If you watched Tuesday night's show, you saw Rachel explain that Mitt Romney's position on Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization scheme hasn't exactly been consistent.
In May 2011, he was against the Ryan plan to end Medicare. Six months later, he was for it. More recently, on Monday, Romney said his plan for Medicare is "very similar" to Ryan's proposal, but on Tuesday, the Romney campaign said the plans are "very different."
And 24 hours after the Romney campaign said the two policies are "very different," Romney told a reporter in Green Bay, Wisconsin the opposite again.
For those who can't watch clips online, the WBAY reporter asked, "Your senior campaign advisor said Sunday if the Ryan budget would have come to your desk you would have signed it. In a January debate you called it a proposal that was absolutely right on. So I guess, why now are you distancing yourself from at least the Medicare portion of the Ryan budget?"
Romney replied, "Actually Paul Ryan and my plan for Medicare I think is the same -- if not identical it's probably close to identical."
Romney and his aides had two weeks to decide what their position is on this issue. They knew the questions were coming, they knew the American mainstream hates the Ryan plan to end Medicare; and they knew voters would be expecting at least some coherence.
But the contradictions persist, in part because the right hand doesn't know what the further-right hand is doing: "Some [Romney] advisers have gone on television to say publicly that he wholly and enthusiastically endorsed Ryan's budget proposals and would, if president, have signed it. Others have sought to distance him from it."
As of last night, Romney still wants to destroy the existing Medicare guarantee, replacing it with a voucher system that force seniors to either ration care, pay thousands more, or both.
Update: By Jed Lewison's count, Team Romney has taken six competing positions on the Ryan Medicare plan this week.
Leave a Comment:
I thought the McCain campaign was weak, but I don't think I have ever seen a campaign implode so badly before the convention. The Romney campaign needs leadership, maybe the leadership that comes from a candidate who (1) knows who he is and what he stands for, and (2) can actually lead.
The only thing Romney has ever believed in his life is "Me first!" and he is at least consistent about that. He will do anything to be "first." Which is why he is the most dangerous individual to ever run for the office of president. The fundies talk about the "antichrist," well Willard the Wanker is the antichrist of candidates.
If a friend of yours consistently flip-flopped over everything he ever said, what would your opinion be of that person? Exactly. You might consider confronting your friend, but chances are you would eventually unfriend them. Why would anyone elect someone with this character defect as an elected official. How can you even trust someone who has all these dishonest qualities. Seriously, now is the time to look away from physical appearances and elect someone by thier principles and their genuine desire to make things better for The American People not just the chosen few that Rmoney chooses to speak to. He hasn't even mentioned the word Middle Class in a very long time, why is that? Because they are acting as if The Middle Class has already been obliviated.
"By Jed Lewison's count, Team Romney has taken six competing positions on the Ryan Medicare plan this week."
And it's only Thursday. The week is still young.
Mitt's position is really simple to ascertain: whatever the teabaggers tell him, which is "taxes only for our military dominance, and just eviscerate government otherwise." pejorative for tp fully intended.
Maybe he should have a personal primary to sort them out! I was entertained by the string of GOP primaries earlier this year; this could only be more surreal!
Democratic party of exclusionary process for the Pro Life Democrats. Pro Life Democrats Need Not Apply.
Sad days for democracy within the democratic party. Pro Lifers, you are the less than 99% radicals who alone have voice within the democratic party, there-fore, GO HOME!
Wait another 20 years perhaps before the democratic party advisors and leaders will listen to your voices. Tragic witness to the democratic party's false "inclusionary vision".
Democrats reject move to acknowledge pro-life stance within party
By Michelle Bauman
0 Comments
10
Washington D.C., Aug 16, 2012 / 02:06 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A Democratic committee has rejected efforts to broaden the party's platform in order to acknowledge and welcome “differing positions” on the issue of abortion.
Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America, told CNA on Aug. 15 that there is a lack of understanding about the extent of pro-life support within the Democratic Party.
She explained that it can be difficult for pro-life Democrats to speak up about their views, because they face attacks not only from their Republican opponents, but from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America as well.
According to Democrats for Life, nearly one-third of all Democrats self-identify as pro-life, and in the 2008 election, about one-fourth of Obama’s supporters considered themselves pro-life.
“These numbers are not trivial,” the group said, pointing to Gallup polling information from 2011 revealing that 61 percent of Democrats support “parental consent for minors seeking abortion.”
In addition, the polling data found that 60 percent of Democrats approved of a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, and 84 percent of party members support informed consent requirements.
Furthermore, 49 percent of Democrats are in favor of ultrasound requirements before an abortion, while 59 percent support a ban on partial-birth abortions, the data indicated.
“We represent a large contingent and a diverse group of pro-life democrats who want to be represented in the Democratic Party,” said Janet Robert, who serves as president of Democrats For Life of America.
“As a big tent party that is open-minded and inclusive, we should be welcoming to those who are pro-life,” she explained.
“A stronger inclusive party allows us to focus on the issues that unite us such as providing economic opportunity for everyone.”
In an attempt to bring about change, Democrats for Life submitted written testimony proposing new platform language on July 20 and was permitted to subsequently provide oral testimony before the party’s drafting committee.
According to the group, it was the first time in more than 20 years that the committee had heard from a pro-life voice within the party.
The proposed platform language acknowledged that members of the Democratic Party “have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty.”
“However, we can find common ground,” it added, emphasizing the party’s unity in supporting policies to aid those facing difficult pregnancies.
It also promoted “a breadth of options” for women facing pregnancies, including support and resources for adoption and parenthood, with access to education, healthcare and childcare.
“We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term,” the proposed platform addition stated.
But despite the organization’s efforts, the request to broaden the party’s platform on abortion was rejected by the committee, Day said.
Despite the setback, Democrats for Life is planning to showcase pro-life party leaders at an event at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
"Our message is simple,” explained Day in a statement. “If you are pro-life and a Democrat, you can make a difference, thus the case for recognition.”
Look at that, even after getting seriously into the Guinness so early, our own little bog-stupid Auld Sod can cut and paste just like a real wingnut.
I thought the original post was signed by Michelle Bachman at first... my bad.
Irish Pat Why take up all this space on a message board with an issue that is totally unrelated to this news release? If you're a Democrat, and if you want to have a baby, you are free to do so,(provided you're a woman and can carry to term). That's the Democratic Party position. Nothing more needs be said.
66% of the Irish in Ireland agree with me TC. You're just bringing up the "rear end" with the other 33% or so. Guess that makes an A$$ outta You. Sure an I can cut n' paste with the best of 'em. But the likes a you, can only form two sentances at a time no matter the time a day. With a couple a pints in ya', or no.
You are, The lowly 33% soooooooooo,
Suas Do Chu'
Why Troy Donahue, I know what you want to do? Keep your filthy paws off my silky draws.
My real question is this IrishPat
What does having 66% of the Irish in Ireland agreeing with you. Have anything to do with the US, The Democratic Party and it's views on Abortion?
That's like saying that 66% of Russians agree with you. That Smirnoff sucks. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Hey IrishPat
Two quick things:
1) You should have waited for someone to write an article on the Romney/Ryan position on abortion: it is basically the Catholic Church's position on abortion when you look at things that Ryan has proposed (no abortion, no exceptions--you can have your funny uncle's bruises *and then* his baby). It would have had a greater impact then and you would have seemed much less of a fruitcake for posting whole news pieces.
2) Had you waited to post for an actual abortion-related entry here, removing the "cartago delenda est" aspect from your post, it would have been a lot less obvious that your position (and the position of all abortion opponents) is essentially an expression of the desire to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them with the force of law.
You might not get this, coming as you do from an ancient, priest-ridden land, but most of us in America don't like the idea of a religious monoculture where the holy men have vast temporal power. Our squabbles over this might make it seem otherwise at times, but if you take a close look at the law behind our laws, The Constitution, you will find it as clear as day and in black and white.
If you're so concerned about children go have a child and leave everyone else alone.
He is doing what alot of them have been trained to do , throw the word abortion out there in the middle of everything. The answer is mute. He is scrambling, just like the GOP.
Although the original comment was not posted in response to the article I think the man brings up a point worth noting. As a Liberal/Catholic I know there are many out there who are pro-life Catholics but also know that Obama would be a much better choice than Romney. Single issue voters, pro-lifers, will vote for Romney because of that, not because they are Democrats or Repubicans. But most of the Catholics I know realize the greater threat to a christ-valued society lies with the Republican party and their agenda. Or has something changed recently?
Would it hurt to put something in the plank to the effect that Democrats also value human life but also value freedom of choice? If we could at least acknowledge that these people are out there it might help more solidify the party. And right now every effort counts. Don't dismiss this guy just because of who he is.
Re #4...It's typical rightwing strategy. "Hey forget what coherent thought you might have - lookie lookie over here! I've got the most amazing and intriguing irrelevant social issue that will get your mind off of whatever the topic you were thinking about." Flipfloppery? How about a post about Abortion? Bain - forget that, let's repeal Obamneycare! Massachusetts governorship? Hey how about that $716B stolen from Medicare? Is that distracting or what? I got a million of 'em.
This rapidly developing story of Medicare's place in the campaign will be the ultimate text for America's corporate media.
Will media work for democracy and ferret out the details of the ACA and its positive impact upon our nation's economy and health care or continue to vaguely reference it as Obamacare?
Will the MSM scrutinize Mr. Romney's "plan", his vague obfuscations, and facts&truth bending or simply glaze over the policy consequences of the Ryan Budget?
Politics is no spectator sport, and if Romney's 1% radical rough-riders are to be held at the gates, IDs must be gotten, registrations must be made, and voting must be completed with the laser beam focus of punishing the Republican brand at the polls!
In 2010, a corporate sponsored "grass-roots" movement was underwritten, and it worked for them Tea Partying sorts.
But remember 2008?
Get the word out for a repeat performance in 2012! -Kevo
Romney just isn't ready for prime time. The election is less than 3 months away and he's STILL NOT PREPARED to give specifics on ANY issue. He's had months (years) to prepare for this campaign. What is he thinking?!?
The following sentence violates all the logic of the rules of the English language when it comes to sentence construction:
"What is Romney thinking?" It is logically impossible to say this, since the man obviously does not have the equipment to do what is implied.
Considering some of his more interesting actions, including becoming governor of Massachusetts, screwing it up and then taking away the hard drives of the computers in the Governor's office with him. One can only wonder what he is thinking... and shudder at one's own conclusions.
Perhaps Mitt suffered some lasting brain damage during his French car accident. Perhaps getting slapped with reality every day in his campaign is causing his memory problems. His presentation under pressure is symptomatic of something. To be kind I offer the above.
I remember not too long ago a reporter talking about listening to a Romney and taking notes, getting the "money quote" down word for word. Five minutes after the speech was over, he asked Romney about the quote and Romney looked him right in the eye and said "I didn't say that." This guy is so far past the normal run-of-the-mill lie, he is so far beyond the usual b.s. lie. He is without a doubt the single most serious psychopath to ever run for the office.
Flip-Flop-Flip? It looks like the Republican attempt to run on medicare isn't working so as was predicted yesterday by TRMS it looks like they will etch-a-sketch to Mitt's record as Governor of Massachusetts.
Obama has a great 'Broken Promises' ad out since the end of May. I don't think Mitt's going to have much luck running on Massachusetts either.
http://youtu.be/PlnaYOv0DZY
He knows what's in all of these plans. This is part of the deception campaign. They'll be identical unless it's inconvenient at the time, and they'll be "very different" when it's convenient.
That's the campaign. I believe they'll do this right up until election day, avoid giving out any details. Lie about Obama when in front of every audience, and sidestep every question.
The trick is to put him in front of reporters who will ask the right questions. And the debates: those are going to be good....... "Mr Romney, what is your plan for the tax code? --Well, as you know, we're going to save the county from Mr. Obama." It'll be a lesson in tap dance.
More flip-flops here than a San Francisco bathhouse!
This thing they keep saying about it'll "cost seniors $6000 more out of pocket" just cracks me UP.
I'm a senior (66) on Social Security only, no pension. $614 a month. That's $7368 a year. Just WHERE do they think this $6000 "MORE" is going to come from? Are they completely clueless about Social Security and what a small amount it is to live on?
Clearly nobody on Paul Ryan's side has ever checked in to see how much the average senior lives on.
*chuckle*
Thank you, JanH! I've said exactly what you just said, many times! Vulture & Voucher want to pretend that every senior out there is sitting on a magnificent retirement package, and oh...that pesky $6,400 more is just noooo big deal! It doesn't matter that you're 66 now and they try to convince people that anyone 55+ will be untouched. First off, I don't believe that for one second, they are way too untrustworthy. Second, what about the 54 year old? There are TONS of people out there who will be in your exact situation, and I'm one of them. I am looking at SS to live on, nothing more. You can't extract another $6400 from a yearly income of $7k to $12k (or whatever), it simply isn't possible. THIS is where we will have seniors dying at some point, when they are forced to choose between eating and getting basic medical care. They're going to choose to eat, and then die from assorted medical problems.
This is not what the U.S. is supposed to stand for, that we stand by and let our older people just die for lack of care. We're the only developed country doing this crap and it's time to stop it and get modern, and stop the greed in the private sector which is RAPING our seniors.
Do they honestly think that those of us who have just passed 50 with no pension aren't paying attention?
I was beginning to think I was the only one with no retirement plan. I am definitely paying attention, and totally agree with you. And, why on earth, would anyone even consider voting for someone without knowing that someone's policies and background? (including suspicious income tax returns)
"if there's one thing McCain is an expert on, it's picking running mates"
HaHaHaHaHa
Palin wasn't vetted appropriately; what is the excuse for Ryan going to be?
Whenever I see the names Romney and Ryan in the same sentence, I keep getting this vision of the Rolls Royce emblem.
Fitting, I think.
Pathological.
Folks, everyone's overthinking Mitt Romney waaaaaaaaay too much. It's very simple. He's very simple.
Mitt Romney is a businessman. More, MItt Romney is used to being the senior man in the room. The CEO. The Boss. Period. Full Stop.
When the Boss walks into the room and says something, his subordinates don't ask for clarification or correct him. When he says something in direct opposition to something he's said earlier, it's your ass if you point that out.
I've worked with people like this over the last fifteen years and - yes - they are unbelievable by their very nature. They exist in a bubble where if they crapped their pants, one of their yes-men would leap up and apologize for it. Worse, their legion of yes-men would fight over the privilege to assume responsibility for those soiled trousers.
Mitt Romney is having a hard time because he cannot comprehend why Obama, the media, other Republicans, etc., are questioning him. Because you don't question MItt Romney. If he says the sky is green you simply agree with him and compliment him on his keen powers of observation.
I'm still not convinced that Willard Romney will be the party's standard-bearer. He has screwed up his campaign so royally that Republican delegates to their national convention have to be shaking their heads in disgust. It's not too late for them to change their minds and select someone else.
And for those of you who will cite their rules that would prohibit such an occurrence, just look at what Republican committees in several states have done last-minute, changing their rules to keep Ron Paul away from the speaker's podium in Tampa.
Damn, this is my local news affiliate who by and large are more fair than our local NBC affiliate that is more to the right than Fox here. Yet I had to call them out on Tuesday when they peed themselves over the fact our old gov Tommy Thompson won the R primary for Senate
. You would have thought he won the gd election by the coverage. Tammy Baldwin for Senate!
Of course Romney gave six different answers--he was speaking to six different groups, and each wanted him to say something different!
Can anyone name a single issue on which Romney has taken an unpopular position and defended it because he believes in it?
It's actually a very clever stratagem: they take every possible position, from disagreement on every detail, to complete and total mirror support. That way, they can never go wrong! Which I guess is what makes them Right?
Seriously though, at least I know where Obama stands on most issues, regardless of that stance. Romney just says what people want to hear and changes that statement when the crowd changes. That's not just irritating, it's dangerous. I for one, think he'll revert to LibeRomney if he gets in, then claim any successful ideas as his own, as every president does, and blame failures on his predecessor as every president does. Yay politics!
When I mentioned to a friend how upset I am over GOP attempts to suppress voters, he told me that the President has filed a law-suit to stop member of the military from voting. I don't watch Fox news, so I haven't heard anything about this. Can you clarify?
Isn't it interesting that Ron Paul isn't the candidate, but Gov. Romney choose Paul Ryan as his running mate. A play on words?
Jiminycriket - by extending voting on weekends beyond military to everyone (was this in one state or all, I forget), he took away their special privilege, I guess. That, though, is more than a stretch, that's a lie. That's a 3-yr-old's view of the world, at least. If my brother gets an ice cream, too, then mine's not as special! Of course, it's only about misleading (lying) to the public.
JanH said, "This thing they keep saying about it'll "cost seniors $6000 more out of pocket" just cracks me UP. I'm a senior (66) on Social Security only, no pension. $614 a month. That's $7368 a year. Just WHERE do they think this $6000 "MORE" is going to come from? Are they completely clueless about Social Security and what a small amount it is to live on? Clearly nobody on Paul Ryan's side has ever checked in to see how much the average senior lives on."
Jan, you have my sympathies. With apologies for snarking off your difficulties, as far as I can tell, the Romney-Ryan position seems to be that seniors in your position you are just going to have to a) ask their parents for help, b) scrounge around to see if they don't have a million dollar inheritance lying around that they've forgotten about, or c) draw down the principal in one of their overseas accounts. That last is particularly regrettable, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and do stuff like that.
Romney is proving himself not an Etch-a-Sketch, but a whole damn Etch-a-Sketch Convention.
I have never voted for or against a candidate for Pres. based upon his position on birth control. It just doesn't seem relevent to the position for which he is running. I think the positions on domestic and foreign affairs are the basis for which one should be evaluated. We know exactly what pres. Obama's stands for and his positions. Mr. Romney not so much as it changes everyday. His expedition to Europe was a flop. He is a legend in his own mind for sure. I must add no candidate for Pres. who has not revealed several years of tax returns has ever been elected to office. What is he so ashamed of?
It is CouponCare. That is what everyone in the Dem party and the media should call it. It has a better ring to it than voucher.