A reminder about Rep. Paul Ryan from 2010

Someone sent me a reminder about a moment in 2010 when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), now the GOP VP candidate, was on Fox News Sunday across from Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), debating Obamacare… ObamaTAX… and abortion.

She holds up “the nuns” (read: Magisterium of Nuns) as her catholic authority.  Ryan holds up the US bishops has the Catholic teaching authority.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Linking Back, Magisterium of Nuns, Our Catholic Identity and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to A reminder about Rep. Paul Ryan from 2010

  1. acardnal says:

    Rep. Ryan knows what he’s talking about! He knows the facts; he is chairman of the House Budget Cmte. I only wish he would debate Obama; instead, he likely will debate only his counterpart, VP Biden prior to the election. Fortunately, that will be very entertaining. . . get the popcorn ready.

  2. aviva meriam says:

    There is something unseemly (or Ugly) about a Non Catholic attempting to determine who the authority is for Catholics. As it would be if a Catholic or Buddhist attempted to determine who was the ultimate religious authority for the Jewish Community.

    It will be entertaining to watch Ryan debate Joe Biden. I almost feel sorry for the VP…..

  3. RichR says:

    VP-candidate Ryan needs many prayers if he is going to try to maintain his faith so well in a DC culture. God bless him for his clarity. He’s awesome!

  4. Supertradmum says:

    I do not feel sorry for Biden. He has free will and did have a brain at some point and chose not to follow the Teaching of the Catholic Church. He has compromised his soul. I can pray for him, but out of a greater pity-that he has squandered the Truth.

  5. AvantiBev says:

    One needn’t be a follower of “the teachings of the Catholic Church” to be against abortion and the Sexual Revolution which uses it as its enforcement tool. God gave man reason and free will. A non-Catholic can look at a sonogram and see the human form of a baby. She can look at the headlines of the Chicago Tribune and see another fruit of the Sexual Revolution in the fatherless gangs of boys shooting at each other and often killing the innocent bystanders. She can look at the divorces, anonymous hook ups, porn addicted Peter Pans that surround her. Even if she were dropped into our society from another time and another religious denomination, she would KNOW abortion and all the other rotten fruits of this revolution were wrong. I never appeal to my friends to “obey the Pope” but rather to utilize the common sense and Natural Law written on their consciences by their Creator and Father in Heaven.

    My prayer is that we stop fighting only the symptoms – the evil fruit such as abortion –and go after the big game: oppose the whole damn, evil Revolution. Women will have to lead this fight. Men aren’t going to oppose what at first blush seems like a paradise of fleshly desires. But there will be a generation of young women who look around and push back. And perhaps even a generation of lonely, old men who see where the playing around took them. I pray I live to see it and aid it in some way.

  6. PA mom says:

    Impressive. LOVE the chart. Makes sense that his Bishop and Archbishop Dolan would come to his defense so publicly. Loved his speech last night.

  7. SKAY says:

    Supertradmum says:
    I do not feel sorry for Biden

    I agree.
    I watched him too many times on the Judicial Committee playing tag team with Ted Kennedy working to try to only let judges through who were pro abortion.When the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate they also have the majority on that important committee.

  8. chantgirl says:

    I admit I have an unholy desire to watch Biden be eviscerated by Ryan in a debate. Lord, forgive me!

  9. Papabile says:

    The dirty little secret is that with Ryan’s first budget he consulted with +Dolan on the budget. See: http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/dolandialogue.htm

    It annoyed several of the committee members.

    With that said, the dirtier secret is that Bishop Blaire’s critique of Ryan’s second budget is basically a repudiation of +Dolan’s previous correspondence.

    I would note that Ryan’s second budget is more liberal than his first one.

    I worked House Budget committee as a staffer that first year.

  10. Legisperitus says:

    Remember the Dan Quayle/Al Gore debate 20 years ago? It was interesting to listen to the viewers calling in to C-SPAN afterwards. All those who called in immediately after the debate were saying that Quayle had won it hands down. C-SPAN then aired a repeat of the debate in its entirety and took viewer calls again. After the mainstream media had had a few hours to do their work, a slight majority of callers now said Gore had won.

    The spin has already been written for this whole election cycle. It’s gonna be either “KANE ELECTED!” or “FRAUD AT POLLS!” every single day.

  11. frjim4321 says:

    Was the point here that Ryan allegedly bested Wasserman-Schultz? Convenient that W-S’s final reply was edited out of the clip, and also the the “fair and balanced” (sic) interview was conducted by a typically RNC-friendly FauxNews talking head.

    Regardless, I am less interested in what Ryan said in 2010 than that he touted himself as such a faithful Catholic last night while he knowingly lied to the Amercan people over and over again.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

    Even if there was a remote chance that I could have changed my mind and voted for them, his blatant dishonestly would have removed any sliver of that possibility.

  12. tgarcia2 says:

    Fr. Jim,

    Once again you miss the point. The point that Fr. Z is making is that the authority of the church and their teachings come from the Bishops.

    I would like to remind you that the so call “fact check” is wrong. I would also like for you to ponder why is it that those from former Soviet countries or Cuba come here and turn Conservative. I am reminded of a cab driver in Boston who came from Poland. He said he left to come to the US to escape his government social systems and tyranny only to find it there after his unions told him to NOT vote for Scott Brown, unless they wanted to keep their job. The fact that if you were not of the right stature, yes even that existed in the Soviet Bloc, you were stuck not rising unless it was a government post. Government run business where you were paid the same, as the guy who’s quality of work suffered and came in late everyday. Where you have lines for basic services and the mindset the government will provide all, and not you.. That you as an individual were not special, but part of a collective. The fact that you could not do better for your family, unless the state says so.

    Interesting how China embraced Capitalism and look how they grew. Not as if it never has and never will work. If it didn’t work in the 1980′s, why did Reagan win a 49 state landslide?

    So, here is a sampling of where you are wrong, again.

    Charge #3: Ryan is wrong about the stimulus, which actually “created or saved 3.3 million jobs.”

    Explanation: From Ryan’s speech: “What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn’t just spent and wasted – it was borrowed, spent, and wasted.”

    In response, ThinkProgress cites a study by the CBO saying that the stimulus “created or saved” 3.3 million jobs.

    So is it true? Not unless you think the highest possible estimate is always the right one. The CBO estimated that the stimulus could have saved up to 3.3 million jobs. In other words, “creating or saving” 3.3 million jobs is the absolute upper limit on what the stimulus could have done. The lowest estimate is 500,000 jobs created or saved. Both numbers are probably inaccurate, but to accept the 3.3 million jobs number requires an extreme degree of optimism.

    Charge #4: Paul Ryan supported the stimulus in 2002!

    Explanation: ThinkProgress links to a video from the Chris Hayes show showing Paul Ryan speaking on behalf of a 2002 stimulus bill that President Bush signed into law. This is supposed to prove that Ryan is a hypocrite when it comes to stimulus spending.

    So is it true? To begin with, it’s irrelevant. Ryan was speaking against the Obama stimulus specifically in his speech. He didn’t rail against the concept of stimulus spending, period. Moreover, there is a lot of daylight between supporting a $42 billion stimulus measure – most of which is in tax relief – and supporting an $831 billion bill that is loaded with giveaways for favored groups/industries. It’s true that Ryan supports the idea of stimulus in principle, but when it comes to stimuli as big as the one Obama wrote? Not a chance.

    Charge #5: Ryan’s attacks on Obamacare also hit Romneycare.

    Explanation: Ryan said in his speech, “Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.” ThinkProgress asks, “What about Massachusetts? The two laws are very similar.”

    So is it true? Yes, what about Massachusetts? And more to the point, what about what Ryan actually said? Romneycare isn’t 2,000 pages. It doesn’t include any new taxes. It doesn’t include the infamous Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Romney vetoed large chunks of regulation that were originally in the bill. Yes, it has a mandate, but that mandate is a lot less expansive. In other words, Romneycare comes to less than two thousand pages, with very few rules, one mandate, no taxes, some fees and some fines. What about Massachusetts? ThinkProgress probably doesn’t want an answer to that question.

    Charge #6: Repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022 and take away coverage from more than 30 million Americans.

    Explanation: This is a response to Ryan’s promise to repeal Obamacare. Presumably, the idea is to claim that Obamacare is fiscally conservative and Ryan isn’t.

    So is it true? The claim that Obamacare will guarantee coverage for “more than 30 million Americans” is nonsense. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office actually says that Obamacare itself will leave 30 million people uninsured. This means that, at most, Obamacare will grant coverage to 23 million of the more than 50 million people who are presently uninsured, according to the CBO. There’s quite a bit of daylight between that figure and “more than 30 million.” Moreover, these estimates are historically unreliable. The CBO has revised its projects on the fiscal impact of Obamacare multiple times. Not to mention, $109 billion over ten years is a comparatively small number, and should be more than offset by other cuts proposed by Romney and Ryan.

  13. Southern Catholic says:

    Frjim – Don’t you tout yourself as a faithful Catholic and a priest, yet you support pro-abortion policies and same sex marriage? Oh the irony.

  14. EXCHIEF says:

    “Even if there was a remote chance that I could have changed my mind and voted for them, his blatant dishonestly would have removed any sliver of that possibility.” so says frjim

    So if I understand correctly from the above quote you, purportedly a Priest, will vote for a party and a president who are clearly in support of abortion?And will do so in spite of the Church’s teaching that we are obligated to vote for the least harmful (morally) candidate? Or, perhaps you will not be voting or will be voting for some third party.

    Oh and by the way the majority of the liberal media who have “fact checked” Ryan’s talk admit that he was technically correct on almost every one of his assertions.

  15. Maria says:

    For Fr Jim,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI&feature=player_embedded

    Abortion is intrinsincly evil but this is alive baby.

    God’s peace & joy,
    Maria

  16. Sorry, but what Ryan says to the national news media doesn’t necessarily line up with what he says on the congessional floor.
    He’s got a principle problem. If a person swears an oath to God and breaks it, should he be trusted? I don’t think so.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKJaVJpJ-FI&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA&index=1&feature=plcp

  17. Just to clarify, I am not voting for Romney or Obama. I remeber all too well the first term of GWB where a GOP controlled legislature could have overturned Roe v Wade.
    http://republicfortheunitedstates.org
    If I were God looking down on this nation I wiuld be thinking, “There’s a government enslaved to the money changers that kills many innocents and breaks their oath to Me through wars and abortion, not to mention other things that offend Me. Then there’s these other people who have formed another government that pray and say they will clothe the naked, feed the hungry and reestablish the rule of law. Now, who should I bless?”

  18. Phil_NL says:

    Cosmas Daminan: the only way congress can overturn Roe vs Wade is through a constitutional amendment. And the supramajorities for that are no-where within reach, not in congress nor in the states, and that hasn’t changed for decades. A simple law won’t do, as tSCOTUS saw a constituional right to infanticide. Any mere law barring it would itself be unconstitutional.

    The only way abortion will end in the US is if the Supreme Court overturns its earlier decision. Then the matter will revert to the states, and after sufficient work there a constitutional amendment defining the beginning of life for the entire US might be possible. A work of decades, no doubt.

    But for the forseeable future, it all starts with the SCOTUS – and we all know who gets to nominate judges for that body….

  19. Wrong Phil. The Constitution has a predecessor in the Declaration Of Independence. An amendment would be unnecessary based upon what science establishes as fact. The Sanctity of Life Act, which Ron Paul introduced 4x over the years would have affirmed what is science fact, over turned Roe and taken the government and courts out of any further action supporting abortion..

  20. But let’s not diverge from what Paul Ryan has engaged in. I refute what is being claimed about him based on his own words on the congressional floor and his actions towards an avid pro life champion, Rep Akin.
    He offends my pro life and constitutional principles and breks his oath to God. There is no way I can trust him in his current condition. Like St Thomas More, I won’t “give in” to satisfy an appetite to remove Obama just to have another oath breaker in office.

  21. On the subject of nominating SCOTUS judges…check your facts. Gov Romney put the most liberal judges into the MA State Supreme Court. That’s a plain fact.
    Considering what the Romney campaign has engaged in with the RNC against the Tea Party I have serious doubts that he will abide by the presidential oath of office to God.

  22. robtbrown says:

    The Cosmas Damian says:

    Wrong Phil. The Constitution has a predecessor in the Declaration Of Independence. An amendment would be unnecessary based upon what science establishes as fact. The Sanctity of Life Act, which Ron Paul introduced 4x over the years would have affirmed what is science fact, over turned Roe and taken the government and courts out of any further action supporting abortion..

    No matter how good the Declaration of Independence might be, it is not a legal document and has no legal standing at all. Never has, never will.

  23. robtbrown says:

    The Cosmas Damian says:

    http://republicfortheunitedstates.org

    Anyone looking at that site immediately sees:

    “The year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for independence.”

    That is completely wrong. The D of C was published in that year, and the war began. In fact, Cornwallis didn’t surrender at Yorktown until 1781. In 1782 the Parliament voted to end the way, and the treaty was signed the following year.

  24. What? It is a legal document. It was the basis for the disolution of our connection to the British Crown. Every pro lifer understands this document to be the founding principles of the movement..”Life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” “Life” being the first word because without life nothing else can come.
    You’re refute is not very pursuasive, especially where you argue that we need an amendment to define something that was never declared in the Constitution. The Declaration already does that.

  25. http://republicfortheunitedstates.org Anyone looking at that site immediately sees: “The year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for
    independence.”

    “Marked” being the key word here. The Declaration of Independence most certainly was a landmark for the formation of our nation.

    I will say no more before Fr Z reminds us of the proverbial rabbit hole.

  26. Papabile says:

    @The Cosmas Damian

    The problem with most of these “fact check” sites and “reports” are that anyone can cherry pick their own truth.

    For instance…. Let me demonstrate….. Ryan is really a terrible conservative and his budget will destroy important government programs.

    Then, Ryan votes FOR an Appropriations bill that actually conforms to his Budget and he’s now a BIG spender because it wastes money on wasteful projects.

    This is the idiocy of American politics.

    I could sit here all day and design devastating 30 second add, Fact Check articles funded by outside organizations, or feed this drivel to the media….

    And you know what, the sheep still believe it and bleet.

    I was on the floor of the House when the first TARP vote went down to defeat, and remember the market dropping 800 points in about 10 minutes. I also remember what Paulson told us could happen.

    You know, what happened with TARP is generally what the Democrats had been asking for for years. Republicans “stepped outside” their “right-wing” philosophy to pass a bipartisan bill. But now, it’s time to destroy people for having no principle.

    These idiotic arguments make me angry. I have little faith in voters after 20 years in politics. They are simply too easy to manipulate.

  27. Phil_NL says:

    Whether the declaration of independence has any legal standing is completely irrelevant. Just as facts when life begins.
    The only thing that matters with regard to abortion is what the SCOTUS says it means. Even if the plain text is completely different, the court has the final say, no matter the dreams of Ron Paul. You either work through the court, or advocate a second revolution, there’s no middle way.

    Also, Cosmas Damian, you keep coming back to ‘breaking the oath of office’ – I can see no instance of that whatsoever in congressman Ryan. Maybe you use rather odd definitions of that too?

    As for Akin, he has done more damage to the pro-life cause than anyone in a decade. Cry me a river. Which brings me back to the overriding point: If you don’t consistently aim for tactics that actually work, which includes influencing voters and the institutions that do get to make the deicision, you’ll never get anything done.

  28. Okay…”cry me a river” seems to be an emotional response to a logical argument.
    “defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God” You’d have to view the video of Paul Ryan to the end to understand.
    I’m not one who takes oaths lightly.

  29. BTW, Phil, while “policy makers” were busy in thier offices rending what THEY want, I was busy in the USAFRes upholding my oath…”so help me God”.

  30. Phil_NL says:
    31 August 2012 at 8:56 am
    Whether the declaration of independence has any legal standing is completely irrelevant.

    Only to you, Phil. You can’t “illegally” declare independence from a mother country.

    “As for Akin, he has done more damage to the pro-life cause than anyone in a decade.”

    Proof please. In fact, he’s done more good in working with Ryan to promote pro life legislation.
    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/20/pro-life-groups-attacks-on-akin-hide-obama-mccaskills-abortion-record/

    ” and the institutions that do get to make the deicision, you’ll never get anything done.”
    Unless that institution has abandoned the principles contained within the national documents.
    Ever wonder why towns, cities, etc.. are “incorporated” and not “founded”? Whatever happened to “protect and serve” on squad cars? Why is Homeland Security buying tons of ammunition for police forces?
    This brings us back to Paul Ryan who voted for the NDAA giving the president the power to have American citizens indefinately detained without benefit of attorneys or court. In fact, he can even order the assassination of Americans under those same terms.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2r1JSR8EC8

  31. Phil_NL says:

    I’ll not make this combox into a debunk-all-of-Ron-Paul’s-lunacies parade, as I’m sure I’d have more debunking to do than Fr. Z ‘s resevior of patience for rabbit-holes can withstand. So I’ll limit myself to a couple of brief points, and then call this a day.

    * You mention you’re an USAF vet. Thank you for your service.

    * You seem to have a very, very narrow view of what the constitution allows. TARP was by no means unconstitutional; congress may have limited powers, but it can spent money on whatever they please. Besides, even under a narrow reading of the commerce clause it would be one of the enumerated powers. NDAA likewise, rights do not extent to those that make war on the nation. Last time I checked the Air Force did not ask for birth certficates for those it was about to bomb. Ryan did not break his oath of office by voting for it, that’s baloney.

    * Any declaration of independence is illegal, in fact, cause it’s treason to the mother country – of which the founding fathers were well aware. The question however, is if the document has legal standing in the nation that was subsequently erected. And to that the answer is simple: only insofar as the SCOTUS lets it. Which is just shy of not at all. we’re dealing with how it is, not how someone (Ron Paul?) thinks it should be. Again, change the SCOTUS, or declare another revolution. (A constitutional amendment has no chance at all)

    * As for Akin, with one line he made it look like the pro-life movement consists of dumb idiots only concerned with checking if women are truely raped. The untold number of people that has put off is hard to estimate, but he tanked 10% in his own state alone. he did not only shot himself in the foot, he shot everyone. He should simply have said “rape or no rape, that’s no reason to impose a death sentence on the child” and kept shut. Anyone who cannot do that has no business running for office.

    * Last but not least: the goal of politics is not being right, it’s getting things move in the right direction.

  32. robtbrown says:

    The Cosmas Damian says:

    http://republicfortheunitedstates.org Anyone looking at that site immediately sees: “The year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for
    independence.”

    “Marked” being the key word here. The Declaration of Independence most certainly was a landmark for the formation of our nation.

    That’s not what the statement says. It says that 1776 marked the VICTORY. How can it mark a victory that hadn’t yet happened.

    BTW, you’re the only person I’ve ever heard of bragging about being in the AF Reserve.

  33. Phil_NL says: Fr. Z ‘s resevior of patience for rabbit-holes

    When it comes to rabbit holes about Ron Paul I have NO patience.

    I am inclined to like some of the things Ron Paul stands for, and dislike others.

    However, of all the nasty hate-mail I have received concerning the campaign or any political issue or party, the strangest, the most unhinged, the nastiest has been from Ron Paul supporters. They have so turned me off to their favorite that I don’t want anything to do with him in my combox.

  34. Also, I don’t like it when one or two people dominate a combox discussion and, thereby, drive everyone else out. Not at all.

  35. Last one then no more.
    I had no idea that identifying yourself as having served in a branch of the military was “bragging”. In fact, what my intention was is to make nottice that I pay attention to the oath of office. That’s all. I’m sorry if anyone is offended by that.

    This is what really happens when someone strongly opposed to a different view goes into rhetoric. Attack the person in opposition not what evidence the person may bring. I am not speaking of Fr Z either.

  36. The Masked Chicken says:

    I was really active in comment boxes four years ago trying to explain the underlying moral issues in making informed choices for representatives. Few want to argue reasonably, logically, or persuasively. I’m with Papabile, I’m afraid. Virtue is hard and too many people have been indoctrinated with a psychology of ease.

    That bring said, Wasserman-Shultz should have been slapped down even harder by Ryan for even suggesting that the nuns get to make comments on moral doctrine and have it considered with equal standing to bishops. The stench of poor catechesis among many voting Catholics is as bad as a three day dead chicken lying in the sun. Bleach must be applied liberally.

    The Chicken

  37. robtbrown says:

    The Cosmas Damian says:

    Last one then no more.

    Promise?

    I had no idea that identifying yourself as having served in a branch of the military was “bragging”. In fact, what my intention was is to make nottice that I pay attention to the oath of office. That’s all. I’m sorry if anyone is offended by that.

    Hardly offended–I just thought it was amusing. I was in the Army but I don’t think I have mentioned it here.

    I have nothing against the Air Force. In fact, I play tennis with a woman whose husband (I also know him) led the first Stealth mission (F 117 not B2). And had the pleasure of spending time with a ret AF colonel (older–he’s not 80+–but grads of the same HS) who flew the SR71 Blackbird.

  38. Angie Mcs says:

    One thing I admire about Ryan is his skill with a quick comeback. It is already obvious that the media is ready to tear him apart, quote him out of context or quote a small part of something he said. They slip in their sound bites, knowing how many seconds are left for a response. From what I have seen so far, Ryan is ready for them, pointing out exactly why he said that, what the next sentence was, what the numbers really mean, etc. Too many politicians with good things to say are left sitting bynthe moderators with their mouths open while “we hAve to go to a break here”.

    Ryan is not as easy a target as they’re used to.