The reason so many of us support Newt Gingrich despite his flaws, is that when most people only know the ten word answers to get them elected, he can have the debate on why conservatism beats liberalism. Paul Ryan is one of the few who can have that debate, doesn’t have the baggage, and can make the case for conservatism without scaring off independent and moderate America.

Now imagine Ryan in a position of power. Imagine him presiding over the house and, with the added attention, with every bill that gets debated, framing the debate on why conservative principles are best. Imagine a leader who can make the moral case for Capitalism.

You always hear aboot the poor helpless middle-class American being picked on by the evil corporation. Imagine a leader who talks bout the middle-class American who had an idea, started a company in his garage, busted his ass making money, providing for his family, and creating jobs so that others can provide for their family…and how it’s wrong for the government to them come in and take away half his money.

All while tactfully telling the Elizabeth Warren-ite’s to suck it with their parable as the road builder, and that all because one person used the roads to create a business he isn’t indebted to the guy who only used the roads for sick time and vacation days.

Conservatives are always going to be disappointed with leaders who can’t handle the debate, but we also have to be careful rallying (sometimes blindly) behind leaders who scare away anyone slightly to the left of talk radio. Paul Ryan can.

Speaker Ryan would be something special.

I don’t mean to make today look like Paul Ryan day. It just so happened there were a bunch of stories aboot him. You had his response to Newt Gingrich. He was a runner-up for Time’s “Person of the Year.” He also announced a bi-partisan Medicare reform bill will Democrat Senator Ron Wyden. I don’t think there’s been this much attention paid to him since the last round of “Ryan for President” rumours.

It made me think about the people who actually decided to run for President, and the prevailing attitude that if nominated any of these people, that the “tea party” have failed. No one has failed. I think everyone just has to remember that most of our “heroes” have only been there for under two years.

Think about it. Paul Ryan may have been in Congress for a decade, but he only started to get any national attention over the past two years. Look at some of the other heroes that, for many of us, are the ones who motivated us and made us want to be activists:

Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Nikki Haley, Mike Lee, Chris Christie, Allen West, Michael Grimm, Nan Hayworth, Tim Scott, Kristie Noem…I’m sure everyone reading this can add at least five extra names. These are the reason we do what we do. And I get just as frustrated when I look at any of them, look at who we have running for President, and proceed to write “#headdesk” until I run out of character’s on Twitter.

The problem is, none of them have the experience to run for President yet. It takes years and years to prepare someone to not only run for higher office, but to be hold up in the spot and be able to handle being the leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief. And if you don’t believe me, look at who is in the Oval Office now and how well he’s doing with next to no experience.

I would love it if any one of the leaders I’ve been following over the past few years was running for President. I’d be coming to you from New Hampshire right now if they did. They just aren’t ready yet. That’s not a failure of the tea party or conservative activism. Just the opposite. The fact that they’re there in the first place, gaining the knowledge and experience to maybe one day run, is a sign of our success.

I am a Paul Ryan Republican. One day, I hope he does run for higher office. Until then, any of the candidate’s we have running now is better than the one who won in 2008.

Let’s not forget that.

That said, President Obama seemed to launch his re-election campaign against not any of the candidates or the Speaker of the House, but against the Chairman of the House Budget committee. Paul Ryan introduced his budget, “the Path to Prosperity,” last week. Love it or hate it, it’s hard to deny it’s not a serious plan and a clear direction for the country.

Well, yesterday was the President’s turn. He invited Ryan and a few others to hear him speak on his plan for the budget and to tackle the debt. Only instead…

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

Besides the usual class warfare rhetoric and being, as Ryan puts it, “a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen,” the President of the United States decided that instead of presenting his competing vision, when on the attack against a Congressman while he watched from the front row and spent the rest of the day responding and responding some more.

Is it my imagination, or did Paul Ryan just becomes the most powerful Republican in the party? And is there any of us who think that’s a bad thing?

The House budget resolution is the first serious proposal produced by either party to deal with the overriding issue of our time. The national debt we are amassing threatens the livelihood and the liberty of every single American, and in particular the life prospects of our young people. Anyone criticizing this plan without offering a specific and equally bold program of his own has failed in the public duty to be honest and clear with Americans about the gravest danger we are facing together.

This was also the same day Daniels booked another trip to Washington D.C., this time to give a policy address on education reform.

Dude, just announce you’re running already so we can get this shit started.

In today’s New York Times, there was a glowing review of Paul Ryan’s budget plan…same as there was yesterday on The Rush Limbaugh show. I’m willing to bet a majority of NYTimes readers will take the opposite position that Rush’s takes purely on the principle of doing so, yet here was a columnist from the newspaper in near total agreement with one of the top talk radio hosts over a conservative proposal. That’s an entire audience who agrees with Rush Limbaugh, who normally doesn’t agree with Rush Limbaugh, without realizing they agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Brooks also makes a very important point concerting Ryan’s plan and the 2012 election…

The Ryan budget will not be enacted this year, but it will immediately reframe the domestic policy debate. His proposal will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion. It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee. Any candidate hoping to win that nomination will have to be able to talk about government programs with this degree of specificity, so it will improve the G.O.P. primary race.

Do I agree with every column he writes and every comment he makes on every news show? Of course not. I don’t expect to agree with anyone 100 % of the time. I also don’t think people should be thrown overboard for not agreeing with me 100% of the time.

There’s nothing wrong with having people on our side that can take basic conservative messages and principles and present them to a different audience who doesn’t realize it. How many New York Times reader’s do you think read his column today, agreed with him, and realized that so do most of the conservatives they thought they didn’t agree with?

No, of course Paul Ryan isn’t really any of those things, but you have to admit…it got your attention. I’m a dick like that. Besides, Rush Limbaugh calls him “substantively superb” & “politically brilliant,” and our job is to listen to what Rush tells us to.

Sarcasm aside, everyone knows I’m a huge fan of Ryan’s and wrote last week that our inter-family squabbling over last years budget won’t mean anything until next years budget, and it’s here! Rep. Ryan was on Fox News Sunday yesterday to preview it, and the Wall Street Journal has a preview. It’s what we were hoping it would be: four trillion in cuts, reforming Medicare/Medicaid, tax code schtuff, and apparently goes further than the Obama Debt Commission recommended. One side will love it, one side will hate it.

The question is…will Republicans have the balls to support it? We know the game plan. The Democrats will demagogue and play the fear card. Liberal political organizations like MSNBC News will parade every random example of “average folk” affected by budget cuts in front of a camera. We’ve seen it before, and the GOP has cowered each time from any substantial reform or work on the debt.

Here’s hoping they follow Rep. Ryan’s lead, who was asked if they were handing their opponents a “political weapon” ahead of the 2012 elections…

We are. We are giving them a political weapon to go against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon.

Look, we don’t change benefits for anybody over the age of 55. We save Medicare, save Medicaid. We save these entitlement programs. We repair our social safety net, and we get our country a debt-free country for our children and grandchildren’s generation. And we get jobs. We get economic growth.

They are going to demagogue us, and — and it’s that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from actually trying to fix the problem. We can’t keep kicking this can down the road.

The president has punted. We’re not going to follow suit. And, yes, we will be giving our political adversaries things to use against us in the next election, and shame on them if they do that.

Like I said last week (and a lot of us have been saying), it’s nut up or shut up time for the GOP. Who’s going to be on board? Also, which of our 217 potential presidential candidates are going to be the first the fully endorse Ryan’s plan?

Phillip Klein from the Washington Examiner lays it out like this…

If the Ryan budget is really good, achieves steeper cuts with a full fiscal year to work with and begins to address the entitlement crisis, it will help Republicans mitigate the backlash from the base should they compromise on the short-term budget measure. That’s not to say that it will eliminate any frustration from Tea Party groups and other conservative activists, but the GOP leadership would at least have an argument to make — that they came into office nearly halfway into the 2011 fiscal year so their hands were tied on this fiscal year, but when they had more time to work with, they presented a real plan to dig the nation out of its fiscal mess. Of course, if the Ryan budget disappoints, all bets are off.

The Hill has a preview of the budget and whether or not we’re going to finally get serious aboot reforming entitlements…

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will largely give Social Security a pass in his highly anticipated budget while proposing a significant overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid, according to sources briefed on the plan. The 2012 budget resolution, which committee Republicans are still finalizing, is scheduled to be unveiled on Tuesday. It will not back specific benefit cuts to Social Security or suggest raising the retirement age, sources said.

Instead, it will lay out the problems with the program and suggest authorizing committees tackle the specifics. It also will propose “trigger” thresholds for Social Security that, once reached, would ask the president to propose a way to fix the program.

I’m not thrilled aboot skipping social security, but like Meat Loaf says, two out of three ain’t bad. Reforming Medicaid and Medicare will be tough enough without the liberal demagoguery that comes with even saying the words “social” and “security” next to each other (they’ll demagogue over the other two as well, but whatever).

Either way, we can argue amongst ourselves over continuing resolutions and whether certain cuts are enough if we want, but the real fun starts next week…

Just before Paul Ryan gave his response to the State of the Union, I had tweeted “If he pulled a Jindal, I’m gonna wild out and get violent.” This was a reference to Bobby Jindal giving a response two years ago that was so disastrous, this once “rising star in the party” hasn’t really recovered from as far as the “national stage” goes, which really sucked because his was a voice that we could have really used during the healthcare debate.

Thankfully, Ryan was more successful, especially as we’re getting into another debate on health care and are counting on him to be one of our leaders. The day after SOTU, he started to lead in his first hearing as chairman of the House Budget committee. The first thing we learned? Apparently two of the main promises that come with Obamacare are a bunch of hooey…

Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare’s independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday. The landmark legislation probably won’t hold costs down, and it won’t let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it. On the costs issue, “I would say false, more so than true,” Foster responded.

The next day, we find out that Social Security is going to start running defecits a few years earlier than expected…

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation’s finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037. Previously, CBO said Social Security would start running permanent deficits in 2016. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

Don’t get me wrong. Social security running deficits isn’t a “best week ever” for anybody. It is how ever a sign that it’s time to get serious aboot reforming entitlements, and Democrats showed how serious they were this week with the usual scare tactics on how Republicans led by Paul Ryan want to take grandma’s Medicare and social security away.

And that’s not even to say that I find a lot of people on my side who are that serious either. Paul Ryan is one I do, and he was given a national spotlight this week to prove it. That’s why he wins the week.

President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.

Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen.

What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.

*****

As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us.

Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general – and on our deficit and debt in particular.

He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending.

In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress’s own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.

The reason is simple.

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why.

We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

On this current path, when my three children – who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old – are raising their own children, the Federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.

No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.

Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent – and I know many of you feel the same way.

*****

Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.

There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies – an 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as “investment.” Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.

What we already know about the President’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree – and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.

We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.

*****

And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.

Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified – especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.

In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year – in an unprecedented failure – Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.

*****

We owe you a better choice and a different vision.

Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you – to show you how we intend to do things differently … how we will cut spending to get the debt down… help create jobs and prosperity … and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.

These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they’re also about the purpose of government.

So I’d like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.­­

*****

We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that “the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

­­*****

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

­­*****

Whether sold as “stimulus” or repackaged as “investment,” their actions show they want a Federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten – along with record deficits and debt – to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.­­­­

*****

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked – and it won’t work now.

We need to chart a new course.

­­*****

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time… but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

­­­­*****

Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the “central ideas” of the Republic.

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative – not political clout – determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise – but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.

Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.­­

*****

We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That’s the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.­­

*****

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.

And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.

Thank you and good night.

Friday afternoon, it was announced that he was giving the response to the State of the Union on January 25th.

Besides being great to the two of us, this was a great movie by the House GOP. There’s been some concern from those of us on the Right how serious they were aboot actually cutting spending and reforming entitlements, and how much was just campaign rhetoric. Having one of our intellectual leaders and one of our best when it comes to arguing conservative policy (video here and here) give the response, the week after unanimously voting to repeal ObamaCare, at the very least show’s the moxy. Conservatives should rejoice.

Enter Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Express, who apparently think it’s necessary to have their own response to the State of the Union.

Now, contrary to popular belief, I’m not anti “tea party.” Setting aside the occasional wack job the media (and liberal political organizations likes MSNBC, HuffPo, the NYTimes, etc) cherry pick for the sake of their agenda, the “tea party” is a group of motivated citizens and voters who are getting more engaged with politics and policy. It’s the “Tea Party” as a political organization I have an issue with, because they’re the ones who seem to be more focused on making a profit off of the movement, or more focused on their own ego.

Seriously, I can understand having their own response if Lisa Murkowski was selected to give the response. If that was the case, then it would be obvious the GOP doesn’t have a fucking clue. That’s not the case if they’re choosing Paul Ryan. What’s in his message that the Tea Party objects too where a response is necessary? Other than Michelle Bachman is considering a run for president (don’t get me started), what will this accomplish other than give the media fodder when she screams aboot socialism?

My friend Brian Fojtik (go Packers) over on my Facebook page summed up the problem with this best…

Michele Bachmann is attractive and effectively articulat…es a conservative message. And the most dangerous place in America to stand used to be between Jesse Jackson and a TV camera. Now, it’s between Michele Bachmann and a TV camera. Both sides have their interesting characters that put themselves before anything else. She’s ours. Fortunately, no one in the real world will see her comments unless she says something really crazy. It’s not “responding to the SOTU” as every politician and pundit will do. It’s trying to suggest that the GOP response is not a response worthy of the Tea Party. Frankly, I’d like to see what Congressman Ryan says before drawing that conclusion.

Other than the opportunity he had to question the President during the “Health Care Summit” this is Ryan’s first real opportunity to be on THE national stage. That was Single A ball compared to being in The Show for this. Bachmann should be called out for trying to damage that effort. She shouldn’t get a free pass in trying to damage someone who may be the most critically skilled and in the position to actually change the course of the country. She is attempting to achieve personal gain when she could help Ryan change the future of this country.

Count me as one “Tea Partier” who says “Congresswoman Bachmann shame on you! I’ve supported you and stood up for you when you’ve been attacked because I want you to help Paul Ryan reduce government spending, cut entitlements, the whole nine yards. Otherwise, you’re more part of the problem in fixing this country than the solution, so get out of the way or be pushed out.” (metaphorically speaking … I don’t encourage anyone to physically push anyone else).

Tuesday is going to be fun regardless.

I also reserve the right to disavow knowledge of anyone who seriously tries to compare her to Ronald Reagan. A) it’s not funny. B) Reagan is the Republican Highlander: There Can Only Be One.

If she chooses to run, she’s no where near my first choice as a candidate. It isn’t because she’s a woman or not part of the establishment, I just never considered her to be serious. Fine, she knows the catchphrases and the ten word version of conservative dogma, but outside of Fox News and the assignments she posts on Facebook…has anyone challenger her on any of it?

Here’s the rub. The preceding paragraph? All before last Friday when she penned a Wall Street Journal editorial endorsing Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future.” So sayeth Mrs. Palin…

Put simply: Our country is on the path toward bankruptcy. We must turn around before it’s too late, and the Roadmap offers a clear plan for doing so. But it does more than just fend off disaster. CBO calculations show that the Roadmap would also help create a “much more favorable macroeconomic outlook” for the next half-century. The CBO estimates that under the Roadmap, by 2058 per-person GDP would be around 70% higher than the current trend.

Is Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap perfect? Of course not—no government plan ever is. But it’s the best plan on the table at a time when doing nothing is no longer an option.

Let’s not settle for the big-government status quo, which is what the president’s commission offers. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make these tough decisions so that they might inherit a prosperous and strong America like the one we were given.

Obviously anyone reading this blog knows I’m a huge fan of Paul Ryan’s. Does this cause me to jump on the Palin 2012 bandwagon? No. Here’s what I love aboot her latest move though. Ryan’s “Roadmap” is now the floor for any potential Republican presidential candidate. Each and everyone one of them now has to answer as to whether or not they agree with Palin’s endorsement, or come up with a plan of their own.

If Paul Ryan becomes the bare minimum conservatives accept intellectually…THAT’S the debate I want to see in the GOP.

Kudos to Sarah Palin. Now make me a believer.