comparable to Medicare would cost someone at age 65, 70, 75. Ryan's budget, budgetted $8000/yr. Simple enough analysis, I can't understand why it hasn't been done yet. Eventually, I imagine the O camp will do it.
Posted by: scottindallas | Aug 12, 2012 9:10:56 AM | 26
Excellent point catlady. I think you are right on. Do you have any references? I could use some ammunition. Our Bernie Sanders will most certainly be in their crosshairs as he is one of the few in the US senate that continually shoots down, or at least exposes the Rethug's most egregious excesses and is thus a huge thorn in their backsides. They will most certainly be gunning for him this fall.
Posted by: juannie | Aug 12, 2012 10:09:42 AM | 27
C'mon,Obomba today is called "willing"to cut SS and Medicare,while Romney allegedly will,so there is actually no difference,and I'd rather have honesty(?)than the charade of this piece of crap Obomba,the special interest and focus group loser,and remember that the shrub tried to privatise SS and Medicare and the people spoke very loudly against it,and the craven listened.And Romney,if he wants to be reelected will listen also.And the military budget from the fraud is also sacrosanct,so this is Kabuki theater from the Ziomonster MSM,who definitely seem in the tank for the fraud,and when Romney is elected at least stupid policy will be attacked by the now silent alleged liberal pom pom wavers.
We have to purge this fraud at all costs.
Posted by: dahoit | Aug 12, 2012 10:38:59 AM | 28
Romney apologized for his mis-speak (“Meet the next pres. of America”, introducin' P. Ryan) - Couldn’t believe it when I heard it yesterday - Bush’s errors were regular stumblebum and funny in comparison.
He clearly meant that he Mitt would not be president of the United states and that he Paul Ryan would be the next President of the US -- as Obama doesn’t count in the ‘our next president’ discourse amongst Republicans.
That’s the plan!
I predicted McCain would lose the day after he picked Palin (time to look up her record as Governor..)
And yet, Palin had at the time quite a lot to recommend her in the sense of ‘unconventional candidate’: a woman, a married mother with heaps of kids, a Christian, an elected pol, white, grass-rooty, sporty, good looking and faux brash. Many called the pick a bold move with the presumption that a bold move is heartfelt, a political calculation to be sure, but a serious one, implemented in good faith with a view to winning and innovation of the pol scene.
Speculation was rife about how this came about, with McCain being called for ex. a maverick, idiosyncratic. The incredibly devastating disaster of her showing as VP candidate was apparently not foreseen by anyone. But that is another story..
Anyway, the present VP pick shows that in the last election and the upcoming one the aim is not to win - Romney cannot win with Paul Ryan as running mate (1), he is too extremist, and there are many other reasons why Obama will be elected for a second term - but that the fight behind the scenes is deeply ideological and plans are very long term. This time round, a young white male establishment pol hack is picked. By whom exactly I don’t know, but certainly NOT by a McCain figure or a Romney who wants to *win* a presidential election.
1. Except with extreme vote disenfranchisement, rigging, cheating, etc. which is ongoing and being upped (see Don Bacon), but these are exercises for the future, not aimed at winning this election.
Yes catlady Senate and Congress elections are perhaps more important than the presidential one.
Posted by: Noirette | Aug 12, 2012 10:51:12 AM | 29
As Ayn Rand was mentioned in the title...
1) Mitt Romney has a son named Taggart, is that an Ayn Rand reference?
Dagny Taggart is a character in Atlas Shrugged.
2) Ron Paul has the pol son named Rand, is that an Ayn Rand reference?
Or are these just old family names or the like?
Somebody should tell the US citizens that Ayn Rand was a woman, a Russian, an atheist, that she smoked, died of lung cancer, and probably didn’t shave her legs and ate beetroot that stained her teeth. The last made up obviously, but she did have weird eating habits (from a family member.)
Posted by: Noirette | Aug 12, 2012 11:21:27 AM | 30
Ayn Rand wrote most of her novels cranked up on amphetamines to meet the deadlines. And had extramarital affairs, as she considered marriage a useless burgeoise institution.
Rand Paul is just short for Randall. Do not know about Taggart.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 12, 2012 12:49:09 PM | 31
congress' approval rating is actually somewhere around 6%
Posted by: skuppers | Aug 12, 2012 1:09:31 PM | 32
It is hard to believe an Ayn Rand cultist gets the VP nod and I wonder if I am dreaming. We have a 'choice' between two horrid men (Romney and Obama). The US is really in the &@#*))*( these days.
Posted by: revenire | Aug 12, 2012 2:31:58 PM | 33
wr: Ann Rand for VP...
Well, Ryan has said... now that he's "matured", that his Randian roadmaps have changed because... he rejects her atheism.
So... his policies haven't changed, which were constructed w/the "philosophy" (as was Greenspand's and whole host of our currently operative US financial architects) espoused by Rand. But, his *critical distinction* from that philosophy now is not it's transformation, rather adherence to it while declaring publicly, distance from it's author.
Somehow, this passes as meaningful political discourse on our shores. And, no doubt... an endless stream of media pundits "analyzing" distinctions (cough) such as this (???), telling us what it all means... right through our November silly season.
Utterly bizarre, AFAIC.
I live in US. Having watched this rinse & repeat horror for a good while now, with little mobilized response from our public, I'm coming around to the notion that US citizens are getting just what they deserve, as a consquence of their near utter non-active participation in the crafting of US's policies, actions and all the rest.
The extent to which these guys operate (and have operated for over a decade here) in a manner which utterly disembowels a +/- 90% portion of US population with nonsense, stripping of resources intellectual/factual and financial, in-debting our populace financially in huge ways, with continuation of precise hierarchy of financial manipulation which tipped the scales over a decade ago, all while somehow US populace seemingly remains oblivious to the world tilting consequences of all this...
Hard to state in words, the mass and attendant consequences, and stupidity... of this global tilting equation.
Posted by: jdmckay | Aug 12, 2012 3:46:39 PM | 34
@9, your vote means squat; even if sought after by a dozen parties.
Posted by: ruralito | Aug 12, 2012 6:04:56 PM | 35
@Juannie--sorry, no references, though I probably read something at commondreams.org that gave me the notion about Repubs focusing on congress. The rest is just pattern-surfing aka gut guesses: Romney and Ryan are even more ludicrous than McCain and Palin. Obama, though he talks a good talk for the poor Dems, is such a "house negro" for the banksters. I don't take any of the red/blue campaigning seriously anymore; it's just one more corporate-sponsored team sport to divert the proles. The real power isn't up for election, it's busy making and breaking the world with debt-based money: Goldman Sachs, the "Federal" Reserve, Barclays, etc.
Posted by: catlady | Aug 13, 2012 1:32:09 AM | 36
You are about to see the most dismal voter turn-out from the left in history. Obama is little more than a posturing insincere piece of shit, and the corruption and lies from both sides of the aisle has become undeniable to anyone even lightly informed. The system has become reliant on the vote waged by the most ignorant and bigoted amongst us. The braying from the media scum such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Mathews, Maddow, etc sows division amonst us, hawking the fallacy of one side or the other being of superior moral intent. Truth is, we're screwed, for this government hasn't been "representative", moral, or "just" in a very very long time. Romney, Obama...makes no difference, we've been sold out. I hate these pieces of shit in DC. The are everything we aren't supposed to be.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 13, 2012 1:58:41 AM | 37
there is certainly little enthusiasm on either side for either candidate: Mitt Romney is unable to run on his record, so he will have to resort to scare tactics against Obama, while the Democrats will have to try to motivate women, gays and minorities by reminding them of GOP plans to turn back the clock on social issues in the USA by several decades.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 13, 2012 2:51:46 AM | 39
"Mitt Romney is unable to run on his record, so he will have to resort to scare tactics against Obama, while the Democrats will have to try to motivate women, gays and minorities"
and idiots . . . don't forget the idiots on both sides of the fake-political-divide
So have fun watching how Gay Marriage will become, once again (for the 4th or 5th election cycle in a row), THE hot-button issue in the MSM - since, truth be told, it really is the only distinguishing characteristic between supposedly-Left and supposedly-Right
'Progressive lefty' morons will foam at the mouth about 'homophobic bible bashing creationists' while Right-wing morons will foam at the mouth about 'family values'
All this while the the US is engaged in even more destructive Zionist-enhancing foreign wars and the US economy goes right down the toilet
Pure Genius! Gotta love the elites and their rather excellent ability to fool ALL of the people ALL of the time
Posted by: Hu Bris | Aug 13, 2012 9:34:37 AM | 40
A potential game changer has emerged -- cut it, paste it, share it:
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing new scrutiny over revelations he founded the private equity firm Bain Capital with investments from Central American elites linked to death squads in El Salvador. After initially struggling to find investors, Romney traveled to Miami in 1983 to win pledges of $9 million, 40 percent of Bain’s start-up money. Some investors had extensive ties to the death squads responsible for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of deaths in El Salvador during the 1980s. We’re joined by Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, who connects the dots in his latest story, "Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads."'
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime." -- Honore de Balzac
Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 13, 2012 10:48:43 AM | 41
Yeah Romney is a vulture capitalist.But all our pols of either party are vultures(Romney as yet has not fed on human flesh).(except Dr.Ron Paul)Give me an honest up front vulture instead of snakes in the grass anyday.
And Ayan Rand(never read the bitch,sorry,I do my thinking for myself,and need no gurus)was just another Jewish control freak out to reap money instead of human values of justice,peace and love,and this fixation on all these poohbahs of ethnic exclusivity should realize there is nothing of value to be gained in money worship,that the only Jewish philosopher worth any salt,was Jesus Christ(and possibly Mohammed),his message of love and compassion totally puts to shame the whole rest of the hollow losers of monetary fixation and power expressed by these unhappy fools.And our whole discourse is filled by these morons,how is that,in a diverse nation such as America?WTF?
When they realize you can't take it with you,maybe they'll give up the ghost of materialism,but they haven't for 3 thousand years,so don't hold your breath.
Posted by: dahoit | Aug 13, 2012 11:29:48 AM | 42
42, "you can't take it with you" makes me think that we need a GOP superhero, the Zombie Zillionaire. His tag line would be, "who says you can't take it with you"
Posted by: scottinDallas | Aug 13, 2012 11:54:09 AM | 43
Ayn Rand was a sociopath that invented a theory to elevate greed and avarice as positive human traits.
Posted by: ben | Aug 14, 2012 1:32:55 AM | 44
ralphie, rand for randall, yup, thanks.
The US has politics as a paste-on show to keep the rubes entertained and riled up and furnish talking points to the 15% and the uber-creepy hypocritical media. Most everything important goes on underground. That’s freedom, if you will, with money spent and churned about, for dress-up - basically run by a hyperactive, hysterical, service industry.
The show also serves as a confused but largely ineffective foreign policy tool only because it is backed by tremendous military force - the largest on the planet. This scheme worked post WW2, for a while, a double whammy of military and cultural domination, but began unravelling after the end of the Cold War. If b is right and Assad is not ousted that will be a major step, landmark.
Posted by: Noirette | Aug 14, 2012 7:46:10 AM | 45
If having money you can relate to death squads was a crime in USA, Eric "Chiquita" Holder would be in jail, instead that didn't even prevent him to become US General attorney, welcome to the real world...
Posted by: rototo | Aug 14, 2012 12:15:57 PM | 46
@41, having death squads in your portfolio has never been a hindrance to public office for either party.
Posted by: ruralito | Aug 14, 2012 12:53:53 PM | 47
Just a few days ago I learned Ayn Rand modeled her heroes on real life serial murderer William Edward Hickman.
Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman , whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of a 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman... What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’” This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”
It seems almost comically appropriate. If one searches: william edward hickman ayn rand, there are a number of other references to Rand's admiration of Hickman.
And there was this rather neat summary of her Objectivism:
Rand’s novels are vehicles for a system of thought known as Objectivism. Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible.
If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others.
Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne.
Posted by: xcroc | Aug 14, 2012 7:34:38 PM | 48
your "Objectivism" link doesn't work. This one does.
An excellent refutation of Randian philosophy. Definitely applies, or rather, applied to me as I read Rand at 19 while sitting in the barracks latrine because of lights off in the barracks. I bought into Objectivism hook, line and sinker and it took me about another 20 years to start to free myself from the spell of her ideas. I agree that Randian philosophy, especially as interpreted by today's psychopathic elites, is as pernicious as it gets. And I think the idea that it it is especially appealing to those who remain stuck in the adolescent phase of their development (lack of) is an important insight.
Posted by: juannie | Aug 14, 2012 9:20:22 PM | 49
@juannie, Apologies on the link. It looks like I pasted a bit of extraneous code in there. Here it is again, http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/04/inspiration-for-paul-ryans-profoundly.html
Your link explains it just as well.
There is also that wonderful review of Atlas Shrugged you've probably seen, from Kung Fu Monkey:
-- There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Posted by: xcroc | Aug 14, 2012 10:33:25 PM | 50
Paul Ryan has stated that he read Ayn Rand in his late adolescence and that started him on his way to true conservatism, which, for him, has the current fad of Corporatism mixed with what's thought of as libertarianism in Republican circles and also social conservatism.
Ryan has, essentially, not progressed beyond his late teens/early twenties in how he thinks about politics, the nation, the economy, the world.
I heard during a discussion on NPR today that Ayn Rand fled Russia with her family when she was twelve, and her reaction to FDR's New Deal was that the US was on it's way to Soviet style totalitarianism. Of course, we apparently will choose fascism, the melding of Corporate power with state power. She seems to have been unable to progress much beyond that trauma in her life. However, she chose to accept her SocSec pension....
Ryan has been forced to back off from Rand about her atheism, but surely he'll have to do so as well about her strong and complete support for a woman's right to choose abortion.
Going to be intersting to watch him dance around this part of his history.
Posted by: jawbone | Aug 14, 2012 11:19:10 PM | 51
Don Bacon @ 1 -- When I first became aware of Ryan, about 10 or so years ago (being from WI I still pay attention to its politics), he worried me because he really did look like a nice and handsome young man. He reminded me of one of my uncles, with the same wavy hair and Celtic good looks. He had a touch of Ronald Reagan's looks about him, and I figured if he could achieve a touch more charm he could do very well politically.
But as Ryan has aged, his features have become somewhat pinched and sharp looking. His expression is seldom benign, looking more like a snake sizing up its prey. Or a bird of prey with that sharp beakish nose, ready to tear the flesh from his victims if they don't agree with him.
And, as people in WI I know who are not Republicans note, he's approaching the same level of evil (their term) as Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker.
Oh, and it was a nice touch that Ryan left a briefing given by Hank Paulson on the economic meltdown back in '08 and immediately sold stock he held in banks which he'd been informed were going to be in bad shape and bought Goldman Sachs which he'd been told would be A-OK, all legal insider trading.
Posted by: jawbone | Aug 14, 2012 11:33:12 PM | 52
Ayn Rand took Calvinism - "Wealth is an outward sign of inner grace" and stripped it of its religious component and turned it into "wealth is a sign of a superior being".
But it taps into our reverence of the more wealthy and powerful among us, as we see them as our interlocutors with a higher level of being.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 15, 2012 3:17:55 AM | 53
Well you get one side of my opinion of Rand from my #49. But, as with everything I'm aware of, there is another side of her. From having read most every word she published, some such as Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead several times, I am sure that she would totally despise the likes of the Ryan, Romney, Rove bunch of second handers (her term). And I am also sure that as much as capitalism was to her the only moral economic system, she would despise the special privilege, subsidy soaked, corporations that run rampant in today’s world. The bitter irony is that those who hold her up as their philosophical standard bearer are at their core the moochers and parasites that she totally castigated and berated. I don’t for a minute think Rand was a psychopath but I do believe psychopaths are attracted to her objectivist philosophies and I agree that for the most part, but not totally, her fictional characters exhibited psychopathic tendencies. I personally owe a strong intellectual debt to her as her writings encouraged me to move beyond “the world owes me a living/ chip on my shoulder” type of kid and develop a strong ego, personal integrity and a honest sense of self worth. I see Rand as having stopped there and not evolving beyond ego to recognize a debt to all those who paved the way by creating the infrastructure, both physical and intellectual/psychic upon which we all stand.
Posted by: juannie | Aug 15, 2012 7:58:26 AM | 54