So Paul Ryan now rejects Rand's Objectivism.

[Mr Khan]

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

The GOP had better end up clarifying what they view Rand is.  As it was, they were trumpeting Rand as something awesome.  Ryan even said Rand was suitable to provide a moral basis for capitalism.  These are his words.  I would also suggest people be careful what they are saying now, particularly yourself here.  As it is now, you have turned Ryan into some sort of ink blots to make him say what you want him to say.

Why do you consider it some kind of massive flip flop if Ryan agrees with Rand on economics and her moral justifications for capitalism but doesn't agree with her atheism or what people often interpret as her unfeeling rigidity?

Either way, I'm not really sure why Olasky is all bent out of shape about it, unless as an uber-Christian he just can't stand to see people saying something nice about a very un-Christian individual like Rand. But Olasky himself is probably best known for arguing that American anti-poverty programs have been ruinous, and although he later supported Bush's private-public partnerships and faith based initiatives, I remember him running away from those like a scalded dog as they foundered and came under fire.

The point i would say is that if you have issue with a certain part of someone's thinking, then you shouldn't hold up their philosophy as an unqualified good and then later, when it suddenly becomes politically expedient, say "i only like this part of her philosophy, the rest of that crap is dangerous."

It would be just as damning if a Christian Marxist did it, went around touting social revolution but later said "oh, but we need to keep religion around," in a blatant effort to increase political appeal later on.