Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Representative and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted in favor of the budget deal; Senator Marco Rubio voted against it. From an article in the National Journal:
After anchoring a losing Republican presidential ticket widely perceived as hostile to middle-class concerns, Ryan heeded polls showing the public ready to blame the GOP if the deal fell through. The powerful budget committee chairman, loyal to House Speaker John Boehner, is mostly playing the inside game.
Rubio, who defeated a sitting governor on the back of the tea party movement, is largely playing the outside game. He rarely bucks the GOP’s conservative base – consider his recent votes against an overstuffed Hurricane Sandy aid bill and a United Nations treaty protecting people with disabilities -- although an opportunity looms in the anticipated debate over immigration reform. Rubio appears more invested more in cultivating his national profile than in courting leadership on Capitol Hill....
“Ryan ultimately is a policy wonk who understood that getting tax cuts for the vast majority of the American people could be a huge victory,” said Republican consultant John Feehery, who has advised top House Republicans. “Rubio seems more politically attuned to the conservative base. I think that’s the divide.”
It’s the same divide that will determine whether Ryan or Rubio is better positioned for a 2016 presidential race....
Leave aside the reporter's obvious bias here--whereas Ryan is engaged in the serious business of governing, the prose heavy-handedly implies, Rubio is merely playing politics--which approach is most useful? Which best places the GOP in a position to do real good over the longer term? Ryan appears intent on achieving, so to speak, the least bad outcome, one vote at a time, at the cost of being drawn into a game of entitlement spending so out of control that deals like the one struck yesterday do essentially nothing to change it. Rubio wishes to protest the whole game, standing athwart it, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, yelling "Stop!" The price Rubio pays is simple. Operationally--that is to say, in the countless day-to-day decisions on Capitol Hill that affect actual legislation--he risks irrelevance.
Both approaches have much to commend them--and much to condemn them. Choosing between them strikes me as very, very difficult.
Ryan versus Rubio. Whose approach should the GOP pursue?
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (32)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
I really like Rubio and he would make a formidable presidential candidate in 2016, but there's this nagging feeling that he never actually does anything. We've already had more of that kind of president than we need. Rubio needs to prove that perception wrong, and soon.
So for now I'm hoping Ryan (or really, Jindal) runs in 2016.
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Fredösphere: I really like Rubio and he would make a formidable presidential candidate in 2016, but there's this nagging feeling that he never actuallydoes anything. We've already had more of that kind of president than we need. Rubio needs to prove that perception wrong, and soon.
So for now I'm hoping Ryan (or really, Jindal) runs in 2016. · 0 minutes ago
Thought experiment, Fredo: If Jindal had been a member of the House or Senate yesterday, would he--should he--have voted for the budget deal?
Oct '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Another question that complicates things further is: when do you use either strategy? As the Bible says: there's a time for everything.
May '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Ryan is providing the President unnecessary bipartisan cover. If it all blows up, then what? Ryan is left with the ugliness of blaming himself for listening to "the people" and then reduced to asking the same people to elevate him to Obama's post.
If Rubio is right and it does blow up at least he comes to the American people with clean hands. "I voted no because I knew. You, on the other hand were mislead by Obama's rhetoric and magical thinking."
Mar '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Lets see here current debt is at 136k per family and unfunded liabilities are 2 million+ per FAMILY and Ryan does a least bad deal the saves the Average American Household close to $3,446 dollars a year. The least bad is such a small fraction of the disaster, its almost meaningless to the big picture. Statesmen think long term and act accordlying, politicians only care, therefore act, about the next few years.
Churchill for years before the disater called WWII had no power in the government yet he was the greatest British statesmen of the early 20th century if not the greatest statesmen of the Century.
So who is the politician and who is the statesman?
Mar '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Jack Kemp was crucial to the Reagan-era tax reforms, just as I suspect Paul Ryan's leadership on budget issues will be in some respect to future GOP efforts. I am wary of determining the future of the party or drawing battle lines based on one tactical engagement in a lame duck Congress--the fiscal cliff debate--especially in light of the remarks both of these gentlemen made at the Kemp Foundation earlier this year.
Dec '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
The bill voted on presented the classic rock/hard place scenario. Neither outcome had taxes remaining the same for everyone. Neither outcome even remotely fixes the problem. Still, I'm not convinced that what we got was the least bad outcome. Ryan went with strategic retreat, which is always a reasonable choice in a losing battle. However, we won't know until the end of next month whether or not fighting another day was worth it. The difference between bravery and stupidity is often timing. If we win the next battle we will know which was which in the last.
Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:45pmJul '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
We have been trying Ryan's approach for 80 years, and where has it gotten us? The federal government never shrinks. We keep being told to just wait and one day we'll have control and be able to effect real change. Well we had it, under W, and it kept right on growing. Enough with the equivocating and mitigating (prolonging) the damage. If the people want to vote for idiotic economic policy via the Democrats, then they need to get the full brunt of the consequences, but make those bills be passed by those Democrats. Don't help them do it.
Jun '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
I like the Rubio principles here, but I can see the 2016 Democrat TV ads against him already:
"gasp. he is so extreme that he voted against people with disabilities"
"he is so hostile toward the middle class that he supported increasing their taxes by opposing the fiscal cliff legislation."
"he is so evil and awful that he even voted against Sandy victims and their families"
The question is how he responds to those attacks, and will he be able to educate people as to why he voted the way that he did. Communication will be key. But that will be a monumental task with the Democrat media controlling the narrative.
Feb '12
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
The issue with Ryan is that he always seems to be a yes vote on these types of deals. You have to show a willingness to vote no, against your party's leadership, if a threat to vote no is to ever to be taken seriously.
By voting no on this deal, Rubio smartly drew a line in the sand. He won't get primaried to his right, whereas many of his colleagues will--many will be relevant only until they're no longer there.
Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:51pmMar '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
In retrospect, I'm hesitant to condemn Ryan's vote. Boehner initially offered $800 billion in new revenue, and the deal they voted for scored as a $600 billion increase. Had we gone over the cliff, it'd been an issue of having to give up a lot to get the old rates back, with $250,000 as the threshold for the highest rate. You can fault Boehner for negotiating with himself with the original offer, but I think that even though Obama's going to agitate for higher taxes in the sequester and debt ceiling negotiations, he's running a pretty big risk of overreach that even the media won't be able to ignore.
Rubio had nothing to gain by voting for a bill that passed 89-8, and why shouldn't he be playing an "outside" game if his intention is to seek the Presidency?
We'll learn who was right between now and February. I'm willing to bet that both Ryan and Rubio come out of the sequester and debt limit fight in better political shape than the President. He's headed for a fall.
Apr '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
EJHill: Ryan is providing the President unnecessary bipartisan cover. If it all blows up, then what? Ryan is left with the ugliness of blaming himself for listening to "the people" and then reduced to asking the same people to elevate him to Obama's post.
If Rubio is right and it does blow up at least he comes to the American people with clean hands. "I voted no because I knew. You, on the other hand were mislead by Obama's rhetoric and magical thinking." · 0 minutes ago
Agreed. I mean, America is at the tipping point where there is no return. The time for economic diplomacy was a decade ago. Ultimately, things have to change in terms of entitlements -- and fast. 'Athwart' is the right choice, because, it's the only choice left
Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:48pmMay '12
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Senator Rubio shows much more vision and courage. The problem isn't who is going to manage the expansion of government and the entitlement/welfare state better. The problem is the entitlement/welfare state.
Nobody won a battle by fighting it halfway.
May '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
I would prefer the one who votes against raising the debt ceiling again (ever).
Since they will both vote to raise it, I couldn't care less. Either would make a fine captain as the ship sinks.
Nov '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Fredösphere: I really like Rubio and he would make a formidable presidential candidate in 2016, but there's this nagging feeling that he never actuallydoes anything. We've already had more of that kind of president than we need. Rubio needs to prove that perception wrong, and soon.
So for now I'm hoping Ryan (or really, Jindal) runs in 2016. · 32 minutes ago
Maybe this just means he's a freshman senator? Not sure Ryan had done much after two years in Congress, either. Maybe 2016 is just too soon for Rubio.
Oct '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
I'd add that it was such an inconsequential tactical engagement. Nothing big was going to be accomplished and yet so many people seemed to expect that this was the hill to fight and die on. It seems people want to get into a fight more than they want to win one.
Sep '12
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
Senator Rubio is one of my senators, and while he voted against the abominable HR8, with its built in tax breaks for favored industries, his own hands are not completely clean. In 2012 he voted in favor of the farm bill which was loaded with pork and tax subsidies, including a major one for the sugar industry in Florida. When I called him on it, his response was that he was "protecting my constituents and the jobs they provide."
I like Rubio, and voted for him in 2010, which wasn't hard when the alternatives were Crist and Meeks. But I'd like to see more principle and less politics.
Nov '11
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
How do you deal with existing bad law and a Democratic Senate and President? That's the real question. It's important, but limited: it tells us little about how they would govern, and probably wouldn't affect my primary vote.
Also, wasn't part of Rubio's objection the process? -- the late-night vote, etc? The House did things more openly. Ryan's office had time to study the bill.
But I'm with Ryan. I'm all for yelling "stop" when you can actually stop things. In a situation such as this, I can't really argue with his logic (emphasis mine):
May '12
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
bereket kelile
I'd add that it was such an inconsequential tactical engagement. Nothing big was going to be accomplished and yet so many people seemed to expect that this was the hill to fight and die on. It seems people want to get into a fight more than they want to win one. · 20 minutes ago
This isn't a one off vote for Cong. Ryan. He has been on board with many government expansions including TARP. Additionally, his Path to Prosperity details a 35% increase in spending over the next decade.
If the republicans hope to retain a shred of credibility as a party of limited government then voting consistently in that manner is a requirement to lead the party.
Sep '10
Re: Ryan versus Rubio: Who's Making Better Sense?
First one should note that Ryan is a product of the beltway with almost no real life experience. He has been part of the problem now for two decades and is one of only a handful of Congressmen who has voted for every single bailout. In addition he has voted for all of GWB's big government programs. In short he is a career Bush Republican. If you think that the country needs more of this type of phony he is your man.
Rubio on the other hand is more of a blank slate. He is a card carrying member of the GOP and therefore in all likelihood he will in the end put party and career ahead of principle and country.
It is obvious to anyone who has been watching that the legislative process was discarded about four years ago and there is little chance it will be reinstated soon.
For anyone to put any import on the votes of either of these two on the fiscal cliff bill is dubious at best.
Face it Obama is in charge and unless the GOP is willing to shut the government down he will more or less do as he pleases.