Paul Ryan Is My Guy, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #287 | @MDWorld
August 13, 2012 Mike Gold 5 Comments
I would like to thank presumed Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney for validating and confirming my column in this space last week. That’s really white of you Mitt, and I owe you one. So I’m going to endorse your boy Paul Ryan.
For those of you who are reading this on Neptune (great Wi-Fi up there!), Paul Ryan is the Republican Wisconsin vulture-conservative Congressman with the unrequitable love affair with Ayn Rand. He’s the guy who put the Dracula in “draconian budget cuts,” with the Medicare and social security overhaul that would put tens of thousands of senior citizens to death and destroy this nation’s infrastructure while making the very wealthy very, very wealthier.
Clearly, the Republicans are thinking they can Jim Crow out enough poor and black voters to steal Florida from their mammoth old people community. And it’s equally clear that naming Ryan won’t, alone, turn Wisconsin red. Right now Obama has a 53% favorability rating in the Dairy State, trumping Romney’s 41%. Obama’s got a six-point plurality in the race (source for both: Quinnipiac/CBS/NYT). That doesn’t make Barack a shoo-in, but Ryan is just a Congressman and his appeal is limited to his district, to the extent he maintains that appeal in these post-Tea Party times.
Theoretically, the Veep candidate could possibly make a difference in a few close states in an overall close election. This has not been illustrated in the annals of history, and contrary to hysterical opinion on both the right and the left, John McCain didn’t lose four years ago because he selected an unvetted nincompoop. As I said, it’s hard to see where this choice will make a difference.
The choice was made to energize Romney’s conservative base. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of those people see Mitt as a failure – he’s gone down in the polls, he’s well behind in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, and right now he would lose Virginia. Some of these people are still weirded out by Mitt’s religion; these are fools who possess the first stone. Romney needed to get them off the fence, and Paul Ryan is just the pretty little vulture to provide leverage.
So I endorse Romney’s choice. As an Obama supporter, he couldn’t have made a better decision.
Except maybe for McCain’s nincompoop.
By the way, seeing as how this column’s readership as an impressive degree of crossover with the graphic storytelling community, I need to point out that Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan is a different person from the versatile and gifted cartoonist Paul Ryan. The latter has quite a list of credits in the field, and for the past several years he’s been drawing the Monday-through-Saturday adventures of The Phantom in newspapers all across the world.
The Phantom is the umpteenth generation white guy who fights crime and/or evil in Africa. Which is about as close to the black community as Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan is likely to get.
—–
Vulture iconoclast Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Pennie
August 13, 2012 - 3:11 pm
Clearly, Mitsy’s handlers thought saving Private Ryan for the ticket would energize the populace, dazzle the undecideds and showm Mitsy’s to be far more discerning than McCain. They may have a point but given Mitsy’s poor posturing, vapid meandering, and near-comatose appearances, The Mummy would appear to be more energetic.
R. Maheras
August 13, 2012 - 4:01 pm
The way I see it, since the economy is, by far, the biggest problem this country is currently facing, any voter who would comfortably hire Obama as their financial advisor should vote for him. Conversely, any voter who would hire Romney as their financial advisor, should vote for him. And any voter who would hire neither, should refrain from voting at all.
If one works, or is looking for work, but does not have enough income to worry about financial advisors (been there, done that, for decades) then one should vote for the guy who has the best shot at creating jobs.
But if one can’t work, or doesn’t plan to work in either the immediate or foreseeable future, then one should vote for whoever is most likely to put some extra free dough in one’s pocket.
All the other side issues, such as stuff like “true” citizenship, tax returns, healthcare death panels, off-shore accounts, college transcripts, and spouse-killing, really don’t matter.
Neil C.
August 13, 2012 - 4:50 pm
And if one is a millionaire, vote for the guy who plans to screw anyone who’s not one.
Martha Thomases
August 13, 2012 - 5:23 pm
Being President is not about making a profit.
Rene
August 13, 2012 - 5:55 pm
Paul Ryan? Isn’t he the guy that is so Conservative on women’s rights that, if the Xenomorph had rape-impregnated Sigournew Weaver, then Ryan said it would be a deadly sin to abort the alien egg?
R. Maheras
August 13, 2012 - 6:54 pm
Martha wrote: “Being President is not about making a profit.”
My god, who’s talking about profit? Most people I know who hire financial planners do so so they hopefully won’t become destitute in their senior years!
Likewise, the government is supposed to be a prudent custodian of our money so future generations don’t get screwed out of their safety nets. That ain’t happening! And the government is also supposed to manage the economy so people have a reasonable opportunity to get work. That ain’t happening either!
Profit??? How about the legislative and executive branch do their job and pass a frickin’ budget? How about they live within their means as we, the people, are expected to?
Rene
August 13, 2012 - 6:57 pm
Russ –
The economy is important, but if it were all-important and the other issues “really didn’t matter”, then we wouldn’t need Presidents, political parties, congress… would we? I mean, why bother with all the silliness? Just appoint a team of economics and finantial advisors and let all else take care of itself?
Though I find it funny that you’re saying more or less the same thing as the hardcore Communists from around here: the only thing that really matters is economics and it determines everything else, and all the talk about civil liberties is petit burgeous posturing.
Interesting.
R. Maheras
August 13, 2012 - 10:03 pm
Rene — It’s called prioritizing — something that one must learn to do in a crisis. And our economy is definitely at the crisis stage.
Doctors are forced prioritize when mass casualties come in, but it doesn’t mean that the less critical patients “really don’t matter.”
Bad managers and politicians often refuse to take action when crises arise, either because it’s “safer” to do nothing, or because they simply do not have the skills or personality to handle a crisis.
The economy drives everything in this country (including every single safety net), and if it isn’t fixed, everyone — Democrat, Republican, Independent or anyone else — will suffer.
Neil C.
August 13, 2012 - 10:25 pm
I love when conservatives say people are going hysterical over the choice of Ryan. No, most no right-wingers are hilarious with laughter than he was the choice.
Martha Thomases
August 14, 2012 - 4:27 am
The majority of economists say that the worst thing the government can do in the current economy is cut spending. Ryan says the opposite. I’m making my decision based (in part) on what the majority of economists say.
The national economy — the global economy — is not the same thing as a household economy. Conflating the two is over-simplifying.
Rick Oliver
August 14, 2012 - 7:30 am
The deficit and the economy are not inextricably intertwined. Fixing the deficit won’t fix the economy. Lowering taxes on the wealthy won’t fix the economy. We’ve already established that. Congress hasn’t passed a budget because both the Senate and the House have to pass the budget. The Democratic Senate will not pass the budget passed by the Republican House — a budget engineered by Paul Ryan. Any counter offer the Democratic Senate could make would either be killed by Republican senators by resorting to the filibuster, which they have done a record-shattering number of times, or rejected by the Republican House, since the overwhelming majority of Republicans in congress have signed a pledge to never compromise on raising taxes, and any Democratic proposal would certainly contain some form of tax increase.
George Haberberger
August 14, 2012 - 8:08 am
A couple of things:
1, I don’t think these are “post-Tea Party Times”.
2, Sarah Palin did not lose the election for McCain. McCain lost the election for Sarah Palin. Her selection energized McCain’s campaign and put him up 7 points from a deficit of 4 points before her convention speech. That lead was squandered when McCain suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington when the banking crisis hit as if he had a plan but in fact, did not.
Regarding Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, this from the National Review: “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview,” Paul said. “If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”
Lastly, why does Michael Davis World no longer appear in the ComicMix widget box to the left of Peter David’s blog?
Mike Gold
August 14, 2012 - 8:59 am
George — The tea-party has pretty much attracted all the people they’re going to get. They are receding, not expanding. Right now they are the Republican Party, although the Rove/Cheney/Murdoch wing is hanging in waiting for them to fall or become irrelevant. The tea party has no influence outside of their circle, which right now is the Republican base. They won’t grow simply because they didn’t stick to their original focus.
I really regret saying this, but there’s another reason the Ryan selection inures to Obama’s benefit. There are members of the Religious Right who planned on holding their noses and voting for a weird Mormon who will realize they only have one nose — they won’t pull their heads out of their own puke to vote for a Mormon/Catholic ticket.
Yes, we call these people “bigots.” And idiots. But they’ll chip away at the core.
I suspect Ryan doesn’t share Rand’s religious beliefs — certainly not before November — but his comments praising Rand are a matter of record.
And like all things, McCain’s failure was due to multiple causation, and the point you make certainly was one. There were many others. Palin didn’t help with the independents, but as I reported, conventional wisdom dictates veep choices have yet to make a difference. McCain couldn’t appeal to enough independents. That’s the problem when Bizarro-McCain 2008 runs a race eight years after John McCain did.
Rick Oliver
August 14, 2012 - 9:25 am
Ryan adored Ayn Rand for years before it became politically awkward to continue the love affair. How the fact that objectivism is an atheist philosophy escapes such a supposedly politically astute man for so many years is beyond me. But the modern Republican party loves repentant sinners. So, no harm, no foul. Let’s put the past behind us…because it’s extremely inconvenient when it’s placed in front of us. But just for old time’s sake:
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”
Mike Gold
August 14, 2012 - 9:59 am
Ayn Rand — a person as ugly on the inside as she is on the outside.
Rene
August 15, 2012 - 9:10 am
Old shames confessed –
I used to think Ayn Rand was kinda cool. But I was young and had a lot of douchebag friends who were heavily into Communism (the real thing, there are real Communist sympathizers in Brazil) and I was tired of them making excuses for Soviet attrocities, and admiring Ayn Rand was a sort of “fuck you” to them.
Now that the Cold War is history and I’m more mature, I recognize Ayn Rand was just the equal and opposite reaction to hardline Communism. Both were equally insane. And it creeps me out how Ayn Rand’s idea of romantic love is being raped by a sociopathic Overman.
But I still like what she said about Christianity: To Christianity, the human being is nothing more than a corpse inhabited by a ghost. Ironic, that Rand’s stance on religion is the only thing I admire about her, while it’s the only thing the Tea Partiers do NOT admire about her.
Rick Oliver
August 15, 2012 - 10:09 am
As many critics have noted, Rand’s philosophy may seem like a great revelation when you’re 16. But by the time you’re 25, you should recognize it for the self-serving sociopathic drivel that it is.
Mike Gold
August 15, 2012 - 11:34 am
Stalin cured me pretty damn quick of any sprouting Communist tendencies. And I believe you are absolutely correct, Rene — she’s the exact opposite, yet totally the same. Ayn Rand is the Bizarro Stalin.
Although from my reading, I believe Rand was better in bed.
And I think a couple readers JUST lost their lunch.
Mike Gold
August 15, 2012 - 11:38 am
Rick, is “self-serving sociopath” redundant? I THINK so. I’m not sure most sociopaths would agree. Or care.
She had good art direction.
Reg
August 15, 2012 - 11:42 am
@ Rene who expressed that: “…Rand’s stance on religion is the only thing I admire about her”
You might (or possibly not) find the following analysis of interest
Mike Gold
August 15, 2012 - 1:13 pm
“But as Jesus once said, “By your fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16), and I for one still see much more Rand than Jesus in Ryan’s Robin Hood budget.”
Truth to power.
That piece was great for providing the link to Buckley’s review of Atlas Shrugged. I wonder how many of the current National Review crop feels the same way? Buckley’s brand of conservatism would be seen by modern “conservatives” as socialism, their catch-word for everything they don’t like. Buckley was an intellectual from a very blue state; them’s fighting words for the Very Right.
Rene
August 15, 2012 - 1:32 pm
I tend to agree with the guy. Christianity and Randism are not really compatible, if you really want to follow all of one, you can’t follow the other.
Rampant capitalism, consumerism, and industrialisation are the factors most responsible for the decline of traditional faith.
For a period in human history (the Cold War) Christianity and Capitalism were partners in the fight against Communism. But that was an alliance of convenience, for in the long run they offset one another.
It’s this contradition in modern Conservative thinking that I find so delicious. They are fated to work against themselves.
Rene
August 15, 2012 - 1:56 pm
Yes, Buckley mocking Rand’s infantile manichaeism is very, very refreshing. Damn, I miss Conservatives like Buckley. I miss Conservatives that don’t equate a belief in shades of grey with utter moral decadence. I miss Conservatives that don’t have a barely repressed Authoritarian side (all the while condemning the supposed Authoritarianism from the Lefties).
George Haberberger
August 16, 2012 - 5:45 am
Just wondering, since Steve Ditko is a devotee of Ayn Rand is he also an atheist? Just curious if anyone knows.
Mike Gold
August 16, 2012 - 7:32 am
Well, George, all I can say is that when I’ve been with Steve (not recently, but rather a lot in the 70s through 90s) the subject of god never came up. We rarely talked politics or societal issues; I pretty much knew where he was coming from and he knew that I knew. We talked comics, and Steve’s massively effective sense of humor popped out.I only worked with him on a handful of stories, but I gotta tell you: being in his studio was one of my top personal fanboy moments.
George Haberberger
August 16, 2012 - 7:36 am
“being in his studio was one of my top personal fanboy moments.”
Yeah, I can only imagine. You’re a lucky guy.
Rick Oliver
August 16, 2012 - 12:19 pm
It’s not Buckley trashing Rand. It’s Whittaker Chambers. Although Buckley asked him to write the review.
Mike Gold
August 16, 2012 - 2:10 pm
One of my great disappointments in life was to discover that Chambers and Cohn were not lovers. Evidently. They would have been, in the Marvel Universe.
R. Maheras
August 16, 2012 - 6:59 pm
Mike wrote: “but I gotta tell you: being in his studio was one of my top personal fanboy moments.”
Mine too… twice.
And my wife is probably one of the only non-fangirls who’s ever had the privilege of shaking the hand of both Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Mike Gold
August 16, 2012 - 7:39 pm
At the same time???
R. Maheras
August 17, 2012 - 12:02 am
Ha — no. That was probably an impossibility after about 1965. She met ditko in new york and lee in san diego.