Scorching logic and hard facts from Paul Ryan

Obama is so insulated behind his compliant media and his worshipful staff, I wonder if he’s ever heard before the facts Ryan spells out so clearly here:

My favorite line:  “Hiding spending does not reduce spending.”  Brilliant core statement about the myriad flaws in the bill.  Also, he drills in on the core difference between the two parties:  whether people or government should control their access to health care.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Bill Smith says

    Yes, but it TAKES him freakin FOUR minutes and twenty seconds to get to that point!
     
    I guarantee you that most Americans’ eyes will be as glazed over at TWO minutes as that guy in the gray suit. The dems are counting on this being what it is:
     
    BORing.
     
    Republicans? You simply MUST learn to communicate ORALLY. Stop with all the numbers! Start with what the numbers MEAN.
     
    Tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em.
    Tell ‘em.
    Tell ‘em what you told ‘em.
    oi.

  2. nathan says

    It seemed to me that Paul Ryan owned Obama.  His performance today will move him up in the Congressional hierarchy.  Ideally, he should try to become Governor of Wisconsin as preparation for eventually running for President.

  3. Zhombre says

    Good idea, Nathan.  I think Ryan scored some points about a minute in. This guy may have real potential.  And real substance, unlike the Poseur in Chief.

  4. Mike Devx says

    Those liberal anecdotes that they throw out unfortunately work.  ”Take a look at Sally Mae Carruthers. She had to wear her sister’s dentures for two years!  And she had to eat cat food for six months.  Because her health care insurance provider forced her to pay too much for X.  That’s why our health care reform MUST be done, and must be done now!”
     
    As far as they go, and with the empathy they evoke, they work on people watching.
     
    The only effective comeback – and it is a truthful one – is to immediately hit back with example after example of how “The Government Fix” has produced equally disgusting results for example after example of other Americans.  For every Sallie Mae Carruthers problem that got fixed, another ten get created.  Spell each one of those out in immediate comebacks.  You have to be prepared.
     
    Give em three such examples.  Then say, “And I’ve got seven more here, Madame Speaker.  For every problem you think you’re fixing, you create ten more!  Government meddling creates more problems than it solves, because government is a blunt instrument, Madame Speaker.  We all care about Mrs. Carruthers, but your solution just creates more miserable problems for more people like her.  Shall I give a few more examples…”
     
    Madame Speaker, drily, with thinned angry lips in a frown that threatens to burst the Botox-stretched skin around her eyes, “That won’t be necessary.”
     
    Why does Nurse Ratched keep coming to my mind every time I see Nancy Pelosi?
     

  5. Bill Smith says

    Exactly, Mike Devx, Ryan did make a great, devastating case — on paper. But it made many people’s eyes glaze over. Firing off lists of numbers is bad, bad oratory. Leading people down a road without telling them where you are taking them, but pointing out things along the way is antsy-making.
    Ryan’s presentation was GREAT inside baseball, but the dems will come back with stories of how their grandma uses her dogs false teeth, and had to eat the dog! And us spewing numbers makes it seem like all we care about is the numbers!
     
    We don’t, of course. We care about what the numbers MEAN to the PEOPLE, but we don’t get that across, or it gets BURIED like his great line was.
     
    WELL said, Mike!

  6. says

    It is only ‘unfunded’ because you politicians raided the public coffers for your own personal luxuries, while telling the rest of us that we had to ‘cut back’ for the good of the planet.
     
    Hypocrisy isn’t something human beings need to be taught about.

  7. suek says

    >>Firing off lists of numbers is bad, bad oratory.>>
     
    I understand what you’re saying, and generally I’d agree with you.  But…when you get a response from the president  of “I don’t want to get bogged down in the numbers”, when said president has said “we have to get out facts straight” when _his_ numbers were disputed, I don’t think the outcome was so bad.
     
    Still – the numbers can’t really be dealt with by most of us since we’re not already in a state of knowledge that allows the numbers to be meaningful, so you’re basically right.  They need Glenn Becks chalkboard…that’s a great tool!

  8. SADIE says

    “I don’t want to get bogged down in the numbers”
    of course, he doesn’t. At some point they represent a percentage, which is a fact and cannot be colored with rhetoric.

  9. suek says

    My guess is that he also doesn’t “do” numbers especially well, though I could be mistaken.
     
    The impression I got was that as a Community Organizer, his experience has been primarily with people lacking in education and skills.  As such, he was a natural “superior” and thus dominated the meetings he has had.  He doesn’t seem to have realized that he’s working with people who are his equals or superiors, and treating them as inferiors simply isn’t going win friends and influence people the way he expects.  In other words, he thought he was going to roll over them – and it didn’t turn out that way.  He’s no dummy though – I doubt he’ll make that mistake again.  It will all depend on how he – and the Dems – think he performed.  This could be one of those occasions where both sides think they “won”.  That would be interesting.  Although the fact that they apparently intend to push through the Reconciliation is sort of an indication that they lost the discussion, even if they continue to label the GOP as the party of no.  Thank heavens we still have _someone_ who can still say NO!!
     
    I have two questions:
     
    What if they can’t push this through with Reconciliation?
     
    What will it take to undo what they’re doing, assuming that the GOP wins a majority in Nov?  Can they just use the same methods and say “such and such a law is revoked along with all the organizations it required” etc?
     
     

  10. Bill Smith says

    Suek,
    No, it wasn’t so bad. Except a lot of the daytime audience is thinking, “Yeah, I don’t want to get bogged down in numbers either!” You can bet that that “bogged down in numbers” came from focus groups, because that’s how people — including me — feel about speeches with loads of numbers. We need to hear first WHY we should care ABOUT this number you’re going to us. Then tell them the number. Then tell them why they should care  again. Speeches need to be written not just to be read aloud, but to be HEARD. Numbers are deadly. Especially to an audience that isn’t totally immersed, and versed in the subject.
     
    The Republicans did great. But, they’ve got to get better at plain speaking to the American people. I got the feeling they were speaking at a seminar of policy wonks. And, I admit, I tuned out pretty quickly, and guess why.

  11. suek says

    The nature of politics is long speeches.  I don’t disagree with you, but face it – the reason these guys get elected is because they can talk a pretty picture.  And often, say nothing with _lots_ of words.
     
    I tend to yell at the TV when they ask questions and _don’t_ answer the question.  Even when I’m on the same side.  Greta had some T-Party members on yesterday, and asked one of them a question which the person didn’t answer directly.  She _did_ give an answer that assumed a “yes” answer, with an explanatory statement, but she _didn’t_ say just plain “yes” to begin with.  That drives me nuts.  “Just answer the d*mn question!!!”  Yesterday AM, before I left the house, Megyn Kelly was asking a female Dem about various points that had been discussed.  She could _not_ get that woman to answer a single question, even when she was very pointed about it – “You didn’t answer my question – was…..(whatever)” and the Dem went on with a different talking point.  Frustrating.
     
    But that’s what gets them elected – being slippery so that everybody thinks they agree with them.  And it takes a _lot_ of words to convey _that_ message.
     
     

  12. suek says

    Tell them what you’re going to tell them…etc.
     
    You have no idea how often I’ve heard that!  And that just from associating with the military!  That’s a basic military teaching technique.
     
    Plus your impatience with those who can’t seem to get the idea of “just the facts, ma’am”.  Also typically military.  Not to say they don’t have a few windbags, but for the most part, briefings need to be brief.

  13. SADIE says

    “Just answer the d*mn question!!!”
    I am with you on this point. It drives me up a wall. They all answer questions as if it were a legal document with loop holes big enough for an elephant, if it could jump through. Although they have no problem calling the GOP, the Party of No.

  14. Bill Smith says

    Well, I was a cop for ten!
    Also, I am a huge Megyn Kelly fan. When her prey is dodging a question, her audience knows it, and that’s as useful as any answer she might get.
    Actually, Tell ‘em x3 comes from a Greek orator whose name escapes me right now. I “work” for a photographer in Afghanistan who is ex-military, and he sometimes sends me a BLUF which stands for:
    Bottom Line Up Front, which I like a lot!
    Finally, I’m not sure that a majority of us are going to be up for “slippery” the next few elections. Too many have slipped on the slippery, and ended up ass over tea kettle, and are mighty steamed. [Ouch. That was not intentional!]

  15. says

    “Except a lot of the daytime audience is thinking”
     
    To be fair, the speech was directed towards Obama and as such would naturally be technical in terms of substance. The average person isn’t the US President, after all, thus the speaker always tailors the speech towards the audience. But there’s not just one audience.
     
     
    “That’s a basic military teaching technique.”
     
    It should have derived from a basic staple of human nature. Humans don’t tend to grasp things until they have experienced it multiple times. Repetition also raises the data priority importance by the host mind.

  16. Bill Smith says

    “To be fair, the speech was directed towards Obama…”
    If it was, it was given by an idiot, and Ryan is no idiot. It was, and should have been directed toward the American people. Anyone there who thought he was going to change Obama’s mind with a speech at this stunt is a fool.

Leave a Reply