Josh Schroeder: I'll Give Paul Ryan A Pass

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

I'll Give Paul Ryan A Pass

I oppose the auto industry bailout. It's wrong, it's bad, and I think it will do more harm than good, if it does any good at all.

That being said, I think Michelle Malkin is woefully ignorant in calling Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan an anti-free market Republican.

It's very easy for bloggers and others to take cheap shots. I've taken my share. But Malkin obviously has no understanding of Paul Ryan's congressional district - blue collar union auto worker Janesville and the surrounding area. If Paul Ryan votes against the bailout, his constitutents will run him out of office. I'm not talking about thug tactics, smoke-filled boardroom behind closed doors shenanigans or anything like that. He would be fairly, squarely, and decisively voted out of office.

Paul Ryan is a conservative. He is a fiscal and a social conservative. Unquestionably. But if he takes a principled stand on this specific issue against the will of his constituents, then Congressman Ryan goes back to the private sector. It's absolutely guaranteed.

Do the cost / benefit analysis. Conservative Paul Ryan votes his district in support of the auto bailout and continues to fight for conservative principles on other issues and fights for real, meaningful reform beyond 2010. Or, Paul Ryan votes against the bailout and is hounded by his constitutents for the next two years, a constituency that will NOT forget between now and election day.

Is it disappointing that he voted for the auto bailout? You bet! But it doesn't mean he's gone native, sold out, or anything like that. Because of his district, he's not in a position to vote against it. Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District is largly made up of auto worker union families. I am not going to hold that against him.

If you hate conservative Paul Ryan for voting for the auto bailout, then you must want a Democrat to replace him in 2010. It's that simple.

7 comments:

steveegg said...: Let's do the math:

Ryan's margin of victory in 2008 - 105,741 (out of 361,107 votes cast)

I somehow doubt there are over 52,500 UAW members/family/sympathizers who voted for Ryan in 2008 that would suddenly start listening to their union and vote straight-D had he done the fiscally-responsible thing and not supported the UAW bailot. I'll lay odds that the number is far closer to 525.

And before you say that he needed to do this to have a shot at the Senate in 2010, essentially the entirety of the rump of the Big Three-related auto industry in Wisconsin (which, come 12/24, will consist of a Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha and some minor auto parts manufacturing) is in the 1st. I rather doubt that the his support of the UAW bailout will play well in the other 7/8ths of the state; it won't get him any votes that would otherwise go to Feingold, and it only angers those otherwise inclined to wholeheartedly support him.; 10:48 PM
Josh Schroeder said...: I don't think it has to do with Senate aspirations, whether he has them or not.

He did win by a very healthy margin in the year of Obama, but I don't see your district re-electing him if he had voted against the UAW bailout.; 11:04 PM
steveegg said...: I strongly disagree with that. I say that knowing that Janesville is Ryan's hometown.; 11:43 PM
Dan @ Necessary Roughness said...: I don't know anything about the local politics (thank you Tip O' Neill) but I do know that liberals and unions never gave President Bush any benefit when he caved in to them. He might as well have stuck to his principles. Cave-ins and compromises usually don't work.; 7:41 AM
Josh Schroeder said...: Hi Dan, it's not about the UAW and union bosses like Gettelfinger. It's about the auto worker families and the retirees who live in his district.

It's not about the unions per se, but the line workers and others who belong to the union.

Many individuals would take it personally if he had voted against the auto bailout and they'd punished him in the next election.; 7:50 AM
Chris said...: The argument you are using as a consequence of the premise, "He will not get elected.", does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

I think it is fair to say that he actually would attract a large proportion of people simply because he stood up for consistent principals. So many in fact, it might outweigh the number of people who would vote for someone else because they thought he was simply a political whore.

What do you think the percentage of UAW workers who vote for him is?

There simply is no evidence that had he voted differently, a Democrat would replace him.; 11:48 PM
Josh Schroeder said...: No, I'm not providing any concrete evidence. I'm not making a structured logical argument with figures or statistics.

GM has been in Janesville for almost a century. When you hear Janesville, auto manufacturing is one of the first things that comes to mind.

What, do you want me to conduct a poll of people in the first congressional district to see how many of them are sympathetic to the Big 3 and don't want them to go bankrupt?

Paul Ryan is a limited government, free markets conservative. After all, he's the driving force of "A Roadmap for America's Future" which aims to control government spending, reduce debt, limit government, etc. I admit that his vote undercuts that argument to some degree.

When a congressman votes contrary to his own ideology, there's usually a good reason for it. Paul Ryan is not a RINO. I am not convinced that he's gone native and been corrupted by Washington, D.C.

As to whether or not we as conservatives should throw him under the bus (or if he threw himself in front of it) the burden of proof is on the side claiming he's become a RINO.

I can't think of any reason for him to vote for the bailout other than simply voting his district. No other explanation makes any sense to me.

Don't misunderstand my position - he voted the wrong way on the auto industry bailout. And from a conservative standpoint, it is right to be critical of this vote.

But I assume that on balance, much more of his constituents favored the bailout than opposed it. I could very well be wrong on that. But I don't see the 1st CD re-electing him in 2010 had he voted against it.; 2:02 AM