• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul Ryan CPAC Speech

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This has, I think, some interesting elements of him trying to guide the Presidential Race on the GOP Side.

Wonder what Conservatives will conclude from it in that regards, as pertains to the current candidate crop.


We know that this election cannot be just a referendum on President Obama’s failed leadership.
Americans deserve a choice – a choice between two dramatically different visions for our country’s future. As conservatives, we owe Americans that choice.
Look, I know there are people in this town who are terrified at the prospect of an election with real alternative visions at stake. “Make it a referendum. Win by default,” they say. Just oppose – we can win that way. Don’t propose bold ideas – that’s too risky.

I’ll admit, the easy way is always tempting. But my friends, if that’s all we stand for, then what are we doing at here CPAC – the place where so many giants of our movement came to advance their boldest ideas?...

Instead, we must promote upward mobility, starting with solutions that speak to our broken education system, broken immigration policy, and broken safety-net programs that foster dependency instead of helping people get back on their feet...


Everybody knows this is politically risky territory. Republicans have their battle scars on entitlement reform. That’s why some argue that we should downplay bold agendas and simply wage a campaign focused solely on the President and his party.

I firmly disagree. Boldness and clarity offer the greatest opportunity to create a winning coalition. We will not only win the next election – we have a unique opportunity to sweep and remake the political landscape.

Of course we will highlight the President’s failed agenda. But Americans deserve to choose an alternative agenda – one that aligns with our needs. One we can rally behind. One of our movement’s great accomplishments this past year was to unify conservatives around just such an agenda... For all of the overblown talk about conservative divisions, our movement has achieved astonishing unity, not only on the destination we want to reach, but also on the specific path to get there...

Every time we force the President and his party’s leaders to get specific on how they would solve our fiscal challenges, they show us an agenda that does great harm to our economic security, our health security, and our national security. So our strategy for changing the conversation last year was not just a policy success – it was a political success as well...


Let’s lead this coalition by applying our timeless principles to the challenges of today, with reforms that get our economy into high gear, repair our safety net, and strengthen our health and retirement security programs. And let’s turn this coalition into a governing majority by advancing these reforms when it matters most – in the midst of a critical election year...

Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country: corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless. The only class warfare that threatens America comes from a class of bureaucrats and crony capitalists rising above society – calling the shots, rigging the rules, and securing their places of privilege at our expense.

My friends, America deserves a choice – and if it is an honest choice between these two visions, well, then we win, they lose...

very "now is the time for choosing". on purpose, mind you.
 
Absolutely wonderful and just further sizes up why I wish Ryan would've ran. I wish he'd guide the Presidential Race into a brokered election that places him as our nominee to be quite honest.

A wonderful, aggressive but reasoned, 3,086 words focusing almost entirely on Fiscal and Governmental conservatism, the issues most glaring, important, and changable today and with a decent enough record and actions as of late to back up what he's saying as legitimate for him. We don't have a candidate running currently that touches Ryan.
 
I'll take Paul over Ryan. pun intended
 
The Republican mantra of supposed non-class warfare. Groups they've gone after in one cheap speech? Students, immigrants and the poor. Nothing new here.
 
Ryan voted for the TARP bailouts, No Child Left Behind, ethanol subsidies, and Medicare Part D, to name just a few. Not to mention the Ryan Plan doesn't cut anywhere near as much as we need to, and doesn't touch a cent of military spending. I'm glad he's not running; we've got enough RINOs in conservative clothing as it stands.
 
Ryan who?
I don't think I've ever seen a party so unhappy with the apparent Nominee.

Tough crowd awaits Romney at CPAC - Political Watch - MarketWatch
February 9, 2012
To hear Sam Vance tell it, Mitt Romney is a “mild socialist.” Josef Lipp says Romney has flip-flopped on issues too many times to earn his support. And to Regina Barker-Barzel the former Massachusetts governor’s health-care law was just plain “terrible.”

Vance, a Pennsylvania college student; Lipp, a Los Angeles resident and volunteer for the Rick Santorum campaign; and Barker-Barzel, an Arlington, Va., resident and critic of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, are just a few of the thousands of attendees at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, an annual gathering of dyed-in-the-wool conservative activists where Romney will be speaking on Friday. Comments from attendees point to the very high bar Romney will have to cross with this group, especially given his defeat earlier this week in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado at the hands of conservative hero Santorum.

That’s something that Romney’s supporters – Sparse in the CPAC crowd at a Northwest Washington hotel – are trying their hardest to correct.

“They don’t see Romney as a conservative,”..."
The proverbial Circular Firing Squad has another venue.
Though maybe Santorum will become a strong contender after Super Tuesday making it a two man brawl.
CPAC is definitely a Santorum crowd.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely wonderful and just further sizes up why I wish Ryan would've ran. I wish he'd guide the Presidential Race into a brokered election that places him as our nominee to be quite honest.

A wonderful, aggressive but reasoned, 3,086 words focusing almost entirely on Fiscal and Governmental conservatism, the issues most glaring, important, and changable today and with a decent enough record and actions as of late to back up what he's saying as legitimate for him. We don't have a candidate running currently that touches Ryan.

Agreed. A Daniels/Ryan ticket would have been sublime.
 
This has, I think, some interesting elements of him trying to guide the Presidential Race on the GOP Side.

Wonder what Conservatives will conclude from it in that regards, as pertains to the current candidate crop.

very "now is the time for choosing". on purpose, mind you.

It's nothing but rhetoric, which is all you'll receive when a bunch of politicians and partisans get together. I mean what did he actually say? Anything with substance? Any words that translate into action? No, of course not. What you've got here is pure rhetoric, there's no substance or meaning behind these words when I read them. I only read your quoted section but I'm afraid I don't have the willpower to read these kind of speeches.

Basically what I want to know, is exactly what is he calling people to do? And how is what he's calling us to do suppose to solve problems, and how exactly will it work, how will it turn out? Some end results are subjective, they can be good and bad at the time depending on your viewpoint.
 
Absolutely wonderful and just further sizes up why I wish Ryan would've ran. I wish he'd guide the Presidential Race into a brokered election that places him as our nominee to be quite honest.

A wonderful, aggressive but reasoned, 3,086 words focusing almost entirely on Fiscal and Governmental conservatism, the issues most glaring, important, and changable today and with a decent enough record and actions as of late to back up what he's saying as legitimate for him. We don't have a candidate running currently that touches Ryan.

You aren't the only one who's wished Ryan would've run. Not his time, I guess, but lots of thoughtful people are paying attention to him.
 
Absolutely wonderful and just further sizes up why I wish Ryan would've ran. I wish he'd guide the Presidential Race into a brokered election that places him as our nominee to be quite honest.

A wonderful, aggressive but reasoned, 3,086 words focusing almost entirely on Fiscal and Governmental conservatism, the issues most glaring, important, and changable today and with a decent enough record and actions as of late to back up what he's saying as legitimate for him. We don't have a candidate running currently that touches Ryan.

Well you know how I feel about the presidential candidates and how I think they are just giving lip service. However, the words (if action applied), would be good.

The main reason I see the GOP losing this election "hands-down" is I see them following in the footsteps of the Dems in 2004 with a "Anybody but Obama" candidate. That is not a successful platform to run on in. However, if the GOP candidate actually follows Ryan's advice in regards to topics for the election, it could be an interesting election.
 
It's nothing but rhetoric

Perhaps its a sad commentary on modern politics and our current crop running, but I'll happily take rhetoric with a decent amount of belief that it may translate to action, that is at least rhetoric focused on the issues that are pertinent to today and stated in such a way that at least paints a good picture of fiscal conservatism. I'd prefer more meat but at the same time I'm not naive enough not to understand what CPAC is...its a pep rally, not a place for red meat typically.
 
Perhaps its a sad commentary on modern politics and our current crop running, but I'll happily take rhetoric with a decent amount of belief that it may translate to action, that is at least rhetoric focused on the issues that are pertinent to today and stated in such a way that at least paints a good picture of fiscal conservatism. I'd prefer more meat but at the same time I'm not naive enough not to understand what CPAC is...its a pep rally, not a place for red meat typically.

I love how honest you are.
 
Well you know how I feel about the presidential candidates and how I think they are just giving lip service. However, the words (if action applied), would be good.

I get you. And one of the things I didn't state but was inherent was an understanding of what CPAC is. I expect truly serious, deep speeches there like I expect serious game analysis at a Pre-football game pep rally. Its more about energizing your supporters and rallying people than it is about laying out policy. My enjoyment of the speech was more due to the fact the general message and general focus was better delivered and better invisioned by Paul in this one speech then by any of the three remaining "viable" candidates.

The main reason I see the GOP losing this election "hands-down" is I see them following in the footsteps of the Dems in 2004 with a "Anybody but Obama" candidate.

I wouldn't be suprised if this is the case honestly.
 
My enjoyment of the speech was more due to the fact the general message and general focus was better delivered and better invisioned by Paul in this one speech then by any of the three remaining "viable" candidates.


I agree, I wish all the candidates would focus on how they will make America better instead of focusing on why the other candidate won't make it better.

I for one am sick and tired of the whole "us versus them" mentality with the current President and the other Presidential candidate front-runners. I think real change is needed and none of them have what it takes IMO. While the president cannot do a whole lot with the economy, he sets the tone for the sides to work together both in Congress and in America in general. Bush and Obama failed in that regard.
 
It's nothing but rhetoric, which is all you'll receive when a bunch of politicians and partisans get together. I mean what did he actually say? Anything with substance? Any words that translate into action? No, of course not. What you've got here is pure rhetoric, there's no substance or meaning behind these words when I read them. I only read your quoted section but I'm afraid I don't have the willpower to read these kind of speeches.

Basically what I want to know, is exactly what is he calling people to do?

well, basically, two things:

1. He is reinforcing that this year Republicans will once again offer a budget that includes grasping the Third Rail of politics in order to avoid a pending fiscal crises.

2. He is using the power of his pull within the Party and the Conservative Movement to force the Presidential Candidates to actively get behind a strong Conservative Agenda rather than simply letting 2012 be a referendum on Obama. He is basically arguing that Republicans should take a greater risk in hopes of greater return - arguing that if we are to reform entitlements (for example) that we must be elected on an explicit mandate to do precisely that, rather than simply being elected because the public wasn't pleased with the current state of the country.


This is his version of the "bold colors not pastels" speech.
 
It's nothing but rhetoric, which is all you'll receive when a bunch of politicians and partisans get together. I mean what did he actually say? Anything with substance? Any words that translate into action? No, of course not. What you've got here is pure rhetoric, there's no substance or meaning behind these words when I read them. I only read your quoted section but I'm afraid I don't have the willpower to read these kind of speeches.

Basically what I want to know, is exactly what is he calling people to do?

well, basically, two things:

1. He is reinforcing that this year Republicans will once again offer a budget that includes grasping the Third Rail of politics in order to avoid a pending fiscal crises.

2. He is using the power of his pull within the Party and the Conservative Movement to force the Presidential Candidates to actively get behind a strong Conservative Agenda rather than simply letting 2012 be a referendum on Obama. He is basically arguing that Republicans should take a greater risk in hopes of greater return - arguing that if we are to reform entitlements (for example) that we must be elected on an explicit mandate to do precisely that, rather than simply being elected because the public wasn't pleased with the current state of the country.


This is his version of the "bold colors not pastels" speech. I read it sort of as a subtle indictment of the Romney campaign strategy; certainly it will force Romney to adjust.
 
Drink up folks...

koolaid-good.png
 
Gays, abortion, contraception...

Obama, muslim, kenya...

Class war, big brother, socialism...

CPAC...

redmeat-1.jpg
 
You elected an American Idol contestant with a napkin resume, and you call us Kool-Aid drinkers?

America as a majority are Kool-Aid drinkers, otherwise they wouldn't vote for either Dem or Republican seeing as both have led us down the path to ruin.
 

Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.

abortion,

Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.

contraception...

Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.


Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.


Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.

big brother

Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.

socialism...

Irrelevant to the thread, wasn't even mentioned.

That is some earth shattering levels of dihonesty and strawmanning there, but should we really have expected anything further. Not only did your worthless pile of drivel put forward as a post contain no insight or actual thought in the least, but out of the 10 things you posted only 3 of them are even somewhat relevant to what's ACTUALLY being discussed and talked about...and one of those three's is the name of the current President and one was the name of the event they were at.

Aboslutely ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom