Paul Ryan's Wisconsin neighbors supported his opponents
Source: Los Angeles Times
In the closing days of his vice-presidential run, Paul D. Ryan sought to connect with voters in small- and medium-sized towns across Ohio by repeatedly telling them how much their community had in common with his own hometown of Janesville, Wis.
Now, post-election, the Wisconsin congressman is blaming his Republican ticket loss with presidential contender Mitt Romney on a huge turnout of urban voters for President Obama.
One flaw in that analysis may be that election results indicate the Romney-Ryan ticket didn’t exactly connect with the voters back in Janesville, either.
A struggling blue-collar manufacturing town of 63,575, Janesville lies on the eastern edge of Rock County, Wis., and unofficial election tabulations from the county clerk there show that only 37% of Ryan’s hometown neighbors voted for him and his running mate. Meanwhile, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden got 62% of the Janesville vote.
Bevis, the fact that you and so many ignorant lizards are willing to blindly follow policies that will lead to the ruination of our republic is amazing. All in the name of being a Democrat. Give away the ranch to buy the next election. Endorsing intergenerational theft to claim the prize of electing a minority. Heck of a price for our nation to pay for being trendy.
Evan McMorris-Santoro November 15, 2012, 2:51 PM 12380
One of Mitt Romney’s closest allies during the 2012 campaign — a woman who was often mentioned on his short list of running mates, joined the ranks of Republicans critical of Romney’s post-election “gift” comments.
If Romney’s lost Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), it’s hard to imagine he has many Republican friends left.
On MSNBC Thursday, Ayotte tried to get as far away as she could from Romney’s “gifts” remark. The former Republican presidential nominee told donors Wednesday that he lost because minorities, women and young people had been seduced by the “very generous” Obama administration which had showered them with “big gifts” like rules calling on insurance companies to cover contraception and an executive order protecting DREAM-eligible youth from being deported.
Back when Romney’s similar comments during the campaign were exposed in the infamous 47 percent tape, Ayotte defended him. In September, she called the 47 percent tape “political analysis at a fundraiser” and “not a governing philosophy.”
She was not so generous with Romney’s post-election “gifts” comment.
“I listened to the comments, I don’t know what the context fully was. I don’t agree with the comments,” she said during the MSNBC appearance. “I think the campaign is over and what the voters are looking for us to do is to accept their votes and go forward and we’ve got some big challenges that need to be resolved.”
“I don’t know the full context of them, but I don’t agree with the comments,” she added. “The voters have spoken and they want us to work together to solve our problems.”
It’s a big shift for Ayotte, who was often at Romney’s side during the election and was one of his most prominent supporters. Ayotte was mentioned as one of Romney’s picks for vice presidential nominee, an honor that fell to Paul Ryan. With the “gifts” comment drawing fire from many sides of the Republican Party, Ayotte’s rejection of the comments falls more in line with the way the rest of her party is reacting to Romney a week after he lost decisively.
Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 08:24 AM PST
Who are the "Makers" and the "Takers"?
by Dustin Mineau
Since the end of the presidential election last week, I've been seeing a lot of tweets and blog posts that will say something like "takers outvoted the makers"(see here, here, and here for examples). I find the "makers and takers" narrative fascinating. I've found few other narratives that so quickly and easily divides Americans and get us to hate each other. I wanted to take a closer look at the supposed logic behind it.
"Makers and Takers" is a right-wing meme. The basic story is thus: The economy is make up of people who make stuff and people who take stuff. The takers take from the makers - usually using the power of government. The story comes from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. But she called them producers and looters.
Unfortunately, as often as conservatives will refer to "takers" as the problem, they rarely define or identify who these nasty people we're supposed to hate are. Mostly, it seems to be based entirely on whether or not you pay federal income tax(payroll and other federal taxes don't count). That is the impression I get from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and other random conservatives. The conservative commentator, Mary Matalin, helps clarify a little more. Old people and veterans don't count, only people who use any anti-poverty program.
So, let's look at two different people. Let's take a single parent with two children. The parent works 2 jobs. 28 hours a week at Walmart, and another job at Home Depot working another 28 hours(give or take since schedules in retail shops tend to fluctuate). At each job this person works hard and therefore earns above minimum wage... about $8.50. Neither job pays benefits. This translates to just under $2,000 a month(before payroll taxes and state income taxes). That makes him qualified for a small amount of food stamps and for their kids to get Medicaid. In right-wing language, this 56 hours a week worker is a "taker" and a "moocher" and a "looter".
Let's take another person. Say, a former presidential candidate who made 14 million dollars last year by doing nothing. He pays about a 15% tax rate in income taxes. He didn't do anything except give his money to a banker. But since he paid income taxes, In right-wing language, that makes him a "maker" and a "producer".
In this scenario, I question the right-wing framing of maker and taker. Who is truly the maker, and who is the taker? Are the minimum wage (or just above minimum wage) workers really taking? Is that work of packing your groceries and loading the shelves that meaningless? Is the work of giving someone else your money so important that it is the equivalent of MAKING something?
I would be tempted to reverse it and call the rich guy the "takers" and the workers (who are actually WORKING) the "makers". But I find this whole narrative odious and would rather see it die than co-opted. We're all in this together and we all have something to contribute to society. If we think individuals are taking advantage of the system let's deal with that. Let's not deal with it by demonizing the most vulnerable people in our society.