My two totally non-partisan reactions to the Ryan pick

Russell Saunders 20 Comments

Well, first my totally partisan reaction — I was never in a million, billion years going to vote to Mitt Romney, and his veep pick certainly did not move that timeline up any.  As an apparently easy-to-spot non-statist liberal, I am entirely certain that I will hate just about everything the gentleman from Wisconsin serves up, policy-wise, between now and November.  (Y’know, what with my having hated everything he’s served up so far and all.)

But I have two vaguely nice things to say about the choice:

1)  Dude has dreamy eyes.  As we approach the oppressive slog to the ballot box over the coming months, it doesn’t break my heart to have to look at him.

2)  At least he’s not an idiot.  For the first time in a dozen years, I can look at the Republican ticket and consider it moron-free.  (W. may not have been stupid per se, but was so flagrantly intellectually incurious as to have mooted the question.)  While it’s sad that “not an idiot” was clearly absent from the veep-candidate checklist the last time around, it’s nice to see that 2012’s choice has cleared that particular hurdle.

That’s not to say that I think his budget proposals make any sense, or that I think his wishes for the country would make it a better place.  Far from it.  As someone who is on the record as supporting a robust social safety net, I’m not taken with Rep. Ryan’s vision of replacing it with a delicate tracery of cobwebs.  I’ll be pulling the lever for the competition, I’m afraid.  However, at least his selection didn’t make my blood boil with contempt like the last one, and I’m just the littlest bit grateful that I’m able to say so.

Russell Saunders

Russell Saunders is the ridiculously flimsy pseudonym of a pediatrician in New England. He has a husband, three sons, daughter, cat and dog, though not in that order. He enjoys reading, running and cooking. He can be contacted at blindeddoc using his Gmail account. Twitter types can follow him @russellsaunder1.

More Posts Twitter

20 Comments

  1. 1) Dude has dreamy eyes. As we approach the oppressive slog to the ballot box over the coming months, it doesn’t break my heart to have to look at him.

    Does it mean something that when paid pundits make that kind of superficial remark I cringe, but when you do it I find it hilarious?

    • Well, I’m hoping it’s because when I say it it’s lacking any of the faux self-seriousness that drips like so much molasses from paid pundits?

      • It’s that in part of course. But also I think that in gay men commenting the looks of a male politician who opposes gay equality lie the seeds for a humorous mind-fish.

      • And because when it comes from pundits, they’re doing a sales job (like Lisa Schiffren going on about how sexy Bush looked in his flight suit), while Russell is being openly superficial.

        On a similar note, I think Sarah Palin is really hot, and I just wish her combination of self-righteousness, entitlement, self-pity, and inability to construct a simple sentence didn’t make it impossible even to entertain a fantasy about her.

  2. I don’t think Ryan’s an idiot. But, he’s certainly not as smart as the Beltway and right-wing press would live to you to believe, especially considering most of his “Path of Propserity” was throwing together various conservative think tank in an ideas.

    • “Not an idiot” ≠ “super genius.”

      I don’t expect my elected officials to be ultra-smart. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that being ultra-smart is always the best thing in an elected official. But since “not an idiot” is not always a given in one’s candidates for higher office, I’m happy to give credit where it’s due in this case.

    • most of his “Path of Propserity” was throwing together various conservative think tank in an ideas

      Kinda like Obamacare,

      • Is it possible anymore to draft a policy proposal that couldn’t be accurately characterized this way?

        • Sure. To get it passed? probably not.

          OTOH, Obama did talk about running some anti-trust on the insurance companies. I’d say that’s an impressive endrun around people trying to stab you in the back. And they got the point.

  3. I don’t know if this just demonstrates my confidence in my own heterosexuality, or throws it into question… but I noticed his eyes. That, along with the hair and the five o’clock shadow he often wears makes for a reasonably attractive package. The only downsides are that the paleness of his eyes and paleness of his skin gives him an almost ghostly look. At least in some of the pictures I’ve seen.

    Sarah Palin is attractive in a particular way, but she ruins it somewhat with her fashion sense (or lack thereof). Her glasses (a nice touch) are undone by everything else. Back when she had a job and had to dress like it, it worked.

    • While we’re talking on this type of grounds…would it be out of bounds for me to say that I wish Michelle Obama would wear shorter, tighter dresses more often?

      +4…

  4. On the subject of the Congressman’s comeliness, it occurs to me that young good looking powerful men are subject to an awful lot of temptation. Not saying (*at all*) that Ryan has succumbed to any of that sort of temptation, but man, I can’t say I wouldn’t. Particularly if the family is 1500 miles away and I’m sleeping on the couch in my office.

    • and this is part of the reason why blackmailing politicians is easy… they feel like they deserve to cheat, to do drugs, etc etc.

  5. Sarah Palin loses the attractiveness as soon as she opens her mouth.

    Luckily, you can substitute Tina Fey and it’s all good.

    • Tina Fey is so smart and funny and charming that her (awesome) looks are secondary, so that’s a different fantasy entirely.

Comments are closed.