“You know, casting the other side as somehow nefarious and evil and poorly intended is the oldest trick in the book.”
Paul Ryan’s answer to a question posed in a condensed interview in the New York Times was a thing of beauty. Consider the actual question posed by the Times author Deborah Solomon:
He seems genuinely pained by what he has called the “obstinacy” of Congressional Republicans and their just-say-no obstructionism.
Your “Road Map,” we should explain, is a somewhat alarming document that proposes, in 600-plus pages, erasing the federal deficit by radically restricting the government’s role in social programs like Social Security and Medicare. The president described it as “a serious proposal.”
Right. And then the next day his budget director starts ripping me and then the day after that the entire Democratic National Committee political machine starts launching demagogic attacks on me and my plan. So when you hear the word “bipartisanship” come from the president and then you see his political machine get in full-force attack mode, it comes across as very insincere.
Ironically, Ms. Solomon begins the interview by noting the President has declared Ryan a “pretty sincere guy.” Ryan’s answers throughout give no such impression of the President, however. Then again, we know Ryan is quite sincere, why should he say something he has been given no cause to believe is true?
One Ticked Chick 9:15 AM on 02/21/2010 Permalink |
Typical liberal mindset. The reporter is “alarmed” because Ryan’s proposal would restrict the government’s role in programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Considering Congress has used the Social Security fund as their personal piggy bank, why would that be a bad idea?
pjMom 9:40 AM on 02/21/2010 Permalink |
I have a friend who swears the NYT isn’t biased in any way.
It’s hard to think she’s that stupid when you see in print, “Your ‘Road Map,’ we should explain, is a somewhat alarming document…” UGH.