Strike that

In one sentence, Politico's Jonathan Martin twice transgresses against, oh, the humanity of it all:

In conversations with scores of Republicans ... it’s striking how little organic support or even interest there is for a [Paul] Ryan presidential bid so soon after Mitt Romney elevated the Wisconsin wonk to the highest levels of national political stardom.

1. Martin refers to Ryan as a "wonk." I thought we were done with that, seeing how Rep. Ryan has proven himself a recidivist innumerate, and ...

2. Martin writes that Ryan's inside repulsiveness is "striking," rather than "unsurprising," seeing how the following clause contains mention of Ryan's diseased association with the contagiously repulsive Mitt Romney.

Comments

[Peter G]

My favorite line from that piece has to be this: "when Ryan bumped up against Romney’s high command during the campaign it was over the congressman’s desire to speak more to poor voters about how conservative policies could affect their lives." I get the sense that, if this happened, it could only be because the Romney people were aghast that Ryan believed his own bullshit and might actually try to go out on the stump to try and convince the poor that he was in favor of shooting them for their own good. And they should get on board.

[Susan Zoon]

Someone had better get Ryan a flea bath STAT!

[mdblanche]

Peter G,
That doesn't make sense to me. You seem to imply that the Romney people didn't believe the bullshit. But if they didn't, why were they Romney people in the first place?

[AnneJ]

Well it seems to me that during the campaign the Romney team didn't know whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts, one minute making pathetic attempts to appear somewhat moderate, the next picking a true right wing loon for VP. I always say that republicans should quit whining about losing because they didn't go "conservative" enough when they had plenty of far right crazy to choose from in the primaries, but I may be wrong. In Paul Ryan they found their extremist and they lost. But then at the time, he was always advertised as a "policy wonk" who wasn't afraid to make the "hard choices" in his budgets. Of course if the choices were really hard, they would have affected him personally. So maybe he was the ideal extremist that republicans thought they could win elections with but he was not necessarily advertised as such, which may explain why they still use the excuse that they didn't go "conservative" enough and that's why they lost. And if you paid attention to Mitt Romney, he was just as right wing crazy as the rest of them, but again, painted as moderate who could appeal to the broader electorate. But he said himself that he was "severely conservative" which makes me want to ask, if one is "severely" conservative, doesn't that mean they're really not conservative at all?

[Robert Lipscomb]

He is is the unwed pregnant daughter on the GOp's Romney Oaks plantation.

[Peter G]

Oh I'm pretty sure mdblanche that a person with Romney's educational background and the flexibility he has shown in tailoring his political opinions to electoral need understands the difference between reality and fiction. Ryan on the other hand seems to believe his own Randian bullshit. Romney's personal beliefs, revealed in his famous 47 per cent video, weren't intentionally revealed. I doubt that they wanted Ryan to go out "explain" to the masses the ideological soundness of teaching the masses to stand on their own two feet. And the nobility of dying in a ditch.