Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 03:47 am
@cicerone imposter,
And this is the present day Mitt Romney dealing with the moral law issue of abortion.

Quote:
"There is no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

-- Mitt Romney to Des Moines Register editorial board

Quote:
"Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

-- Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul, clarifying

Quote:
"The actions I'll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also...I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from uisng foreign aid for abortions overseas."

-- Romney, the next day

There is a kind of Heisenberg Effect when you listen to him: you can hear that he is speaking, but you can never know if he's revealing his actual position or just his position at that particular moment in time. You certainly can't be certain you are sure that one is one and the same with other or will be for long.

Joe(He ran as a pro-choice candidate for Governor of Massachusetts)Nation
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 07:00 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
In the current political climate, virtually anything seems to be in play. I am not sorry I posted it. (I took it from another a2ker off of facebook)

No problem, Edgar. We all make mistakes.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 07:07 am
@Joe Nation,
Jonathan, when I saw your post here, I had already answered on your Facebook site. Here's how I replied there.

According to a PBS documentary on Romney and Obama that I watched yesterday, the strongest influence on young Mitt's politics was his father George Romney. Being one of the moderate Republicans you talked about, George Romney was a strong supporter of the Civil-Rights movement. (For what it's worth, Wikipedia confirms that in its article on George Romney.) Your speculations about Young Mitt's mindset during the early 1960s are baseless.

PS: It's not as if Southern Baptists were any better at the time. Did you hold this against Bill Clinton when he ran for office? If he ever spoke out against his church's pervasive racism, I must have missed it. And I'm pretty sure he got letters like this as governor of Arkansas. Governors don't control the letters people send them.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 07:13 am
@mysteryman,
Congress controls the power of the purse. It was funding that was denied, not permission.

mysteryman wrote:
Using the excuse that congress was stopping him is just plain stupid.

You sound like you need to add some fiber to your diet.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:16 am
@Thomas,
And, here for the folks here, is my Facebook reply which will be my last word on this subject. Cheers.

You could be right, a father is a powerful influence..let's keep watch.

Bill (America's real first black President ~heh)Clinton is a bad example to choose, as a sitting Governor of the State of Arkansas,(that's where Eisenhower had to Nationalize the Arkansas Guard troops and send in the 101st Airborne in 1957) Clinton personally negotiated an end to some serious racial disputes and promoted the establishment of black businesses. There is no question of his Civil Rights stance from very early in his life.

Baptists, Southern and otherwise, are a bad example too,Jimmy Carter, Shirley Chisholm and, for crying out loud, Martin Luther King, Jr were all Baptists. The SBC's racism, for which they apologized some years back, did not always trickle down to the individual congregations, all of whom defend their right to be independent seekers of Christ's Word. That's why their conventions are always so lively.
When I worked with the poor in West Texas in the late 60s -early 70s I met few racist Christians (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.) none of them were Southern Baptists.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:16 am
@mysteryman,
Its not the personal lies all by themselves, but the constantly changing of positions depending on who they talk to and actually getting away with it which is mind boggling. I remember when Kerry allegedly (it was debatable) did it once and the whole campaign turned into stupid flip flops until the swift boat thing came along.

But I think on the abortion thing, he finally twisted himself up enough to not get away with it, the afterwards "clarifications" don't work and its so obvious the only argument we are hearing is that everybody does it.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:18 am
@Thomas,
I agree with you, its also a distraction on real issues, we don't have the time for more distractions.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:27 am
Someone called qustioning Mormonism and its effect on politics a "witch hunt" here.

There have been for decades and continue to be legitimate questions about religion and to what extent it does or should dictate politicians' actions and particular religions' effects on citizens who don't share those religions' beliefs. What rights do religions have to dictate what people who don't agree with it must do.

The Catholic Church repeatedly decries Catholic politicians who disagree with its stands, and bishops have threatened to excommunicate its congregants who disagree with its stands, particularly on women's issues. It's joined other religions in suing Obama over his stand providing women birth control services even tho the Church doesn't have to pay for them.

Fundamentalist groups have spent decades trying to put into place laws that support their beliefs which majorities of the country disagree with.

Mormons for more than a century rlelegated black people to the back of the bus, figuratively speaking, which was a bid odd since its founder Joseph Smith was an abolitionist, while his successor Brigham Young most definitely was no. God seemed to do an about-face when Young took over, and it took him 130 years or so to turn back around. They still don't allow women in the priesthood--shades of Catholicism--and they were one of the major funders of the anti-gay-marriage California referendum, outlawing what had previously been maede legal in CA. The Shapley letter to Romney's dad was far from a letter from just anybody. To repeat, the writer was a member of the highest decision-making body in LDS, and remained so for 14 years after that letter. To his credit, George Romney didn't pay attention to it. but LDS policy apparently was in line with it for fourteen years after the country at large did away with racist laws.

It is a fully legitimate question to ask which and how much particular religious agendas determine politicians' views, particularly when those views are not ones universally shared . There's no evidence Mitt ever said anything about the pre-1978 Mormon stance on blacks (and he'd been an adult for a decade before it changed). Or its positions on the role of women, or abortion or birth control. There is as above evidence he will not support the range of women's rights most women have come to expect.

Those are fully legitimate questions to ask of any politician. Religion's role in politics has been hotly debated for decades, and we've got two guys running who are showing disturbing evidence that sectarian views are going to determine a lot of their actions if they are elected.

Monterey (God reveealed to me while I slept last night that he was for Obama, unless it was those scallops wrapped in bacon I ate before I went to sleep speaking instead) Jack
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:32 am
@MontereyJack,
You went to sleep speaking? Did you drop off mid-sentence?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:36 am
It was either the scallops or God speaking--take your choice.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:39 am
@Thomas,
I think it's a fair go, if it opens the door to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. After all, you may not choose your father, or WHO writes letters to your father, but you do get to pick your own preacher.

Edit
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:46 am
@roger,
I agree that the Reverent Wright would be fair game --- and very unflattering for Obama if the Romney campaign made it an issue. So far, though, both camps appear to be restrained by a balance of terror about religion.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:47 am
Sure, Wright can also be questioned. We pretty much decided the answers to those questions four years ago. Besides, when you look at what he actually said, a lot of it is right. We're asking the questions about Romney and Ryan for the first time, and far better they get asked now than after they get in office, though with any luck that will be on the twelfth of Never.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:49 am
Romney campaign pleased with latest beta release of Mitt Romneybot

Quote:
According to this New York Times report, the Romney campaign thinks it has found a winning strategy:

Inside Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters over the past few days, the data pouring in was unmistakable. Aides scouring the results of focus groups and national polls found that undecided voters watching the presidential debate in Denver seemed startled when the Republican candidate portrayed all year by Democrats — the ultraconservative, unfeeling capitalist — did not materialize.

The voters, they discovered, consistently reserved their highest marks for moments when Mr. Romney sounded bipartisan and moderate, two themes he has long played down on the campaign trail but seemed to take pains to showcase this week with centrist-sounding statements on taxes, abortion and immigration.

Based on this data, Romney's campaign indicates it plans to sell an entirely new Mitt Romney:

Behind the new efforts by the Romney campaign to soften his conservative edges and showcase his personal story was a realization by his political team — borne out by reactions to his performance at the debate — that with the economy showing improvement their best shot at victory is to aggressively defy the negative perceptions that have dogged him throughout the race.

In interviews, those advisers described a strategy to capitalize on Mr. Romney’s upswing in the final stretch by highlighting his record of bipartisanship, his time as governor of Massachusetts and history of personal generosity — relying on television advertising, appearances by high-profile supporters and speeches by the candidate himself.

In a vacuum, this seems like a reasonably good idea, right? To beat President Obama, Romney needs to not only energize his base, but also to expand his coalition, and to expand his coalition, he needs to shed some of the right-wing baggage that he's been carrying since he decided to run for president in the mid-2000s.
This is exactly the gambit that Mitt Romney pursued during his debate with President Obama and it paid off. But the reason that it paid off is that for all intents and purposes, Romney's debate performance did take place in a vacuum. Romney ended up making a good impression because President Obama treated it more like a joint press conference than a debate, giving Romney the room he needed to start reinventing himself without needing to deal with a cross-examination.

The problem Romney has—thanks to his history of taking whatever position he thinks will help him win—is that cross-examining him over his latest reincarnation attempt isn't hard to do. I can't explain why President Obama didn't choose to conduct that cross-examination last week, but all indications are that if he had a chance to do things over, he'd do things differently. Fortunately for the president, he does have that chance, both in debates and on the campaign trail.

The Obama campaign's aggressive pushback against Romney's attempt to moderate his abortion position is a good example of this. On Tuesday, Romney said he didn't have a legislative agenda on restricting abortion—a statement completely at odds with everything he's been saying on the topic throughout the campaign. The Obama campaign pounced that night on his remark—and the right began to worry that Romney was shaking his Etch A Sketch. Within two hours, the campaign issued a clarifying statement. But the Obama campaign didn't stop there: they kept up the pressure on Romney to personally address the remarks, and by the end of the day, he had been forced to walk it back entirely. Meanwhile, President Obama went on ABC News to make the case that Romney's flip-flop-flip on abortion was emblematic of Romney's pattern of hiding positions that he's been running on for the past two years.


roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 08:55 am
@MontereyJack,
I'm not sure we did. McCain refused to let his people make an issue of it.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:08 am
Roger, you might not have. The rest of the country did.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:08 am
@revelette,
Yup. The debate was when the etch-a-sketch finally got shaken.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:16 am
Ted Kenney complimented Romney (ironically) for his "ability" to support all sides of any issue. The New Yorker cover has an empty chair behind Obama's lectern at the debate. But Romney is the ultimate empty suit (or, considering their carefully calculated "folksy" attire during campaign events) the ultimate empty tie-and-shirt-with-rolled-up-sleeves.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:28 am
Mitt Romney: People Don't 'Die In Their Apartment Because They Don't Have Insurance'

Quote:
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal Obamacare, says that people without health insurance don't have to worry about dying as a result.

"We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance," Romney said in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch's editorial board on Wednesday.

In fact, more than 26,000 Americans died prematurely in 2010 because they lacked health insurance, according to a recent report by Families USA.

"We don't have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you have your heart attack,'" he added in the interview. "No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Romney took a similar stance in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" in late September, when he said: "We do provide care for people who don't have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."

Roughly 4 in 25 Americans, or nearly 49 million Americans, had no health insurance last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Repealing Obamacare would deny access to health insurance to about 30 million uninsured Americans who would have received it under health care reform.

Letting so many people go uninsured ultimately can cost both individuals and society. When people lack health insurance, their health worsens, and their health treatments become more expensive, research has found. People without health insurance also are in danger of facing massive medical bills, debt, and bankruptcy if they get sick or injured.

On top of that, society at large sometimes must pay for the uninsured through higher taxes and health care costs. The government often helps pay for unpaid emergency room bills. States and cities that run hospitals lose money when hospital bills go unpaid. And economists have found that hospitals sometimes charge higher prices for health care, and health insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums, because the uninsured often are unable to pay for health care.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:50 am
I've been looking to see if anyone has a Biden/Ryan debate thread. ?

Been here too long this morning but, want to leave with this picture. I was worried about the contrast between Ryan's youthful appearance and Biden's not youthful appearance.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=amandasakuma86A8C854-5A1C-8C64-E2D3-3BFC36E88D3F.jpg&width=600

Not really worried anymore.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 108
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 05:06:37