Skip to main content

Ann and Mitt Romney
Did Mitt's lady issues adviser tell him to bring this back up? (Jeff Haynes/Reuters)
Presenting the encore to Mitt Romney's #fauxtrage at @hilaryr:
In a speech to the National Rifle Association Friday, likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney waded back into the contraception wars, attacking President Obama’s health care provision requiring employers, including religiously affiliated groups, to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees — a requirement Romney vowed to repeal.
Romney's anti-birth control pledge:
As President, I will follow a very different path than President Obama. I will be a staunch defender of religious freedom. The Obamacare regulation is not a threat and insult to only one religious group - it is a threat and insult to every religious group. As President, I will abolish it.
Apparently, going after birth control coverage is the fourth prong of Mitt Romney's three-prong strategy to win back the ladies. And I can't think of a better way for him to prove that we were right when we said there is a war on women.

Mitt vaguely calls it the "Obamacare regulation," but let's be clear: the regulation does not require religious institutions to provide birth control to their employees. What it says is that birth control is a preventive medicine and like every other preventive medicine it must be covered without copay by every insurance plan in the country except for churches.

If Mitt Romney abolished it, he wouldn't be expanding freedom for a damn soul—but he would be taking away access to birth control coverage for millions of women.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And just that quickly (61+ / 0-)

    Hillary Rosen fades into the background, contraception comes into the foreground, and everyone in America gets to see Mitt pander to gun lovers.

    Way to avoid staying on message, Willard.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:08:54 PM PDT

  •  no matter how ridiculous your position (12+ / 0-)

    it's important, if you're a republican, to Stand Your Ground.

  •  guns and religion (17+ / 0-)

    an unholy combination if ever there was one.   So women's health care and family planning needs embraced by almost the entire population still needs to be undermined to win Republican votes.  Who are these people?  

  •  I'll say it again (in case Mitt... (30+ / 0-)

    ...and his advisers missed it). Women belong to families that include men. Many of these men are also spouses like me. Real men don't call women sluts or tolerate those who do. Real men don't interfere in choices women make regarding their bodies, and real men don't call on women to publicize sex tapes or tolerate those who do.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

    by alaprst on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:14:58 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes I just love Mitt. So dependable. nt (4+ / 0-)

    The more you learn the less you know.

    by quiet in NC on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:16:56 PM PDT

  •  It's important to be factually accurate (7+ / 0-)
    Mitt vaguely calls it the "Obamacare regulation," but let's be clear: the regulation does not require religious institutions to provide birth control to their employees. What it says is that birth control is a preventive medicine and like every other preventive medicine it must be covered without copay by every insurance plan in the country except for churches.
    You can't use "religious institutions" and "churches" interchangeably when talking about this issue because they are treated differently.  The regulation requires religious institutions (other than the church itself) to provide insurance coverage for birth control for their employees.  The regulation exempts churches from the requirement, but it does not religious institutions affiliated with churches from the requirement.

    If you want to frame the issue correctly, it's important to be factually accurate.  That goes for both Republicans (they should not be allowed to say that the regulation requires churches to provide insurance coverage for birth control) and Democrats.  

    In my view, this whole problem was predictable given a health care system that ties health care coverage to employment, essentially requiring an employer to pay for most of the health care costs of the employee.  Theoretically, an employer should have no say in the health care choices of an employee.  When you, by law, make the employer responsible for providing (and, more importantly, paying for) the employee's health care, you open the door to the employers wanting to interject their views (religious or otherwise) in what they -- the employers -- are buying.  We ought to be operating under a sane system where the employee's health care was none of the employer's business, but instead of moving toward severing that connection, the ACA doubled down on it.  And so you get disputes like this.  

    •  Ha! (16+ / 0-)

      What a pile of horse hockey.

      BTW, the phrase you want is not "religious institutions" cuz those are, you know, churches.

      What you should say, if you want to be FACTUALLY ACCURATE is religiously affiliated institutions.

      Otherwise, you know, none of those "religious affiliated" institutions could receive public funds.

      You do know that churches themselves can't receive public money right?

      •  We're saying the same thing, using different words (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, Aunt Pat

        Is a Catholic school a "religious institution" or a "religiously affiliated institution"?

        Most Catholic universities generally call themselves "Catholic universities" or "Catholic institutions" or "Jesuit institutions" (if that's what they are) and not "Catholic affiliated universities" or "Catholic affiliated institutions."   See, for example, here and here and here and here.  

        I called them what they call themselves -- a religious (Catholic or Jesuit, in those links) institution.  You can call them a "religious affiliated institution."  That's fine. It's still the same point -- institutions that are owned and run by religious bodies, based on religious mission statements (like Catholic schools), are not exempt.  Churches themselves (the institution where people go solely to worship and for no other reason) are exempt.  

        •  I'm positive we are saying different things (5+ / 0-)

          in that I am saying Jed's use of the phrase "religious institutions" interchangeably with "churches" was factually accurate and you are saying it was not factually accurate.

          Of course, if you are retracting your statement, then we are saying the same thing now.

          Happy to have you aboard.

          •  Of course I'm not retracting. (2+ / 0-)

            Did you read what I said?  I'm using "religious institution" to mean, for example, Catholic universities who call themselves religious institutions.  And they ARE religious institutions.  That's why I provided those links as examples.  Those Catholic universities are owned and run the Catholic church, and operate pursuant to a specific Catholic mission statement.  That's a religious institution -- specifically, a Catholic institution.  Look at those links -- those institutions are, as they proudly assert, religious institutions.  

            Those religious institutions, like Boston College, Georgetown, Loyola, and the Catholic University, are different from churches, and they are treated differently under the regulation from churches, and so I disagree with Jed's use of the words "religious institution" interchangeably with "church."  

            The Catholic University is, as it says, "a Catholic and American institution of higher learning."  It's a Catholic institution.  

            •  Well then we aren't saying the same thing then (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BPARTR, LeftHandedMan, Danali

              Your unique definition of the term "religious institution" to include non-theological universities, hospital and other secular institutions is hardly a fault of Jed's.

              To be clear, a "Catholic university" can be a religious institution or a religiously affiliated institution.

              It depends on its purpose.

              Jed's accurate description indicates that where the institution ACTIVITIES are religious in nature, then they are exempt from the mandate.

              When the institution's activities are secular in nature - a hospital or a nonsectarian educational institution, then they are not exempt from the mandate.

              A very simple and sound concept that embodies the fundamental value of separation of church and state.

    •  Conservatives have the Roberts Court to thank (5+ / 0-)

      That is the conservative majority ruled in favor of a church that was sued by a narcoleptic employee. Since she was a part time sunday school teacher SCOTUS ruled that the Ministerial Exception applied. They narrowly defined it in a way that a theology teacher at Georgetown would be covered but not a geology teacher. So the conservatives are really being foisted upon their own petard by the conservative SCOTUS which they generally support. Ha ha!

      •  Nope. Wrong on 2 points. (0+ / 0-)

        1.  The Hosanna-Tabor decision was a unanimous decision. So, you also have liberal justices to thank.

        2. You are wrong about what that decision means.  It would apply to a teacher of ANY subject that agrees, going in, that he/she serves a religious function, even if it is only a part of his/her function at the institution.  The teacher at issue in that case also taught secular subjects.  The decision turned on the fact that she agreed she was a "called" teacher going in and also agreed to perform some religious functions.  A Jesuit priest, for example, teaching geology at a Jesuit university, or even a lay teacher who agreed going in that he/she would serve a religious function in addition to teaching geology, potentially would be covered by the Hosanna-Tabor doctrine.  

        And, of course, the regulation doesn't really coincide with the Hosanna-Tabor decision.  It makes a single decision for an entire institution, and would not exempt, for example, a woman teaching all religion courses at a Catholic University, an employee who would pretty clearly fall under Hosanna Tabor.  

        •  FTR to other persons (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LeftHandedMan, Danali

          This is a mischaracterization of the decision.

          You can read the case for your self. The key was that the teacher was a minister by agreement.

          As a result, there was no examination into whether her role was ministerial or not.

          •  From the syllabus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftHandedMan, Danali

            "The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. Here, it is enough to conclude that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment. Hosanna-Tabor held her out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. That title represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning. Perich also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service. And her job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission: As a source of religious instruction, Perich played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith."

            •  From the opinion (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LeftHandedMan, Danali

              "In light of these considerations—the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church—we conclude that Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception."

              •  Nothing inconsistent with what I said. (0+ / 0-)

                She spent 45 minutes a day in religious functions.  The rest of the time, she taught secular classes.

                The poster's statement was that someone teaching religion at a Catholic institution would be covered by the Hosanna-Tabor decision, but someone teaching geology would not. That is not correct. The decision made clear that the subject taught was not the determinative factor. It is possible that someone teaching geology at a Catholic institution could be covered by Hosanna-Tabor, if that someone also had been designated to hold a religious position (the Court made clear that a religious title was considered a factor, but not determinative in and of itself) and perform some religious functions by that Catholic university.

          •  Mischaracterizing what I said. (0+ / 0-)

            1.  I said she had agreed to perform a religious function -- it was a "called" position, in the terms of that church.  She taught one religious class.  The other classes were secular.  She also agreed to perform other religious functions, such as lead prayers.

            2. The unanimous decision makes clear that the "ministerial exception" is NOT limited to what we traditionally call "ministers" -- i.e., head of congregations.  As I said, it can apply to teachers who teach secular subjects and ALSO agree that they are to perform religious functions, as the teacher in that case did.  

            The Court held that the religion itself can designate who
            Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
            has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
            to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree.  We
            are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.
             It is enough for us to conclude, in this  our first case involving the  ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.
            The Court said she was not what we traditionally call a "minister," i.e., the head of a congregation, but was given a religious title, educated for religious teachings, and performed religious functions for a small part of her day. Here's how the Court described the two different types of teachers at that school:  
            The Synod classifies teachers into two categories:
            “called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded as
            having been called to their  vocation by God through a
            congregation.  To be eligible to receive a call from a congregation, a teacher must satisfy certain academic
            requirements.  One way of doing so is by completing a
            “colloquy” program at a Lutheran college or university. The
            program requires candidates to take eight courses of
            theological study, obtain the endorsement of their local
            Synod district, and pass an oral examination by a faculty
            committee. A teacher who meets these requirements may
            be called by a congregation.  Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.” App. 42, 48. A commissioned minister serves for an open-ended term; at Hosanna-Tabor, a call could be rescinded only for cause and by a supermajority vote of the congregation.
            “Lay” or “contract” teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran.
            At Hosanna-Tabor, they were appointed by the school
            board, without a vote of the congregation, to one-year
            renewable terms. Although teachers at the school generally performed the same duties regardless of whether they
            were lay or called, lay teachers were hired only when
            called teachers were unavailable.
            Those facts made her a "minister" within the meaning of the "ministerial exception" (even though she was not a minister in the sense of the "head of a congregation"). See here:  
            In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals
            committed three errors. First, the Sixth Circuit failed to
            see any relevance in the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister.  Although such a title, by itself, does not automatically ensure coverage, the fact that an employee has been ordained or commissioned as a minister is surely relevant, as is the fact that significant religious training and a recognized religious mission underlie the description of the employee’s position. It was wrong for the Court of Appeals—and Perich, who has adopted the court’s view, see Perich Brief 45—to say that an employee’s title does not matter.
            Second, the Sixth Circuit gave too much weight to the
            fact that lay teachers at the school performed the same
            religious duties as Perich. We express no view on whether
            someone with Perich’s duties would be covered by the
            ministerial exception in the absence of the other considerations we have discussed. But though relevant, it cannot  be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions—
            particularly when, as here, they did so only because
            commissioned ministers were unavailable.
            Third, the Sixth Circuit placed too much emphasis on
            Perich’s performance of secular duties.  It is true that her
            religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday, and that the rest of her day was devoted to teaching
            secular subjects. The EEOC regards that as conclusive,
            contending that any ministerial exception “should be
            limited to those employees who perform exclusively religious functions.” Brief for Federal Respondent 51. We cannot accept that view.
            What I said is absolutely true.  If a Priest at a Jesuit institution was teaching, say, geology classes (as often happens) he'd be covered by the ministerial exception.  If a woman at a Catholic or religious school agreed, going in, that she'd serve this special religious purpose (and was given a specific religious label, whether it was "called" or "religious minister" or "redemptorists" or whatever particular religious lable and function that church used), this decision makes clear that she'd fit into the "ministerial exception," even if the religious functions were a small part of their day and most of the day was devoted to secular functions, like teaching geology.

            So the poster's statement that someone who teaches religion at a religious school would be covered, and someone who teaches geology at a religious school would not be covered, is not accurate.  It depends on the nature of the position as defined by that religious institution, and what the employee agreed to.  

  •  lol (11+ / 0-)
    In a speech to the National Rifle Association Friday, likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney waded back into the contraception wars, attacking President Obama’s health care provision requiring employers, including religiously affiliated groups, to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees — a requirement Romney vowed to repeal.

    Wait, he didnt spend his time talking about the billions of restrictions Obama has put on gun ownership?

    •  No, but he did raise the specter of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Danali

      Obama appointing a SCOTUS judge, and some of the recent 5-4 pro-gun decisions being reversed.

      Which is completely accurate....

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:10:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  revelations (3+ / 0-)

    what I come to realize is the Romney camp, the Obama

    camp and MSM have a common interest of having this

    election seem like 50/50 for Romney it's to keep

    enthusiasm and fend off third party conservative candidate

    for Obama it is to keep democrats engaged and

    contributing,  for MSM it is all about ad revenue...

    so tune out for awhile

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:24:12 PM PDT

  •  Your Romneycare covered abortions, you rich jerk! (8+ / 0-)

    He's been practicing the art of faux outrage since he said that what Shannon O'Brien said was unbecoming.

    •  Better links on Slick Willards "Unbecoming" quote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh

      Here is the NYT story on it:

      It is the word ''unbecoming,'' which Mitt Romney, the venture capitalist and Republican nominee, used in a debate on Tuesday to describe what he saw as the aggressive demeanor of his Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Shannon P. O'Brien.

      Ms. O'Brien and the large number of women who support her quickly called Mr. Romney's choice of language sexist and demeaning. ''I certainly think that he wouldn't use the term 'unbecoming' if he were talking to a man,'' Ms. O'Brien told reporters.

      Mr. Romney has responded with a tortuous defense. First he said in a telephone interview that ''unbecoming'' could be used for either sex. Then he called back with more explanations. ''The most familiar usage of that term is 'conduct unbecoming an officer,' which is a military term and in that context it is overwhelmingly male,'' Mr. Romney said. He said that at Harvard, where he went to law and business school (Ms. O'Brien graduated from Yale), '' 'conduct unbecoming' is a term that's used for disciplinary cases.''

      And here is the WashPo weighing in on it in 2007:
      Campaigning in Nevada over the weekend, Mitt Romney was asked a question on the minds of many Republican voters: if he were the GOP nominee and found himself running against Hillary Clinton, how would he go about attacking her given the political and social delicacies involved in going up against a woman opponent? In response, according to the the National Journal, Romney invoked his successful run against Shannon O'Brien in the 2002 gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, saying that he ran against O'Brien "as a person, not a woman," and he added, "I intend to do that again."

      In fact, the historical record is a little less clear-cut on that score. The final week of the Romney-O'Brien race was consumed partly with a debate over whether Romney had taken a sexist tack in a televised debate with O'Brien, the state treasurer with a reputation as a smart and tough political insider, when he described her criticisms of him as "unbecoming." O'Brien and her supporters decried that as code language intended to undercut a strong woman. In one exchange in the debate, over O'Brien's citation of Romney's endorsement from a pro-life group in 1994, Romney said, "Your effort to continue to try and create fear and deception here is unbecoming." And deflecting her attack regarding Medicare fraud at a company whose board he served on, Romney said, "You know, the level of misrepresentation is just not becoming, Shannon. That's just wrong."

      In the days following the debate, O'Brien charged that Romney "wouldn't use the word 'unbecoming' if he were speaking about a male opponent." Romney denied this vehemently. "Unbecoming, inappropriate, not the right way to be, I'm looking for the kind of word that says, when someone is doing something that is not in the kind of manners I would have expected," he said. "That's a word which I would apply to a man or to a woman."

  •  And What does contraception have to do with the (11+ / 0-)

    National Rifle Association again?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:26:00 PM PDT

  •  So did Obama campaign jump on this yet? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh

    They were pretty quick to denounce Rosen.  

    •  Haven't heard response yet. (0+ / 0-)

      I think there'll be one, but it will be very nuanced or not at all. Do keep in mind, the Rosen thing interests half the population of America, not to mention that women out vote men.

      The NRA is a MUCH smaller slice of the pie. And it seems to me, that Obama has WISELY decided what he doesn't need is a fight with the NRA in an election year.  They may be a small interest group, but man, are they loud.  

      My guess is they're just rubbing their palms together looking for a fight with Obama.  And he's smart to side step them.  

      What's pathetic is the LIES Romney told once again today to the NRA.  Using apocalyptic phrasing about tyranny to jazz up his base to vote for him out of fear, because as we all know, they're not going to vote for Romney because they like him.

      Fact is, Obama hasn't come NEAR gun laws or discussion of gun laws in his ENTIRE presidency.  Every right and freedom gun owners had before Obama, they still have, and in many cases, since 2010, they have been increased.  

  •  Why is this on TV (8+ / 0-)

    why in the hell has the NRA convention been live feeding on CNN.com all day, long after Mitt left the auditorium?  I don't get it.
    CPAC, NRA, Tea Party rallies with 300 supporters, faith luncheons but never cameras for normal people having normal meetings.

  •  "You can have my birth control pills when you (7+ / 0-)

    pry them from my cold dead hands"

    Sincerely,

    The 10's of millions of american women who are going to make sure the next time you see the inside of the whitehouse it will be on a tour.

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:10:22 PM PDT

  •  Don't really know why Romney would wade (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, StellaRay

    into that issue again, but I think it's because he isn't a very disciplined or even good campaigner.  

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:25:44 PM PDT

  •  mittens Women Advisor on All Things Women (6+ / 0-)

    Keep in mind folks, especially you women who she thinks she represents, she was in the car on that trip with the dog strapped to the top of as well!!!!! Example of what she thinks of those lesser then herself???? Maybe!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:49:57 PM PDT

    •  Yes! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimstaro

      Mitt may talk to her about stuff, but I'll bet $10,000 that if he wants to do something and she doesn't - it happens.  I always figured that's what happened with Seamus.

      •  Scarier than that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        is the idea that she never questioned strapping Seamus to the roof, which I'd lay bets on.

        Because I'll tell you one thing, as an avid lover of animals, and particularly, for me, doggies, if my husband tried to tell me he was going to strap any of our beloved pooches to the roof of the car for hours, I'd say to him "Not if you don't want a divorce."

        Let's face it, there's a reason Ann and Mitt are compatible.  I'm betting huge, that she never gave a second thought to strapping the family dog to the roof.

    •  I've said from the beginning that Ann is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StellaRay, tb mare, Constantly Amazed

      either just as thoughtless as he is or a dutiful 'help meet'.  Either way, not a credible spokesperson for women's concerns.  I'd have said "Are you fucking crazy???  We're not strapping the dog to the top of the car!  Put the luggage up there fer Chrissake!"

      •  YUP!!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StellaRay

        Keep in mind also, the kids were young so this was an example of how they were brought up, especially by that hard working stay at home mom with oodles of cash even if mittens failed like the bush ceo, lucky for them though he did reap from a number of take overs as well as the failures, especially the failures!!!!

        Many say don't attack her as she's family, sorry but those lines were destroyed long ago when Hillary was for advising Bill, and by mittens own words she's the go to on women's issues!!

        Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

        by jimstaro on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:35:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When Mitt talks to the NRA about contraceptives, (0+ / 0-)

    ... what does that suggest guns are surrogates for?

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:50:18 PM PDT

  •  What a mix... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay

    guns, religion and birth control.

  •  When A Republican candidate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal, StellaRay, sethtriggs

    for President gives a big speech at the NRA, and says absolutely jackshit about guns in the process, there is a reason.

    He doesn't want the rubes and suckers to think about anything but Obama Derangement Syndrome or they might notice that he's been about as rock-solid consistent on guns as he has on abortion and gay rights.

    America's Weather Vane! Twirling for Freedom Again!

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:54:07 PM PDT

    •  The NRA has nothing to do with guns anymore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mumtaznepal, Going the Distance

      Its acronym should really stand for "National Republican Association."

      Hence the Romneybot's gun-less gun speech.

      •  I'm thinking more of "John Birch Society". I do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Going the Distance

        think there are plutocratic elite Republicans that want to try and hang onto the GOP brand name, while the Tea Party Loons disintegrate off into splinter groups.

        Fun to watch which side will win the now-completely sullied brand name of "Republican".

        2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

        by mumtaznepal on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:24:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Amen, JB. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        How can the NRA really have ANY beef, when Obama has remained totally silent on gun control for his entire presidency, to date.  And I don't blame him. He had other fish to fry, to say the least.  But the fact is, gun owners haven't been this free since the wild wild west.

        Consider this.  It is now legal to carry a concealed weapon into the capitol of Wisconsin in Madison.  It is ILLEGAL to carry a camera of any kind into the capitol. We have Scott Walker and his band of fascists to thank for this.  (And, let me note, big time, I don't use the term "fascist" easily.  So if I used it here, consider it coming from a person who is very uncomfortable with applying that term)

        Fact is, Obama has, to my knowledge, not dedicated one initiative, one word, or one news cycle to gun control.

        Which left Mitt in the position to, once again, LIE HIS PANTS OFF, about the terrible anti-gun Obama tyranny.  

        Honestly, can it really be this easy to be a presidential candidate?  You just say whatever you want to, and depend on our LAZY, LAZY Fourth estate to not call you out on it?

  •  isn't it a bit of a stretch (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beltane, mumtaznepal

    to say that it's an insult to EVERY religious group?  do you speak for wicca?  for liberal reformed jews? for buddhists?  

    what atheism which, i'm sure, YOU consider a religion.  is it an insult atheists too?

    hope springs eternal and DAMN is she getting tired!

    by alguien on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:54:40 PM PDT

  •  When is someone going to tell (6+ / 0-)

    candidate Romney that the President cannot repeal a law?  He can sign a bill that repeals a law, but he cannot simply have his butler bring him a pen and with a flourish, get rid of any law he doesn't like.

    Likewise, the President cannot de-fund Planned Parenthood or any other Title X organization.  He can sign a bill that does that, but the President cannot decide which organization gets federal money and which organization does not.

    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:58:20 PM PDT

  •  Funny... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal

    he didn't repeal it when he was governor.

  •  Good grief! (0+ / 0-)

    Or maybe I should say hooray LOL.

    My hubby just said that not only should Ann be telling Mitt about women, she should also tell him what the males in the country want LOL.

    Hell, maybe she should be running for President :)

  •  Sounds good to me! (0+ / 0-)

    Free birth control is available to virtually anyone, if one decides to explore the means.  Those using the lame argument about religious institutions needing to provide these services against those institutions' beliefs are just playing cheap partisan politics, something we really don't need.

  •  Let's think carefully about this one... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Danali, sethtriggs
    The Obamacare regulation is not a threat and insult to only one religious group - it is a threat and insult to every religious group.
    Someone really, really ought to ask Mittens why he thinks a law mandating medical coverage for contraception is a threat to those religious groups which do not oppose contraception.

    No doubt he will make the same sort of idiotic assertion regarding marriage equality laws when there are numerous religious denominations, including branches of Christianity, that strongly support the freedom to marry.

    Leave it to someone like Mr. Romney to presume that EVERY  religion holds the same views as he does.

  •  Don't forget: RomneyCare *doesn't* exempt churches (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Danali

    "When and if fascism comes to America...it will not even be called 'fascism'; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism'" --Professor Halford E. Luccock of Yale Divinity School; New York Times article from September 12, 1938, page 15

    by demongo on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:05:37 PM PDT

  •  Is this another "war"? (0+ / 0-)

    Birth control.  Now it is a war.

    Only horses should wear blinders.

    by independantman on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:07:24 PM PDT

  •  He just alienated a lot of independents (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Going the Distance, Danali

    with this move pandering to the religious right. Very silly.

    You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

    by mahakali overdrive on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Is this getting any play in MSM? (0+ / 0-)

    Is Obama Campaign jumping on it?  Or is it all Ann Romney all the time still?  

  •  When Willard (the rat) becomes President (0+ / 0-)

    a dragon will pop out of my ass and eat the eyeballs of everyone who reads this Mittard meme.

    From the Book of Mormon, page twelve.

  •  I have seen my share of bad candidates in my (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CrissieP, Danali

    lifetime. Some of them were just bad and some of them were the outcome of major casting error. I have seen them all since Kennedy, but i have never seen a candidate like this one.

    Honestly, i can't even describe him. There is nothing there. He has no core. Everything shifts and everything changes. He tells you exactly what you want to hear and then goes in another room and says exactly the opposite thing to another audience.

    On top of that, his financial history and investments are just plain scary.

    Obama doesn't need to win. He needs to trounce this guy so no one like him would ever think about running for office again.

    School board elections are the most important elections in the nation. Everything starts there from what our kids learn to the composition of the electorate/government.

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:09:59 PM PDT

  •  NRA = NATIONAL REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION (0+ / 0-)

    Notice how the Romneybot didn't bother even to throw in the usual gun rights talking points.

    This organization has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with electing Limbaugh parrots.

  •  Why isn't he fighting the assault on religious (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sreeizzle2012, Danali

    freedom contained in the requirement that necessary blood transfusions be covered?

    Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

    by JesseCW on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:12:52 PM PDT

  •  And why didn't Mittens recall that provision (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Danali, FiredUpInCA

    out of his own health care mandate?

    What a freaking liar.  When are the damn press going to start doing their job and calling these guys out on this unmitigated crap?

    Apologies for the language.

    2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

    by mumtaznepal on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

  •  Contraception coverage, according to Romney, (0+ / 0-)

    is an insult to every religious group group?  Talk about a making an incorrect broad generalization!

    Minus ten points for bad logic.  Minus 1000 points for bad ideology.

    "Since when did obeying corporate power become patriotic." Going the Distance

    by Going the Distance on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:48:34 PM PDT

  •  i really cant wait (0+ / 0-)

    for the debates.

    I so look forward to Obama schooling this moron and watching him try to squirm when presented with the facts.

    The threat to our way of life comes from corporations, and the solution is to shrink corporations while freeing government from corporate control.

    by gbaked on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:51:37 PM PDT

  •  There was just something (0+ / 0-)

    smarmy about that entire appearance.

    There's no such thing as a Free Information Kit. There is, however, advertising.

    by lotac on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:25:18 PM PDT

  •  So now her background is fair game? (0+ / 0-)

    Is she now an official spokesperson for the Romney campaign? If she is, then whatever turns up about her is fair to discuss. The off limits sign will be thrown out.

    Plus, he's going back to the war on women thing with him vowing to cut off an essential service that helps women's health.

    Okay, it's not like this has bitten them in the ass before.

  •  how did Romney Care (0+ / 0-)

    handle BC coverage for "religiously affiliated institutions" in MA?

    Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill. - Tom Petty

    by itsbenj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:22:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site