Paul Ryan: The Worst of All Worlds

There's been a lot of silly talk about Paul Ryan, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for Vice President of the most exceptional country that God ever gave to man on this green earth, which He created expressly for mankind to exploit as they see fit. For those liberals out there, I'm talking about the United States of America.

Some have mocked Mr. Ryan for his amazing resemblance to Eddie Munster, the werewolf boy of TV sitcom fame.
Others have gushed about his six-pack abs, those dreamy pale-blue bedroom eyes and his luxurious widow's peak.
But I haven't heard anyone asking the important questions, like, did that hair on his head come with a chin strap?

To be fair, there has been a lot of scrutiny of Ryan's political/philosophical/religious views and the fascinating contradictions among those views themselves and between those views and his voting record.
Mr Ryan is the worst of all worlds: An ultra-conservative, ultra-religious, ultra libertarian.

It is laughable how conservatives can vilify Obama for being a follower of Saul Alinsky, who they love to portray as some sinister anti-American Mao Tse-tung like commie, while they proudly and enthusiastically cheer Ryan, an admitted devotee of Ayn Rand, who they love to portray as the best-est and most supreme moral philosopher that the 20th century has to offer.

As usual, today's recent incarnation of conservatism has things exactly backwards.
Mr Alinsky not only disavowed communism but can fairly be described as a great American patriot in the mold of Thomas Paine.
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-hell-is-saul-alinsky.html

Ms Rand, on the other hand, can fairly be described as a truly sinister character who holds some deeply disturbing views. Though she never advocated genocide, condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, many of her other views remind me alot of Adolph Hitler's. Very ironic, considering she was a European born Jew who lived through the Nazi era .

Alinsky was concerned about the poor, so his writing and organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities.
Rand considered the poor to be unworthy of concern. Her writing and rhetorical skills were focused on improving the living conditions of the rich and powerful who she cast as the oppressed.

The Dems are pleased as punch about the Ryan pick. From the Dem point of view, the Re-cons couldn't have picked a better candidate.
From his plan to insert a profit-grabbing private insurance company between patients and their doctors by turning Medicare into a voucher system and then ration coverage further with debilitating spending cuts, to his severely radical views and jaw dropping contradictions and hypocrisies, the Dems see Ryan as an easy target to attack.
However, over the past two decades, the Republicons have repeatedly handed the Dems golden opportunities on a silver platter and the Dems have failed to take advantage every single time.

From the Re-cons' point of view, they are equally confident that Ryan is a great pick. Except they see Ryan as a very able articulator of their ultra-conservative values and can't wait to get Ryan into a debate with Biden about Medicare, Social Security and the "welfare state."
Unfortunately, I see the advantage going to the Re-cons for several reasons.
First of all, most American voters stupidly accept hypocrisies and contradictions with a "They all do it, it's just politics as usual, what are you going to do?" attitude. For example, if there is anyone who can surpass Ryan in his lying, double-talking bullshit, it's Mitt Romney. And Romney not only won the Republicon nomination but he's in a dead heat with Obama in the Presidential race.

Yes, as a co-conspirator in the Republicon strategy of "Starve the Beast"economics,
(http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011/07/starve-beast.html)  Ryan voted for every single deficit-causing tax cut he could lay his hands on. And as long as George W was in office, he voted for every single Republicon spending increase. These actions resulted in exactly what the Re-cons intended: they produced the massive deficits and debt that they are now using as the excuse to get rid of all the government programs that the vast majority of Americans want and the Re-cons pretended that they supported and would never do anything to undermine.
But now, because of the deficit/debt and all the "over-spending" on "entitlement programs," we have no choice but to end those programs by privatizing them even if that results in you paying even more for less.

Even if the Dems pound on those facts with the same relentless effort that the Re-cons pound on their lies, the fact remains that Obama and the Dems (except for the Democratic Progressive Caucus) have not offered any alternative to balancing the budget that does not include severe cuts to those programs. Ryan and company know that, which is why they are so confident. And if the voters are led to believe that there is no other alternative, Ryan's plan will seem fair, sensible and unavoidable.

But of course there is an alternative budget plan that would be much better for 98 percent of Americans. And that would be the Democratic Progressive Caucus' budget plan. That plan balances the budget sooner than either Ryan's or Obama's and does so in a way that, poll after poll says, the American people want.
It cuts the wasteful and counter-productive military, lets the deficit-causing Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to last year and reintroduces the public option. Check it out:
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf

The Dems are too cowardly to get behind this because they fear the 24 hour-a-day attacks that would be launched by Fox News and the rest of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Also, the Dems are too inept to defend those positions even though, in a fair debate, those positions would win, hands down.