The Crazies and the Con Man

[homersapien 11,352]

http://www.nytimes.c...he-con-man.html

How will the chaos that the crazies, I mean the Freedom Caucus, have wrought in the House get resolved? I have no idea. But as this column went to press, practically the whole Republican establishment was pleading with Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to become speaker. He is, everyone says, the only man who can save the day.

What makes Mr. Ryan so special? The answer, basically, is that he’s the best con man they’ve got. His success in hoodwinking the news media and self-proclaimed centrists in general is the basis of his stature within his party. Unfortunately, at least from his point of view, it would be hard to sustain the con game from the speaker’s chair.

To understand Mr. Ryan’s role in our political-media ecosystem, you need to know two things. First, the modern Republican Party is a post-policy enterprise, which doesn’t do real solutions to real problems. Second, pundits and the news media really, really don’t want to face up to that awkward reality. On the first point, just look at the policy ideas coming from the presidential candidates, even establishment favorites like Marco Rubio, the most likely nominee given Jeb Bush’s fatal lack of charisma. The Times’s Josh Barro has dubbed Mr. Rubio’s tax proposal the “puppies and rainbows” plan, consisting of trillions in giveaways with not a hint of how to pay for them — just the assertion that growth would somehow make it all good.

And it’s not just taxes, it’s everything. For example, Republicans have been promising to offer an alternative to Obamacare ever since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, but have yet to produce anything resembling an actual health plan.

Yet most of the news media, and most pundits, still worship at the church of “balance.” They are committed to portraying the two big parties as equally reasonable. This creates a powerful demand for serious, honest Republicans who can be held up as proof that the party does too include reasonable people making useful proposals. As Slate’s William Saletan, who enthusiastically touted Mr. Ryan but eventually became disillusioned, wrote: “I was looking for Mr. Right — a fact-based, sensible fiscal conservative.”

And Paul Ryan played and in many ways still plays that role, but only on TV, not in real life. The truth is that his budget proposals have always been a ludicrous mess of magic asterisks:assertions that trillions will be saved through spending cuts to be specified later, that trillions more will be raised by closing unnamed tax loopholes. Or as the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center put it, they’re full of “mystery meat.”But Mr. Ryan has been very good at gaming the system, at producing glossy documents that look sophisticated if you don’t understand the issues, at creating the false impression that his plans have been vetted by budget experts. This has been enough to convince political writers who don’t know much about policy, but do know what they want to see, that he’s the real deal. (A number of reporters are deeply impressed by the fact that he uses PowerPoint.) He is to fiscal policy what Carly Fiorina was to corporate management: brilliant at self-promotion, hopeless at actually doing the job.

But his act has been good enough for media work.

His position within the party, in turn, rests mainly on this outside perception. Mr. Ryan is certainly a hard-line, Ayn Rand-loving and progressive-tax-hating conservative, but no more so than many of his colleagues. If you look at what the people who see him as a savior are saying, they aren’t talking about his following within the party, which isn’t especially passionate. They’re talking, instead, about his perceived outside credibility, his status as someone who can stand up to smarty-pants liberals — someone who won’t, says MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, be intimidated by “negative articles in The New York Times opinions page.” (Who knew we had such power?)

Which brings us back to the awkward fact that Mr. Ryan isn’t actually a pillar of fiscal rectitude, or anything like the budget expert he pretends to be. And the perception that he is these things is fragile, not likely to survive long if he were to move into the center of political rough and tumble. Indeed, his halo was visibly fraying during the few months of 2012 that he was Mitt Romney’s running mate. A few months as speaker would probably complete the process, and end up being a career-killer.

Predictions aside, however, the Ryan phenomenon tells us a lot about what’s really happening in American politics. In brief, crazies have taken over the Republican Party, but the media don’t want to recognize this reality. The combination of these two facts has created an opportunity, indeed a need, for political con men. And Mr. Ryan has risen to the challenge.

- Paul Krugman

[DKW 86 7,410]

I like everything in that article, until i realized that only Krugman could be this hopelessly detached from reality.

Mr Krugman, it wasnt the Republicans by themselves that created the mess. Both parties had huge hands in creating it. It didnt happen in 10 years, it happened over the last 40 or so.

Fiscal Sanity is not the end of the world. Now, if we could get both parties to act like grownups, maybe we get it.

[autigeremt 6,569]

I like everything in that article, until i realized that only Krugman could be this hopelessly detached from reality.

Mr Krugman, it wasnt the Republicans by themselves that created the mess. Both parties had huge hands in creating it. It didnt happen in 10 years, it happened over the last 40 or so.

Fiscal Sanity is not the end of the world. Now, if we could get both parties to act like grownups, maybe we get it.

Facts don't mean !$% to a bunch of party liners.....

[AFTiger 282]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

To be fair, Republican craziness is NOT solely responsible for Ryan and Walker. The Democratic leaders in Wisconsin have to take some credit as well.

[AURaptor 1,121]

HilLIARy

That's all. Needs to be said.

[homersapien 11,352]

I like everything in that article, until i realized that only Krugman could be this hopelessly detached from reality.

Mr Krugman, it wasnt the Republicans by themselves that created the mess. Both parties had huge hands in creating it. It didnt happen in 10 years, it happened over the last 40 or so.

Fiscal Sanity is not the end of the world. Now, if we could get both parties to act like grownups, maybe we get it.

Where did Krugman say it was just Republicans who created this mess?

He was talking about solutions and who is not proposing any.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

[homersapien 11,352]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

You forgot the "freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity" remark.

Even most Republicans would laugh at that.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

You forgot the "freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity" remark.

Even most Republicans would laugh at that.

I stand corrected.

[AFTiger 282]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

You forgot the "freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity" remark.

Even most Republicans would laugh at that.

I stand corrected.

And you call us deniers!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

You forgot the "freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity" remark.

Even most Republicans would laugh at that.

I stand corrected.

And you call us deniers!

You have been called a liar. That is all you care to offer?

[homersapien 11,352]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

IMO, both of these statements are lies.

Sanders is not a "full blown" socialist.

Clinton has not killed anyone, to my knowledge.

You forgot the "freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity" remark.

Even most Republicans would laugh at that.

I stand corrected.

And you call us deniers!

No, this is more of a delusional thing.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

If they possess so much sanity, why can't they produce a budget policy plan that doesn't contain magic "to be named later" numbers all over the place (and that's from the supposed numbers wonk of the group)?

If you really think Sanders is a 'full-blown socialist' you either don't understand the phrase "full-blown" or the word 'socialist.' I'm guessing it's the latter.

[AUDub 11,131]

The freedom caucus seems to be the only source of sanity in Washington. The crazies are the Democrat party. They are about to nominate a full blown socialist or a confirmed liar with blood on her hands.

If they possess so much sanity, why can't they produce a budget policy plan that doesn't contain magic "to be named later" numbers all over the place (and that's from the supposed numbers wonk of the group)?

If you really think Sanders is a 'full-blown socialist' you either don't understand the phrase "full-blown" or the word 'socialist.' I'm guessing it's the latter.

In my experience, that's the case the vast majority of the time.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thank goodness for the Freedom Caucus. It's people like them that will ultimately restore our country form the cistern Obama and Valerie Jarrent have taken us. It won't be easy and they will take a lot of flak from the real crazies like Homer but they will get there.

[homersapien 11,352]

Thank goodness for the Freedom Caucus. It's people like them that will ultimately restore our country form the cistern Obama and Valerie Jarrent have taken us. It won't be easy and they will take a lot of flak from the real crazies like Homer but they will get there.

See, there's the problem. It's all about Obama. That's as far as they can see.

All our problems are solved by getting rid of Obama. It's as if they don't realize he's a lame duck.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Watch

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Thank goodness for the Freedom Caucus. It's people like them that will ultimately restore our country form the cistern Obama and Valerie Jarrent have taken us. It won't be easy and they will take a lot of flak from the real crazies like Homer but they will get there.

I'll ask you the same question. Answer with something concrete rather than just more rah-rah Go Team rhetoric:

If they possess so much sanity, why can't they produce a budget policy plan that doesn't contain magic "to be named later" numbers all over the place (and that's from the supposed numbers wonk of the group)?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Perhaps the "backbone"/"bellyfire" constituency is more interested in defeating the liberal scourge than they are formulating effective policy?

Perhaps they are lost in the world of rhetoric?

Perhaps they have given up on democracy and are hoping for one party rule? Interesting if true when you consider the dysfunctional element of their party.

[DKW 86 7,410]

To be fair, Republican craziness is NOT solely responsible for Ryan and Walker. The Democratic leaders in Wisconsin have to take some credit as well.

Truth.

[DKW 86 7,410]

I like everything in that article, until i realized that only Krugman could be this hopelessly detached from reality.

Mr Krugman, it wasnt the Republicans by themselves that created the mess. Both parties had huge hands in creating it. It didnt happen in 10 years, it happened over the last 40 or so.

Fiscal Sanity is not the end of the world. Now, if we could get both parties to act like grownups, maybe we get it.

Where did Krugman say it was just Republicans who created this mess?

He was talking about solutions and who is not proposing any.

You must not have ever read Krugman, As someone with an Economics Degree, Krugman strikes me as someone that has long let his politics rule his thinking.

[homersapien 11,352]

I like everything in that article, until i realized that only Krugman could be this hopelessly detached from reality.

Mr Krugman, it wasnt the Republicans by themselves that created the mess. Both parties had huge hands in creating it. It didnt happen in 10 years, it happened over the last 40 or so.

Fiscal Sanity is not the end of the world. Now, if we could get both parties to act like grownups, maybe we get it.

Where did Krugman say it was just Republicans who created this mess?

He was talking about solutions and who is not proposing any.

You must not have ever read Krugman, As someone with an Economics Degree, Krugman strikes me as someone that has long let his politics rule his thinking.

Actually, he just calls it like it is, it just sounds partisan. Sort of like the liberal bias of reality.

[homersapien 11,352]

Perhaps the "backbone"/"bellyfire" constituency is more interested in defeating the liberal scourge than they are formulating effective policy?

Perhaps they are lost in the world of rhetoric?

Perhaps they have given up on democracy and are hoping for one party rule? Interesting if true when you consider the dysfunctional element of their party.

Perhaps they can't count Senate seats?

[homersapien 11,352]

Or maybe McCarthy has it right:

Asked if the House is governable, he says, “I don’t know. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom.”

Wonder what rock bottom is going to look like?