Paul Ryan Is Not Freddy Krueger

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Brent Bozell

[Kaslin]

Mitt Romney made a smart executive decision selecting Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. Ryan's genial personality, serious policy wonkery and political courage have dazzled conservatives and won respect even in a few liberal circles. Romney scores points for political courage as well. He knew liberal politicians and journalists would talk in punishing terms about Ryan's budget ideas.

They did not disappoint. It took only minutes for the onslaught to begin. At the same time liberal media outlets acknowledge the country now faces two opposing visions of government, why is only the Romney-Ryan vision "polarizing" and "extreme"?

To be sure, Ryan's early press clips weren't terrible when compared to the immediate viciousness that greeted Sarah Palin four years ago. Still, reporters predictably unloaded with the Freddy-Krueger talk of "budget-slasher" and Ryan "ripping" into the middle class.

Start with ABC's Bianna Golodryga. On Sunday, she announced, "New battle lines have been drawn after Mitt Romney chose conservative congressman and budget-slasher Paul Ryan as his running mate." This is not only wrong, but it's also a classic example of ABC's partisan shamelessness. Golodryga is married to former Obama budget director Peter Orszag.

Then came ABC's David Kerley, unloading all the Democratic-National-Committee talking points: "Sen. Harry Reid claimed that the pick of Ryan caters to the far right rather than standing with the middle class. Others called Ryan extreme. The ticket, a match made in millionaires' heaven. Ryan, the author of disastrous budgets."

The next day, ABC's David Muir added "Ryan is known in the political world for his controversial budget plan that would call for steep cuts and the Obama campaign said it would change Medicare as we know it."

On CNN, Obama-loving Soledad O'Brien asked Gov. Robert McDonnell "how does a Paul Ryan pick help you with that when you look especially at the budget which, you know, looks really closely and rips out a lot of the entitlement spending which will affect the middle class. I think that could be potentially a big problem, wouldn't it?"

On CBS, Bob Schieffer insisted, "There's some really tough stuff in there. I mean, he really slashes into social programs ... in order to try to get this budget back into balance." On NBC, Peter Alexander painted Ryan as "the architect of a politically polarizing budget plan to slash trillions in federal funding, including cuts to Medicare."

All of these claims are blatantly inaccurate. We're told Ryan favors a cut of "$5 trillion over the next ten years," but Ryan's plan would actually increase federal spending over the next 10 years, from about $3.6 trillion this year to just under $4.9 trillion in 2022. Under the supposedly radical Ryan plan, it would take 18 years to achieve a balanced budget. It is why conservatives are uncomfortable with his plan.

Just like the years of Speaker Newt Gingrich, our media routinely smear proposals to reduce the growth of spending as "steep cuts."

The reverse is even more ridiculous. In the current fiscal year, the deficit is $970 billion and is expected to be the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row when September ends. Would the media ever describe the spending trajectory under Obama as "steep increases" or a "polarizing expansion of government" or "catering to the far left"? How about describing this dramatic increase as "extreme"?

Why not present these two visions in matching terms? They could. But they shouldn't. By any objective measure, Obama's spending is radical and Ryan's plan, which proposes to slow that extremist spending, is not.

The same thing happens on social issues such as abortion. The conservatives hold "extreme" positions. When Obama holds the exact opposite position, it's never extreme. Andrea Mitchell suggested the Ryan selection would alienate women: "This is not a pick for suburban moms. This is not a pick for women. This is a pick for the base."

Again, the reporter flunks math. Married women have been breaking in favor of the Republicans and favored McCain over Obama in 2008. Feminist Mitchell likes to suggest all "women" naturally favor abortion. But that's simply false.

On ABC, Jake Tapper said Team Obama would emphasize Ryan "is a Catholic and he opposes abortion being illegal even in cases of rape and incest." Memo to ABC: Barack Obama not only supports abortion in every case, he even pushed legislation in Illinois to kill babies who somehow survive an attempted abortion -- "post-birth abortion." Isn't that as "extreme" as it gets? Who is doing the "slashing" or "harsh cuts" in this scenario?

Republicans need enthusiasm in every precinct for their ticket, and it's there right now. But in every election cycle, our so-called mediators in the press make sure the Republican road to victory is "harsh," "steep" and extreme in its perils.

Maybe it's the media's already dismal approval ratings that are in need of a deep cut.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The Sum of All Fears "So here we were again, sleepily slogging through the dog days of summer in another election year, only to be awakened by the announcement of Mitt Romney’s choice of his running mate. Returning home from a wedding Friday night, in the early morning hours I turned on the TV to hear the news that Paul Ryan was to be the man. On hearing of Ryan’s selection, I felt like singing: He’s got the cool, clear, eyes of a seeker of wisdom and truth. Then there’s the upturned chin and the grin of impetuous youth. In short, I believe in him.

But of course, not all the folks in this country felt the same way. You see, according to the powers that be, Congressman Ryan is, either the most frightening human being on the face of this Earth, or a total pushover who will indubitably send the R&R ticket to certain defeat. How can these seemingly mutually exclusive theories be correct? Welcome to the loony land of liberal logic."........

[Eddie01]

If I may.

There is a cottage industry around media bias. All the braying about unfairness and the like only serves to satisfy requirements for content and programming time between commercial breaks.

The left says what it needs to say to whomever they need to say it to to prevent those who today identify as a Democrat or view the Democrat party as most likely to help them from considering an alternate point of veiw and potentially undergo a political reallignment with the politics of anyone other than themselves.

Once that is understood and you realize nothing is off the table regarding what Democrats will say or do, you realize all of what we are witnessing is entirely predictable and NOT NEWS WORTHY.

I would go so far as to state that Media Research Center, Talk Radio, Fox News or any other conservative oriented media organization that fills its pages and airwaves with the reporting of the "outrageous" tactics of the left are doing the Democats a service by endlessly looping on the obvious.

Groupthink. - the strategy of the left.

Groupthink has eight distinct behaviors which lead to poor decision making. Turning the theory upsidedown the left fosters those same eight disfuctions to acheive control over associated group members.

Here is there bylaws and the underpinnings of every word they speak.

I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking

II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions

IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose

V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments

VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view

VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members

VIII
Thou shalt appoint mind guards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions