March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
I’m not going to keep pounding the drum on this, but I want to clear up some things based on the responses to my skepticism about a Paul Ryan presidential candidacy. My basic argument is that he is already in a good position from which to advance entitlement reform and that losing either the nomination or the general election would likely set his causes back.
Aaron seems confident that a primary campaign spent disagreeing with the base on TARP, Medicare Part D, the auto bailout, etc., followed by a general election focused on cutting future Medicare benefits, will work out well. I just don’t see anything in the last 30 years of American politics that should inspire this confidence. The Republicans’ best chance is for this election to be a referendum on Obama’s presidency. Enter Ryan and it automatically becomes something else.
Quin argues that the country would benefit from having entitlements fought out in the open during a presidential election and that Ryan is the best man to do that. I agree on both points but wonder if the electorate is truly ready for such a discussion. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong about Ryan’s chances.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?