To keep everything in one place, here is a press release from his office about abortion and the rights of pro-life employees.
January 7, 2009 WASHINGTON – Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) and Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) raised concerns today with a proposal to allow abortions at a University of Wisconsin health center in Madison. With UW Health officials seeking to clear the way for second-trimester abortions to be performed at the Madison Surgery Center, Sensenbrenner and Ryan wrote to the UW Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC), indicating their serious concerns with the proposal.
In addition to the reprehensible affront to human dignity, Sensenbrenner and Ryan called into the question the impact of such a policy on the rights of pro-life employees. Federal law protects the conscience rights of physicians and health care professionals at facilities supported by federal funds. The Wisconsin congressmen asked for assurances from UWHC that employees will be fully informed of, and respected in, their right to refuse to participate in abortions, as federal and state law guarantees.
“Not only is UWHC’s plan morally reprehensible, it is potentially illegal,” said Sensenbrenner. “It is deeply disturbing to hear reports of employees being pressured or forced to violate their conscience by participating in the killing of preborn, developed babies. Doctors and other health care providers shouldn’t have to check their consciences at the hospital door.”
“Such a flagrant disrespect for the rights of the unborn is deeply troubling,” added Ryan. “Should University of Wisconsin officials follow through on this effort to compromise the value of human life, it is imperative that the conscience rights of pro-life employees are fully protected. This is an altogether troubling proposition.”
Apparently internet explorer hates your document. And don't lecture me about being on IE. It's the only program that works with my firm's online database.
These are words I'm interested in seeing a count on:
sanctity /s life or life, alone conception embryo personhood job creators and job creators /p private sector cuts /p taxes
Apparently internet explorer hates your document. And don't lecture me about being on IE. It's the only program that works with my firm's online database.
These are words I'm interested in seeing a count on:
sanctity /s life or life, alone conception embryo personhood job creators and job creators /p private sector cuts /p taxes
Not sure what you were doing with the slashes, but let me know if I missed one you wanted
The slashes are term & connector speak. "sanctity /s life" means a search for sanctity and life in the same sentence. /p means within the same paragraph.
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 do think that a person can be wrong and change their view as them become more seasoned, however, Ryan's views seemed to have very suddenly changed to a fiscal conservative and many are touting him as such without acknowledging his active role in the many things he is now against.
For those who have not read my other comments (not being snarky)-his vote to repeal Glass-Stegall, his vote against regulations on sub-prime mortgage industry (2007), votes for Iraq war, Medicare Part D, auto bailouts, etc.
ETA: IIOY (I know that this will never happen and I think that my expectations are too high but I would like some acknowledgement from any politician that they were part of the very problem they are now trying to fix but instead it turns into "the other party did this.... and I am trying to fix the mess THEY created"
I, also, appreciate you taking the time to put this together. It's actually really interesting. It of course doesn't change my views on Ryan at all. I can see where people with more socially liberal leanings would feel more comfortable voting for him based on this information but I still think it's a very risky gamble to make. Just because he hasn't focused on these issues thus far doesn't mean he won't begin to in the future, or do so when he has a leadership position from which to push them. It also could very well be Romney as president who pushes a conservative social agenda that Ryan will obviously be a part of. Or Congress could decide to weigh in with bills on social issues and Ryan would be a part of that as well (and Romney, of course.) Just knowing his positions on social issues and his voting record is more than enough to convince me that a Romney/Ryan social agenda could be devastating.
Also, it's important to note that the reason Ryan even gets away with being so incredibly, incredibly conservative without derision is that he knows how to keep his mouth shut. He is as conservative as Michele Bachmann, FFS, but unlike her he has the good sense not to broadcast it all over town. It doesn't surprise me one bit that his public comments haven't included the BSC as much as votes he can pass off as being symblic or procedural or whatever, but I think the latter is more representative of what he would do were he to have real power.
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.
His record absolutely shows his willingness to toe the party line on at least the abortion issue.
I don't think anyone is disputing this. But given that pretty much every prominent Republican does at least this much, and many do a lot more, if I made it a litmus test for myself, I wouldn't have anyone to vote for.
I'm certainly not trying to convince any board liberals to consider Ryan. I'm simply disputing the apparently common belief around here that Ryan is some crazy right wing social conservative crusader. He is pro-life, absolutely. If that's a litmus test, as it is for many of you, he'll never work for you. That's fine.
But the line around here, from you, SPB, and others, has been "how can the fiscal conservative/social moderates around here be so excited, I just can't understand it"
This is why.
Can you name a prominent Republican legislator who toes the line in a more acceptable way to you than Ryan does and could presumably be a VP nominee? I can't.
No, because all of them are going to be anti-choice and anti-gay marriage in order to appease the party. And these stances are unacceptable to me, regardless of what kind of magic bullet they claim to have that will fix the economy.
Then don't vote Republican--no one is trying to change your mind on that. But please respect that that's not a magic bullet for all of us.
This is about making other socially moderate reps comfortable w/ a socially con pick. The fact the he isn't the loudest voice in the social con movement is really just window dressing to cover the fact that he is a social con and when presented with the opportunity, will VOTE in a socially conservative way.
Then don't vote Republican--no one is trying to change your mind on that. But please respect that that's not a magic bullet for all of us.
No one is saying you shouldn't vote for this guy. My problem with the conversation so far has been the "lalalalala" denial that Ryan is who he is.
Yes. It's maddening.
If Obama signed his name to a bill that banned all guns, even though he wasn't the lead author, and even though it had no hope of passing, would reps pass it off as just a political exercise, full of sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing?
This is about making other socially moderate reps comfortable w/ a socially con pick. The fact the he isn't the loudest voice in the social con movement is really just window dressing to cover the fact that he is a social con and when presented with the opportunity, will VOTE in a socially conservative way.
Of course they will. The same way that I, as a super liberal on social stuff and a moderate to conservative on fiscal stuff will vote for a pinkocommieliberal even though I vehemently disagree on half his/her damn platform.
I'm certainly not trying to convince any board liberals to consider Ryan. I'm simply disputing the apparently common belief around here that Ryan is some crazy right wing social conservative crusader. He is pro-life, absolutely. If that's a litmus test, as it is for many of you, he'll never work for you. That's fine.
But the line around here, from you and others, has been "how can the fiscal conservative/social moderates around here be so excited, I just can't understand it"
This is why.
Can you name a prominent Republican legislator who toes the line in a more acceptable way to you than Ryan does and could presumably be a VP nominee? I can't.
Alsoalso, why do I have to pick a legislator?
Because they are on the record about stuff. Governors would be fine too. But it's easy to pick someone like a Condi who has never run or legislated, and so you can assume whatever you want about her social politics.
This is about making other socially moderate reps comfortable w/ a socially con pick. The fact the he isn't the loudest voice in the social con movement is really just window dressing to cover the fact that he is a social con and when presented with the opportunity, will VOTE in a socially conservative way.
Of course they will. The same way that I, as a super liberal on social stuff and a moderate to conservative on fiscal stuff will vote for a pinkocommieliberal even though I vehemently disagree on half his/her damn platform.
I love that you nerded out and created all this stuff for us. Thank you.
I'm with soontobeka.
His voting record on social conservative stuff is very consistent and, save for a vote in support of ENDA (I want to get inside his head on this one, considering he voted against Ledbetter), unwaivering. His voting record on fiscal matters is much, much more spotty. While it seems that he's stuck to his fiscal guns during the Obama administration, he didn't at all during the Bush administration. His record suggests, to me at least, that his goal is towing the party line, not fiscal conservatism.
Now, I appreciate that he's actually put some ideas out there, and it's nice that he's not out there preaching about traditional values non-stop like other Republicans. Maybe he's the best choice for Romney at this juncture. But his voting record does not in any way suggest to me that this guy is a fiscal savior and principled small conservative, and not just a regular GOP member beholden to party interests, who will turn to social conservative distractions if necessary.
Of course they will. The same way that I, as a super liberal on social stuff and a moderate to conservative on fiscal stuff will vote for a pinkocommieliberal even though I vehemently disagree on half his/her damn platform.
Of course they will. The same way that I, as a super liberal on social stuff and a moderate to conservative on fiscal stuff will vote for a pinkocommieliberal even though I vehemently disagree on half his/her damn platform.
why are we still harping on this?
Because I feel like I am being told that reality is not reality.
I'm not sure I understand why though. I think as a social moderate/liberal if you are willing to vote R in a national election, at this point anyway, you have to be willing to hold your nose on social issues. It's just a given. You can push back in primaries. You might have great options on a more local level. but there are NO viable R candidates for national office (that I am aware of) who don't follow the party platform when it comes to voting on social issues. But some (like Ryan) don't really harp on them. yes, he has voted in a shitty way on these issues. Yes he has spoken about his pro-life views when the debate was active on the floor. But it's not his THING. He doesn't even list abortion or gay marriage on his "issues" page (unless I just missed it).
Is it overstating to say that his stance on social issues doesn't matter in general (vs. to that particular person)? Yes, I think it is. But pegging him as somebody who is not going to make a habit of traveling around the country campaigning on family values and the sanctity of life seems accurate. Do you really disagree with that?
Not that he wouldn't answer in a way that makes you want to punch kittens if the question is asked, but just that he won't be the one to raise the topic. Because that's really the best any socially moderate R is gonna get these days in a national election, as depressing as that is.
This is about making other socially moderate reps comfortable w/ a socially con pick. The fact the he isn't the loudest voice in the social con movement is really just window dressing to cover the fact that he is a social con and when presented with the opportunity, will VOTE in a socially conservative way.
Of course they will. The same way that I, as a super liberal on social stuff and a moderate to conservative on fiscal stuff will vote for a pinkocommieliberal even though I vehemently disagree on half his/her damn platform.
why are we still harping on this?
Fear. Fear that a lot of other fiscal conservatives will ignore Ryan's social conservatism and Romeny wins.
I'm with you, ESF. I have a hard time taking someone seriously as a fiscal savior when that person voted for a number of the policies that contributed to our current fiscal mess without some sort of mea culpa. I've heard a number of people say that the Bush administration was out of control when it comes to spending and that's not the way another Republican president would govern. But Ryan supported Bush's policies hook, line, and sinker. And now suddenly he's the king of austerity. It's hard for me to reconcile the two.
I do, however, hope that his entry into the foray will increase the talk of substantive economic issues.
I don't think Ryan will be the savior to the Romney campaign that some are hoping for because when voters aren't enthusiastic about the top of the ticket, a "game changing" VP pick generally doesn't change that. Chuck Todd went through a list of people who picked "game changing" running mates - Mondale, Dole, Kerry, McCain all come to mind. I expect Romney will be added to that list come November 7.
ETA: IIOY (I know that this will never happen and I think that my expectations are too high but I would like some acknowledgement from any politician that they were part of the very problem they are now trying to fix but instead it turns into "the other party did this.... and I am trying to fix the mess THEY created"
Post by cookiemdough on Aug 15, 2012 11:39:33 GMT -5
I feel like we had this conversation regarding Hillary during the primaries regarding her vote on the Iraq war and how far a politician should have to go in admitting they were wrong. I thought the concensus, especially from Hillary supporters, was not very.
Because I feel like I am being told that reality is not reality.
I'm not sure I understand why though. I think as a social moderate/liberal if you are willing to vote R in a national election, at this point anyway, you have to be willing to hold your nose on social issues. It's just a given. You can push back in primaries. You might have great options on a more local level. but there are NO viable R candidates for national office (that I am aware of) who don't follow the party platform when it comes to voting on social issues. But some (like Ryan) don't really harp on them. yes, he has voted in a shitty way on these issues. Yes he has spoken about his pro-life views when the debate was active on the floor. But it's not his THING. He doesn't even list abortion or gay marriage on his "issues" page (unless I just missed it).
Is it overstating to say that his stance on social issues doesn't matter in general (vs. to that particular person)? Yes, I think it is. But pegging him as somebody who is not going to make a habit of traveling around the country campaigning on family values and the sanctity of life seems accurate. Do you really disagree with that?
Not that he wouldn't answer in a way that makes you want to punch kittens if the question is asked, but just that he won't be the one to raise the topic. Because that's really the best any socially moderate R is gonna get these days in a national election, as depressing as that is.
I suppose this might force me to turn in my bleeding-heart liberal card but I agree with this 100%.
Yes as I theorized Saturday, it seems clear that a winning strategy is to have an inspiring/exciting presidential candidate and a gap filler VP. Not the other way around
I feel like we had this conversation regarding Hillary during the primaries regarding her vote on the Iraq war and how far a politician should have to go in admitting they were wrong. I thought the concensus, especially from Hillary supporters, was not very.
I'm not really sure what this has to do w/ but HRCs vote for Iraq was one of the reasons I couldn't vote for her in the primary.
I feel like we had this conversation regarding Hillary during the primaries regarding her vote on the Iraq war and how far a politician should have to go in admitting they were wrong. I thought the concensus, especially from Hillary supporters, was not very.
I think Hillary said she based her vote on faulty intelligence etc. etc. I didn't find that line particularly convincing (and I also didn't vote for Hillary in the primary), but it's something. Is Ryan saying that his big spending votes during the Bush administration were based on faulty intelligence?
I feel like we had this conversation regarding Hillary during the primaries regarding her vote on the Iraq war and how far a politician should have to go in admitting they were wrong. I thought the concensus, especially from Hillary supporters, was not very.
I'm not really sure what this has to do w/ but HRCs vote for Iraq was one of the reasons I couldn't vote for her in the primary.
Sorry, I didn't quote anyone. It was in response to some of the comments about whether Ryan would acknowledge he was part of the problem in the Bush years. I don't really think any politician really does that.