I keep saying Paul Ryan may believe in social conservative principles, but he's not out there talking about it. Here's me putting my money where my mouth is.
Through the magic of google docs (and my willingness to commit time, since I'm a second-semester senior in this job), I've copied everything back for a full year into this searchable (use the find/replace feature) public document:
Why stop at August 2011? Because this document is already 157 pages, and I do still have a day job, even if I am leaving it soon. Also that time period includes discussion of the contraception mandate and implementation of the DADT repeal. So lots of opportunities to talk about hating women or gays if the spirit moves you. I did skim the headers all the way back to January 1 2011 looking for anything talking about morality, or any interviews with Catholic or religious interest groups. I found one on July 11 2011, so I added that at the end. Feel free to add older stuff to the document, or just review it on the site linked above.
One other methodological note--there are a handful of pieces here that just had a video--for those I included just the headline and any pull quote they had on the website, plus the link. The vast majority of video appearances had transcripts or at least highlights, and those are here.
Mentions of Contraception: 8. All in the context of religious freedom and the contraception mandate.
The words gay, lesbian, DADT, "traditional family": 0
Budget: 726
Debt: 396
Deficit: 95
There are a number of interviews with Christian Broadcasting Network, the National Catholic register, Our Sunday Visitor or similar religious media groups included in the document - ample opportunities to talk about socially conservative issues with a friendly audience if you wanted to--he doesn't.
So here's the record, I've made it very accessible I think. Show me a man who is out championing the social conservative cause...
Thanks for doing this, y4m. Not going to change my vote, as I fundamentally disagree with Ryan on most everything (and I find it a bit absurd that someone who rubber stamped all of Bush's spending is suddenly the austerity guy). But it's good info to have.
Thanks for doing this. For me, I do not think that he is out championing social conservative causes but what is known of his social conservative stance is enough to give me pause. Honestly though, his complete 180 to a fiscal conservative is what gets me riled up.
Thank you for doing this. I'll take a more careful look when I have time, but I would not be surprised if he's using less explicit terms about abortion, i.e. talking about his views on abortion without actually uttering the word.
Also, he may not be championing his causes verbally, but the signing/co-signing of bills that I strongly disagree with (even if they end up getting nowhere) is more than enough for me to realize this guy is so not my political match.
Thank you for doing this. I'll take a more careful look when I have time, but I would not be surprised if he's using less explicit terms about abortion, i.e. talking about his views on abortion without actually uttering the word.
I'm happy to search for any term you come up with. "Choice" is a tough one, because it could appear in so many other contexts, as is life.
Ultrasound and Trimester might be good ones - they are both 0s.
Women is in here 10 times--only one is in a healthcare context (and that's the text of a question from George Stephanolopous, not something Ryan said).
And Woman is a fun one - it's in here three times, twice as part of the word "businesswoman" and once talking about Obama ads showing him pushing an elderly woman off a cliff in a wheelchair.
And Woman is a fun one - it's in here three times, twice as part of the word "businesswoman" and once talking about Obama ads showing him pushing an elderly woman off a cliff in a wheelchair.
That made me LOL. I was thinking about the word "life" but holy hell that probably comes up 80 million times.
Thanks for doing this. For me, I do not think that he is out championing social conservative causes but what is known of his social conservative stance is enough to give me pause. Honestly though, his complete 180 to a fiscal conservative is what gets me riled up.
Non-snarky question, and I am sincerely seeking a substantive discussion here, what would have been the better path for him to follow on fiscal matters?
Thanks for doing this. For me, I do not think that he is out championing social conservative causes but what is known of his social conservative stance is enough to give me pause. Honestly though, his complete 180 to a fiscal conservative is what gets me riled up.
Non-snarky question, and I am sincerely seeking a substantive discussion here, what would have been the better path for him to follow on fiscal matters?
I am wondering this as well. Can't a person be wrong, especially as one becomes more seasoned and changes that cause a greater focus on our impeding fiscal cliff.
Life is boring. 34 mentions, definitely none in an abortion context. Mostly mentions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or stations in life, or lifelines.
Most interesting/controversial mention is this one, though he didn't actually use the word:
Laura Ingraham: End of life procedures are next, are they not? Congressman Ryan: If you look at IPAB, that’s the Independent Payment Advisory Board, that’s being assembled this year. It’s fifteen bureaucrats that the President appoints, and their job is to put price controls and edicts onto Medicare to tell Medicare providers how much they are going to get reimbursed, for what procedure, if where, when, and how. That to me simply leads to rationing. That to me is not having a patient-doctor relationship driven medical system. It is a top-down bureaucratic edict and, what’s more insidious about this IPAB is there reforms or dictates can go right into law without Congress really doing anything about it. That to me is another example of this kind of governing philosophy which takes control of our country away from we the people and gives it away to a bureaucratic elite.
Non-snarky question, and I am sincerely seeking a substantive discussion here, what would have been the better path for him to follow on fiscal matters?
I am wondering this as well. Can't a person be wrong, especially as one becomes more seasoned and changes that cause a greater focus on our impeding fiscal cliff.
I *think* I know where stbk is going based upon other posts, and I can understand her position. I just want to make sure I understand since miscommunication seems to be a recurring theme of late around here.
That to me simply leads to rationing. That to me is not having a patient-doctor relationship driven medical system. It is a top-down bureaucratic edict and, whatÂ’s more insidious about this IPAB is there reforms or dictates can go right into law without Congress really doing anything about it.
Wait a minute. He's opposed to my death panels?? Third party it is.
I am wondering this as well. Can't a person be wrong, especially as one becomes more seasoned and changes that cause a greater focus on our impeding fiscal cliff.
I *think* I know where stbk is going based upon other posts, and I can understand her position. I just want to make sure I understand since miscommunication seems to be a recurring theme of late around here.
I'd like to understand as well. Is he being compared to an ideal, or to everyone else in Congress?
"Values" - 6 times, always in the context of founding principles and values, American values, etc. Never with the word "family" anywhere nearby.
ETA: Family, by the way, 5 times, never in the context of a traditional family (it's things like provide for your family, any family on a budget can tell you, etc.)
So what does this mean then? If his record doesn't show evidence of him toeing the social conservative line, would/are social conservatives happy with him as the pick? Or do they feel the opposite way I do - that his actions with co-signing the bills that he's co-signed are satisfactory? I'm assuming the latter.
Thank you for doing this. I'll take a more careful look when I have time, but I would not be surprised if he's using less explicit terms about abortion, i.e. talking about his views on abortion without actually uttering the word.
Also, he may not be championing his causes verbally, but the signing/co-signing of bills that I strongly disagree with (even if they end up getting nowhere) is more than enough for me to realize this guy is so not my political match.
Yeah. How many times does the word shmashmorshon show up?
FTR, both Packers fans and ice fishing enthusiasts are certifably INSANE. That alone should be enough to disqualify someone from being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
So what does this mean then? If his record doesn't show evidence of him toeing the social conservative line, would/are social conservatives happy with him as the pick? Or do they feel the opposite way I do - that his actions with co-signing the bills that he's co-signed are satisfactory? I'm assuming the latter.
I think he does just enough to not ruffle feathers there. The perfunctory votes almost every Republican does, a few key cosigns (but notably no original authorship that I can find) the piece about Life for Heritage, not sticking his neck out in the other direction much either (though the ENDA bill is a notable exception that hasn't had much traction here I've noticed)--and he did say at the time that he got flack from the social right for that.
I'm not saying he's not pro-life. I absolutely believe he is, and I can respect that view even though I don't share it. But on the list of issues he's championed in this extensive record, it's simply not there.