[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

Can views only evolve from one's college days, or only after the same specified amount of time? That's ridiculous. Right, the danger is in misrepresenting Ryan's views for political purposes to falsely influence voters. Of course, if that is your intent, it would be an objective, not a danger.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society

Did he receive "condemnation" from the whole church, Pope and all, or from a bishop? Does that bishop not approve of any of Rand's views? Are all Catholics in lock step about Rand? They certainly aren't about other things. In my opinion, from my reading of the Bible, Christian political activism is a personal rather than a faith based action. Jesus seemed to have little concern for political systems, and certainly little to no concern for secular politics. He stated it succinctly with "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." And he didn't seem to fight for government solutions to poverty and health. Was he not mostly concerned with your individual soul and its salvation? Were his "miracles" which brought back life from death, fed a multitude from a small amount of bread and fish, transformed water to wine, perfomances meant to inspire governments to do the same, or, rather, to inspire those who witnessed to believe in the power of God, not government, to inspire that belief in him was the way to salvation and heaven on earth, not belief in government?

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online


As Scottw points out one is a political philosophy and one is a religious view. Why is it difficult to understand that Ryan can be intelectually influenced by Rand's view on individualism versus collectivism, and yet be spiritually and emotionally moved by his perception of Catholicism?

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Why must Ryan's views evolve like your's? He might have been mini-pandering to the Atlas folks, but it is extremist, absolutist to say he must be totally a Randian, or totally be what a particular bishop considers Catholic?

We were not supposed to care about what inspired Obama, such as his Communist mother and her family, or Reverend Wright, or Bill ayers, so why would voters want to know where Ryan got his inspiration? Isn't the proof in the pudding, as you like to say, not in the cook? How about actually focusing on his plan, not what inspired him?

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern

-spence

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.