why is this difficult?....

in the first case he's referring to Rand's political philosphy:

"that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism"

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[103] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[104] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[105] Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[106] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[107]


and in the second he's referring to her religeous philosophy(or lack of)......and in response to "These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does."



“I reject her (objectivist) philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview."



Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[91] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[92]

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[93




if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[72] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[73] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[74] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[75] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it..........

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you were smarter than that:uhuh:

The greater cause for concern in the campaign rhetoric the next few months, in the interest of informing the voters, is truthful debate. Both sides are claiming this to be a most important election. It is fitting, then, to be honest, not to merely win, not to lie or influence by inuendo or implications.

Weiss's article is very much inuendo and implication--that mixture of half truths and facts meant to imply contradictions that don't exist. Somewhat similar to your post earlier in this thread in response to the National Review article on Ryan's plan where you said that the author "admits" the plan might be a "total failure" . . ." twice!" There was no such "admission." There was speculation that "if" it did, things would simply revert to the present state which the Democrats seem to prefer. And if that is "total failure," then the status quo that the Dems prefer is a total failure. And the article was far more optimistic about Ryan's plan than your assertion, and its choice of words, implies.