There's a huge debate...

...going on about Representative Paul Ryan and his Roadmap for America's Future. The discussion over his numbers is extremely wonkish and can make a casual observer's eyes like mine glaze over in a hurry.

So if you're not sure about someone's arguments, what do you do? Well, in the real world, you would try to get some sense of whether the person seemed truly sincere and well-informed. And don't tell me you can't judge a book by its cover; we do it all the time. Like it or not, you automatically size up everyone you come in contact with as either friend or foe. Not only are we hard-wired for it, but I'd guess that most of the time we're right. (You can probably thank evolution for that; those who weren't good at it didn't survive long enough to reproduce.)

Paul Krugman, whom I have come to admire, recently called Ryan a "flimflam man" in his column. And in a post on his blog, "How to Spot a Flimflammer," Krugman says:

Long ago — basically when I started writing for the Times — I decided that I would judge the character of politicians by what they say about policy, not how they come across in person. This led me to conclude that George W. Bush was dishonest and dangerous back when everyone was talking about how charming and reasonable he was. It led me to conclude that Colin Powell couldn’t be trusted, back when everyone said his UN speech clinched the case for war. It led me to conclude that John McCain was unprincipled and self-centered, back when everyone said he was a deeply principled maverick. And yes, it led me to conclude that Barack Obama was a good man, but far less progressive than his enthusiastic supporters imagined.

And so I don’t care how Paul Ryan comes across. I look at how he has gone about selling his ideas, and I see an unscrupulous flimflammer.

This morning, Ezra Klein takes up the subject (after mostly defending Ryan and his numbers) in his blog:

So far as the Ryan brand goes, I actually find his comments on Glenn Beck's show to be a much clearer moment of bad faith than his road map. You can't go around saying “I’m trying to get the discussion to an adult level," and then head to Beck's house and call progressivism "a cancer" and "a complete affront of the whole idea of this country." If you're going to be an adult, you have to be an adult when that's not what your side wants, too. People whose ideas you've called "a cancer" when it suited you will probably find it difficult to extend you the benefit of the doubt when you assure them that you're playing it straight.

(That link is really worth reading, by the way.)

So why do I bring all this up? Because before I read Krugman's and Klein's opinions of Ryan the man, I saw him on CNBC a few times in the last year or so talking about health care reform. And I found his arguments to be truly disingenuous. Reasonable people can disagree, but Ryan was using such Frank Luntz talking points as "government takeover of health care" that were really not helpful to advancing the discussion. My reptilian brain was telling me that he was a snake oil salesman and my impressions have only been reinforced by what I've seen and read about him since.

So put me in the category of those Who Just Don't Trust Paul Ryan, whatever his Roadmap says.