Fun with Paul Ryan's actual record

[teflep]

Aug 15, 2012 13:20:48 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

If he IS a social conservative, how can he run as anything else? I get that his main platform is economic reform, but it seems as if you can't say he's NOT running as a social con; he IS socially conservative.

He's running as a fiscal conservative.

[teflep]

Aug 15, 2012 13:37:28 GMT -5 soontobeka said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:09:26 GMT -5 teflep said:

But Stewart forget to include Ryan's vote for auto bailouts, /quote]
Wait, what is wrong with this? It was very much touted as a success by many, including hte President.

And greatly opposed by the top of the ticket he is running on...
"Let Detroit go Bankrupt" www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1


U.S. autos bailout 'was crony capitalism on a grand scale'
www.detroitnews.com/article/20120214/OPINION01/202140336#ixzz23dpYv2V2

The fact that they dont agree on everything is not a huge OMG to me.

[taratru]

I wish more than anything I could use this to demonstrate the importance if your words reflecting your actions.

But I'd probably get written up for being too political and trying to brainwash the children.

[mominatrix]

Aug 15, 2012 13:14:51 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The bottom line is no one is saying "he's a social con and I like it."

Rather it's "he's not the social con you think he is."

"These aren't the conservatives you're looking for..."

It's an old Jedi mind trick.

[summer]

Aug 15, 2012 15:03:51 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:35:47 GMT -5 teflep said:

He's running as a fiscal conservative.

But he IS a social conservative. You can't separate the two just because it's politically convenient. His strengths and emphasis may be with fiscal matters, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is a social and fiscal conservative, running for vice president.

This is where I am. I'm confused.

[llama]

Aug 15, 2012 15:04:45 GMT -5 summer said:

Aug 15, 2012 15:03:51 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

But he IS a social conservative. You can't separate the two just because it's politically convenient. His strengths and emphasis may be with fiscal matters, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is a social and fiscal conservative, running for vice president.

This is where I am. I'm confused.

Me too. And again, for like the 80 millionth time, just because one particular issue dominates pre-election coverage, debates, and campaign talking points doesn't by a longshot mean that it will be the only issue addressed in the 4 years of a presidential term. It doesn't even guarantee that it will be the main issue addressed. To act like his record on social issues is irrelevant or even that it will take a backseat to fiscal issues is the height of presumptuous.

[heyjude]

Aug 15, 2012 15:12:07 GMT -5 llama said:

Aug 15, 2012 15:04:45 GMT -5 summer said:

This is where I am. I'm confused.

Me too. And again, for like the 80 millionth time, just because one particular issue dominates pre-election coverage, debates, and campaign talking points doesn't by a longshot mean that it will be the only issue addressed in the 4 years of a presidential term. It doesn't even guarantee that it will be the main issue addressed. To act like his record on social issues is irrelevant or even that it will take a backseat to fiscal issues is the height of presumptuous.

You take a lot of heat around here but I think you pretty much speak the truth 100% of the time.

Some people can't handle the truth!

[llama]

Aug 15, 2012 15:32:13 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 15, 2012 15:12:07 GMT -5 llama said:

Me too. And again, for like the 80 millionth time, just because one particular issue dominates pre-election coverage, debates, and campaign talking points doesn't by a longshot mean that it will be the only issue addressed in the 4 years of a presidential term. It doesn't even guarantee that it will be the main issue addressed. To act like his record on social issues is irrelevant or even that it will take a backseat to fiscal issues is the height of presumptuous.

You take a lot of heat around here but I think you pretty much speak the truth 100% of the time.

Some people can't handle the truth!

Wow, someone doesn't think I am completely crazy! +1 for me. And back at you, naturally.

[teflep]

Aug 15, 2012 15:45:52 GMT -5 llama said:

Aug 15, 2012 15:32:13 GMT -5 heyjude said:

You take a lot of heat around here but I think you pretty much speak the truth 100% of the time.

Some people can't handle the truth!

Wow, someone doesn't think I am completely crazy! +1 for me. And back at you, naturally.

No one thinks you are crazy or lying. Truth can be handled here. trust

[teflep]

Aug 15, 2012 15:03:51 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:35:47 GMT -5 teflep said:

He's running as a fiscal conservative.

But he IS a social conservative. You can't separate the two just because it's politically convenient. His strengths and emphasis may be with fiscal matters, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is a social and fiscal conservative, running for vice president.

I am trying to figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse on this or havent read the billion threads on this subject. He is running as a fiscal conservative. He is also a social conservative. I really don't get the difficulty here.

Obama runs as a social moderate (liberal? not really I guess), but not a fiscal liberal. Some may just say liberal, but I can see the difference as I know he is not a socialist.

[mominatrix]

I guess I don't get the ”he's running as...” distinction.

He is, or he isn't.

Plus, as a candidate for national office, we kind of get to say what we think he is.

I wouldn't get to stand up and say, ”I'm totes socially conservative, despite being pro choice and pro gay marriage and pro single payer,” while running for office, without being questioned, long and hard. Even if I said I was ”running as a conservative.”

...via mobile.

[teflep]

Aug 15, 2012 16:44:14 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I guess I don't get the ”he's running as...” distinction.

He is, or he isn't.

Plus, as a candidate for national office, we kind of get to say what we think he is.

I wouldn't get to stand up and say, ”I'm totes socially conservative, despite being pro choice and pro gay marriage and pro single payer,” while running for office, without being questioned, long and hard. Even if I said I was ”running as a conservative.”

...via mobile.

I am having a hard time reading your response (what is with proboards with these weird characters intersperced)...I get people can define it how they want. I really do. But that goes for all being able to and, after a million times stating the reasons why some see him as running on a fiscal conservative platform with all his exposure on this subject of late, I think it is obvious why the distinction is made. I get that he is a social conservative and, for this, I have many reservations and still plan to go 3rd party, but I get why people look at his words as the leader/possible leader. And, I can do it without a wall o' text answer (but maybe I need one?).

[2vermont]

OMG already

(Sorrry AW)

[Deleted]

This seems like a lot of posts for something we all basically agree on. Everyone here seems to agree that Ryan is both socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Doesn't that make him (dum da dum dum!) A CONSERVATIVE?

I think the only reason to describe someone as a fiscal conservative is if they were socially liberal, and the conservative tag wasn't apt for their overall platform.

Paul Ryan is a conservative. Say it with me, it's not so hard!

Although we could get into a whole other debate about whether someone who supported TARP, supports subsidies and whose grand plan to bust the deficit won't even balance the budget for 40 years is really a fiscal conservative....but that's a debate for another thread.

[Deleted]

Thanks Y4M! I will have some reading to do later.

ETA: reading only the last page of comments here and none of the document yet, I will say I do "get" the distinction between running as a soc con and BEING one.

One of the things I despised about Obama until a very, very short time ago was his stance against gay marriage. That was a socially conservative position. But I know we didn't see him running on that.

"Hope and change. Except for those homos -- status quo for them."

[emmybean]

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

[teflep]

Aug 16, 2012 13:11:09 GMT -5 emmybean said:

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

I am pretty sure that is what people are saying when they say he is running on a fiscal conservative platform; that the social stances won't even be near the front of the line or allowed in the stadium type of thing. I dont think for one second heads are I the sand, at least not from those on this board. Kind of like I didn't think people had gone plum crazy when they really thought hope and change would actually lead to both.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2012 13:11:09 GMT -5 emmybean said:

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

Not sure I would qualify as a Ryan supporter. I am undecided. But his political priorities matter. A candidate can only spend so much political capital when in office. It seems only natural (and wise) for voters to make educated guesses about how a particular candidate will spend it.

[heyjude]

Aug 16, 2012 13:11:09 GMT -5 emmybean said:

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

OMG thank you!!!!!

[cookiemdough]

Aug 16, 2012 13:43:39 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

Not sure I would qualify as a Ryan supporter. I am undecided. But his political priorities matter. A candidate can only spend so much political capital when in office. It seems only natural (and wise) for voters to make educated guesses about how a particular candidate will spend it.

This is a good point.

[emmybean]

Aug 16, 2012 13:30:17 GMT -5 teflep said:

Aug 16, 2012 13:11:09 GMT -5 emmybean said:

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

I am pretty sure that is what people are saying when they say he is running on a fiscal conservative platform; that the social stances won't even be near the front of the line or allowed in the stadium type of thing. I dont think for one second heads are I the sand, at least not from those on this board. Kind of like I didn't think people had gone plum crazy when they really thought hope and change would actually lead to both.

What is at the front of his platform has very little to do with what may be brought to the front of his/their plates if elected. Say you are willing to take that risk, rather than fall back on the fact that because he/they aren't championing it, it's a non- issue. Because it is an issue.

[kadams767]

Aug 16, 2012 13:30:17 GMT -5 teflep said:

Aug 16, 2012 13:11:09 GMT -5 emmybean said:

I am wholly intrigued by the need for such abject defensiveness from Ryan supporters on this issue. He is a social conservative. What he's "running as" (lol) matters not. What does matter is that IF he were to be put in a position to make decisions on gay marriage or abortion or etc, he would do so in a socially conservative manner. Just own that, rather than hide behind the idea that he's "running as a fiscal conservative" as if he 1)will have any real policy making abilities and 2) would abstain from making decisions on social issues if given the opportunity.

I'd much rather hear people say they are less worried about the social issues becoming a problem (aka that no SC justices need appointed or that the gay marriage problem wont blow up even more) during a Romney/Ryan presidency and therefore are willing to risk their known and disagreed upon social stances based on their fiscal plan, than head in the sand, heels dug in deep insistence that they really wouldn't be that socially conservative while in office.

I am pretty sure that is what people are saying when they say he is running on a fiscal conservative platform; that the social stances won't even be near the front of the line or allowed in the stadium type of thing. I dont think for one second heads are I the sand, at least not from those on this board. Kind of like I didn't think people had gone plum crazy when they really thought hope and change would actually lead to both.

My concern is HOW is going to keep these issues out of the stadium? He can't. They WILL get in there. And what happens when they do is what concerns me. Ryan and Romney can be all "Economy Economy Economy. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs." But when push comes to shove, the rest of their party is all "Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. DOMA. DOMA. DOMA." They have absolutely nothing to hang their hat on that says otherwise.

And trust me, I wish they did. I wish they could trot out an entire parade of fiscal conservatives who would leave the social agenda at home for the next four years while we work on fixing things. But it's not reality, and that's not the party they have to pander to.

[heyjude]

Aug 16, 2012 14:04:00 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 16, 2012 13:48:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

OMG thank you!!!!!

Also, just so we're clear, the current thinking is that THREE SCOTUS seats will vacate during the next four years. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. So the ideological stuff is pretty important even if he's not "running" on that platform.

This is a brilliant point. I can't believe it hasn't been made yet.

[anonymous]

Aug 16, 2012 14:18:14 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 16, 2012 14:04:00 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Also, just so we're clear, the current thinking is that THREE SCOTUS seats will vacate during the next four years. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. So the ideological stuff is pretty important even if he's not "running" on that platform.

This is a brilliant point. I can't believe it hasn't been made yet.

This is an effing scary point and why I could never vote for R&R and really have a hard time understanding how people who are soc. moderate or socially liberal can vote for them. I don't really think the economy will be affected all that much by who is in office (and there are things economy wise I don't like on both sides), but on social issues and social issues that are also fiscal issues, I think R&R stand to do a lot of harm to a lot of people in this country that will have a much bigger impact than the economy. I think they will set the country very far back on social issues, more than they could ever set the economy ahead.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2012 14:18:14 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 16, 2012 14:04:00 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Also, just so we're clear, the current thinking is that THREE SCOTUS seats will vacate during the next four years. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. So the ideological stuff is pretty important even if he's not "running" on that platform.

This is a brilliant point. I can't believe it hasn't been made yet.

Brilliant and fucking scary.

[heyjude]

I haven't seen the SOCTUS reference yet. Hands down SCOTUS is why R/Rs position on social issues matter.

Isn't gay marriage headed to SCOTUS?

THAT fact alone should put a cork in the Ryan champagne toasts around here and cause any socially liberal/moderate rep to take serious pause.

[heyjude]

Aug 16, 2012 14:34:34 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 16, 2012 14:33:37 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I haven't seen the SOCTUS reference yet. Hands down SCOTUS is why R/Rs position on social issues matter.

Isn't gay marriage headed to SCOTUS?

THAT fact alone should put a cork in the Ryan champagne toasts around here and cause any socially liberal/moderate rep to take serious pause.

I think Momi mentioned it, but honest to god, I can't even keep track of where *I* have posted in the yes he is, no he isn't, he is but it doesn't matter, threads.

It feels we have been having this same conversation for years now, right?

But SCOTUS is the silver bullet.

[llama]

Aug 16, 2012 14:37:03 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Oh, God, I didn't realize that.

Then, yeah. I'm sorry, but you can't pay lip service and claim to be socially liberal, if you know these issues are going to come heavily into play, and just ignore them. Allowing conservatives on the SCOTUS at this point will drive back women's rights and gay rights for decades.

Also, these are not just any SCOTUS seats - Ginsburg's and Kennedy's retirements, especially, have the potential to REALLY change the dynamics of the Court.

Think about this: the #1 piece of precedent that conservatives point to in federal cases about bans on same-sex marriage is the Baker v. Nelson case which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1972. The summary dismissal in this case is really the only explicitly gay-related marriage precedent out of SCOTUS and literally FOURTY YEARS LATER this case is still the basis of the majority of documents filed by our opposition in federal courts. The damage even one case can do in these instances is maddening and has hugely long-lasting effects.

The judicial thing is also the reason why I think folks claiming that social issues are a non-issue are misinformed. Even if it were a certainty that Congress wouldn't grapple with civil rights bills in the next 4 years (which, as I have already explained, is so unlikely as to be actually laughable), the judiciary is definitely going to be in play. Even if it was only one Justice instead of 3 slated to retire. This is not insignificant. If it's a trade-off you are willing to make I do think you are throwing me and others under the bus, but at least be genuine about the risk you are taking instead of trying to minimize its importance.

[teflep]

The scotus has been mentioned a few times (esf, for one)

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2012 14:39:33 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 16, 2012 14:34:34 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I think Momi mentioned it, but honest to god, I can't even keep track of where *I* have posted in the yes he is, no he isn't, he is but it doesn't matter, threads.

It feels we have been having this same conversation for years now, right?

But SCOTUS is the silver bullet.

But, then, no one here voted for Obama in 2008 when he was anti-gay marriage. Right? There were plenty of 3rd party candidates that were pro gay marriage.

eta: not trying to sound like a bitch. But, as I'm going to bring up several times between now and the election, I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's not as simple as saying something like gay marriage or pro-choice protections trumps everything else. It's pretty fucking important to me, hence the reason I'm undecided, but I also happen to feel that a liberal fiscal policy is screwing future generations so hard that no one will have the money for a wedding anyway, gay or otherwise.