Obama’s deputy campaign manager said that picking House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket wasn’t a “courageous” move because he votes with his party too much.
“You know, being courageous means you have to buck your own party, and Mr. Ryan has never done that,” Stephanie Cutter said on NBC’s Today show this morning.
In the 110th Congress, Obama voted with his party 96 percent of the time. In that same Congress, Ryan voted with his party 92 percent of the time.
Cutter said that Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget plan was not a “pro-growth document” but an “ideological document.”
She also said Democrats feel “pretty confident” about their standing in Wisconsin, despite Ryan being a seven-term congressman from the state.
“I think not just because of the president’s popularity, but because of what the president believes in,” Cutter said.
May be worth bringing up “old Uncle Joe’s” maverick votes in he Senate on the side of the GOP, and not in a nice way.
Cutter’s definition of courage means voting for liberal hogwash? For Pete’s sake, most of the Republicans in Congress are relative moderates. Cutter needs to look at the current Democratic Congressional leadership – radical leftists, every last one.
Sure, like being a courageous soldier means firing on your own troops.
This site needs a “Like” button for comments like yours.
Right, bucking his party and cozying up to the democrats worked real well for McCain, didn’t it?
And as far as Wisconsin goes, Stephanie, the entire population does not belong to a public employees’ union. You should know that because Scott Walker just rubbed your nose in it.
Obama’s ‘courageous’ votes, before he became president, were usually votes in favor of putting pillows in the faces of little babies so I’m not sure there is much to be said for ‘courage’ in the abstract.
But brave, brave Sir Barry was willing to put forward a budget that failed to gain a single vote in the Senate, where his party held a majority! And then he followed that up the following year with one that was unanimously rejected in both the House and Senate.
Name me a president who has shown such bravery. Not in the last 500 years have we had such bravery. You’d have to go back to perhaps the French charging the outnumbered English at Agincourt to see such wonders of leadership.
No matter whom Romney would have picked, we would get the same carping from the Left. The Left has its talking points, and all that remains is to fill in the blanks with the name of the candidate.
Wisconsin? Guess she slept through that recall thing?
Yeah. It would’ve been more courageous had Romney’s VP pick been a Dem. Like, oh, Barack H. Obama. =^[.]^=
You know, Ms. Cutter, you and Obama kinda need to get onto the same page, here. Either Ryan is the “ideological leader” of the GOP, and thus leads it, or he “votes with the GOP”, and thus, follows it. Which is it? Does he lead it or follow it?
Of course, the real answer is that they are just hurling meaningless accusations. Note, I did not say baseless. I said meaningless.
I mean, really, who cares if he is a GOP faithful? He is the VP nominee of the GOP. Isn’t he supposed to be a GOP faithful?
Are they just trying to keep Dems for voting for Repubs or something? If that’s the case, then they have a big problem, one which will not be solved by the our-team-vs-their team nonsense.
In other words.SLUTTER’S upset that Romney actually wants to win,and won’t choose Mcain to be VP.
Joe Lieberman was courageous by Cutter’s definition, and look what happened to him.
Sarah Palin bucked her state’s own Republican party. Did Cutter or ANY leftist/Democrat/progressive/MSM commentator ever call her courageous?