Skip to main content

A reminder: This is what Romney really believes

Let's not beat around the bush. We could call it a gaffe or a flip-flop or invoke some other euphemistic excuse from Very Serious Journalism dictionary, but let's not. The truth is, Mitt Romney is a liar.

In the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, Romney said:

I’d just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And the President’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
None of that is true. Romney does believe bureaucrats in Washington should decide who has access to contraceptives, and he does believe employers should also make that decision. We know this is true, because Romney supported the Blunt Amendment to allow employers to decide whether their employees should have access to contraceptives. That's what the Blunt Amendment did, and Romney said at the time, "Of course I support the Blunt Amendment."

And Romney didn't just support the amendment; he joined his fellow Republicans in attacking the president for his policy to make birth control affordable and accessible to all American women—a policy Romney claimed, last night, to support when he said he too thinks all women should have access to contraceptives. In January, when the policy was first introduced, the Romney campaign said, "This is a direct attack on religious liberty and will not stand in a Romney presidency." To further appeal to the rabid Republican base, Romney also pledged to end Title X, which funds family planning programs. You know, contraception.

When the policy was enacted in August and Republicans were hyperventilating that women having access to affordable birth control was just like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor Day, Romney released an ad accusing the president of declaring a war on religion.

And let's not forget that Romney promised when it comes to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of health care for women and specifically, the nation's largest and best resource for affordable birth control for women:

Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.
Romney does believe bureaucrats and employers should be making birth control decisions for women. He does not believe all American women deserve access to affordable birth control. And when the president said, during the debate, that Romney "suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage," he was absolutely accurate. Except that Romney didn't merely suggest it; he said, in no uncertain terms, that's the policy he supported. And then, like the rest of his despicable party, he accused the president of waging a war on religion for implementing a policy that all of a sudden, Romney supports. And then he has the audacity to say the president is "completely and totally wrong" about Romney's policy?

The only question is, which policy, Mitt? The one where you want to defund our health care, support Washington bureaucrats vote on our access to birth control, and let our employers make our decisions for us? Or the policy where you'll say anything, even if it's a lie, to try to win the presidency?

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:20 AM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts, Pro Choice, Abortion, and 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

  •  Mitt Romney, we're going to get rid of THAT. n/t (24+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

  •  It's hard to keep up with his lies (29+ / 0-)

    and flip flops.  That's why it was so important that President Obama agressively say "that is not true" to some of the lies.  

    Romney was run perhaps the most dishonest campaigns in my lifetime.  

    It's sad that our media lets him lie without any fact checking.  It's a failure of democracy, and created by the Great Class Stratification in which corproate control squeezes out truth.

    It is why it is so important to spread the truth among friends and others we know, and for them to spread it.      

    I'm glad Barack Obama is our President.

    by TomP on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:25:05 AM PDT

    •  As I see it, this is so damaging to the democratic (6+ / 0-)

      process. When candidates for the highest office in the land can lie without serious consequences, then we all become cynical and jaded and disengage from the political system.

      Politicians will become (if they aren't already) synonymous with cheats, liars and used car sales folks.

      And of course, I weep that our electorate is so uninformed that these bald faced lies can be accepted for their face value. When these kinds of statements stand uncontested by most of the media, then it just encourages more of the same despicable, unethical and morally bankrupt behavior.

      Romney is the perfect embodiment of the current Republican party. They wrap themselves with the US Flag and declare themselves loyal patriots but they are treasonous to the core.

      They deserved to be decimated in this election.

      It takes time to practice generosity, but being generous is the best use of our time. - Thich Nhat Hanh.

      by Frank In WA on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:13:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, everyone is wrong and you are right (14+ / 0-)

    Mr. Romney.  Now if you could only get all those women back in the binder and prevent them from voting, you'd be all set!

    Corporations are driven by the bottom line, not by concerns for health, safety or the environment. This is why we need government regulations.

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

  •  I am certain that... (9+ / 0-)

    Romney at a private fund raiser with rich conservatives has a much different version of availability of contraception care.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:38:30 AM PDT

  •  Yesterday, yahoo had a poll that aked, (6+ / 0-)

    "is it alright when a politician lies" or something like that and the majority of voters said, yes. i think when i did the poll it was 60 something to 30 something. What has 0ur country come to when the majority of people not only say they expect a politician to lie to them but that it's okay? FOX news and the RW have really brainwashed a good deal of the country.

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:38:46 AM PDT

    •  Well, it does explain on the circumstances (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kpardue, 417els, ColoTim

      If FDR had been asked on June 5, 1944, when are we going to invade France, would you have expected him to answer truthfully?

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:48:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd expect him to say, "I can't tell you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        that, it needs to be kept secret to prevent tipping Hitler off."  It's one thing to keep secrets in wartime, when exposing plans could cost many lives.  

        Lying about domestic policy in order to get elected is something entirely different.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 06:45:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lies on top of lies (12+ / 0-)

    The pile of lies is so high now that if Romney ever wanted to tell the truth he wouldn't be able to sift through the pile to find it.

  •  The BIGGER question that you missed (8+ / 0-)

    what FORM of contraception does Romney support?

    “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Huckabee asked.

    “Absolutely,” Romney replied.“Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Huckabee asked.

    “Absolutely,” Romney replied.

    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    So if Romney supports personhood, which defines life at fertilization, most birth control pills prevent implantation of a fertilized egg - life.

    So does Romney really support women's access to the birth control pill? I don't believe he has ever answered that specific question.

  •  Romney has a new ad out touting his new position (6+ / 0-)

    on contraception and conflating it with his new abortion stance. The YouTube link is here: http://youtu.be/...

  •  what's important about Libya fact-check (7+ / 0-)


    for your Average American Voter:  if Mitt is willing to insist upon a lie that is easily fact-checkable by the two people in the Rose Garden at the debate last night, then who can trust anything else he says?  He was way too glib "I'll just pick a number!" and "Binders full of women" - it was important for the President to point out the lies, and it was important that he gets caught lying on camera, and these voters will realize they can't trust a word he says.  Now bring on the ads.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:41:48 AM PDT

  •  Gotta plug my namesake, bartcop.com (3+ / 0-)
    The only question is, which policy, Mitt? The one where you want to defund our health care, support Washington bureaucrats vote on our access to birth control, and let our employers make our decisions for us? Or the policy where you'll say anything, even if it's a lie, to try to win the presidency?
    Bart's formulation of "Which time were you lying, then or now?" is just killer and Multiple-Choice Mitt rMoney is the perfect target for it.

    PBO got in a good "for it before he (rMoney) was against it" jab.  "Which time were you lying..." would be a way to ramp it up even more.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:42:05 AM PDT

    •  I prefer: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bartcopfan

      Were you lying then or are you lying now?

      I think it works best with specifics, e.g.:
      In February of this year, you said, 'Of course I support the Blunt amendment,' which would have allowed employers to strip women of contraceptive health care in their insurance plans. A minute ago you claimed that you support women's right to access contraception. What I want to know is, were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

      It could be applied to any of a plethora of Romney lies.

  •  Romney is going to find contraception (6+ / 0-)

    a tough pill to swallow

  •  In Romney world, everyone is rich (12+ / 0-)

    So Access has nothing to do with ability to pay.

    He wasn't lying.  He was just making the point that everyone who wanted to could still buy contraceptives themselves, even if their employer eliminated it from their insurance coverage, and they couldn't get it on a sliding scale fee from Planned Parenthood because he had defunded it.

    Not a problem, if you're one of the 1%

    Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

    by Actuary4Change on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:44:05 AM PDT

  •  You missed the Romney weaselwording (9+ / 0-)

    Romney says women should have access to contraception.

    The actual debate is about whether or not their health insurance should pay for it or not.  

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:44:16 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for pointing this out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Did Obama mention his support for the Blunt Amendment last night? I can't remember. If not, this point needs to be driven home.

  •  His strategy? Take wildly different positions with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    the hope that those who want to hear one or the other will remember only that one. Say one thing in a debate thought it contradicts past positions with the belief that people will hear the one they want to hear and forget the other. Same reason he says things and has his campaign walk them back hours after he says them.... hoping those "true believers" will pay attention to the walk-backs and the others won't.  Same thing with his tax returns -- just ignore the questions and problems and hope that this big swirl of contradiction and confusion will allow just enough people to see him as they want to see him to allow him to get in office. No integrity. Integrity is irrelevant to him....

    "The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not...." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by waydownsouth on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:45:08 AM PDT

  •  the prism through which Mitt sees (8+ / 0-)

    everything is wealth.

    You can have as much of whatever you want, as long as you are so wealthy that you don't have to ask the price.  That anyone who is not rich enough to afford medical care, contraception, housing, food, regardless of the price, deserves their fate as part of the great unwashed who will not take personal care and responsibility for themselves.   It is after all their fault that he shipped their jobs to China because he needed another .5% profit on an investment.  It is their fault that medical costs have risen at a much higher rate than inflation on other goods and services, that insurance companies skim a good deal of the money to pay for executive salaries and other perks and not health care,  that corporations need to sit on cash rather than hire people and use the lack of jobs to deflate wages.   Yes, those little people made those rules, they enforce those rules, and it's just too bad that they can't pay their way because of their recklessness with their money.

  •  Romney tries to go on attack with this abortion (0+ / 0-)

    ad
    Confusing women, that he really DOES support abortion for rape incest and life of the woman, with this ex-Obama supporter claiming Obama's ads on Romney's abortion position are 'extreme'

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:47:23 AM PDT

  •  He is an excellent & subtle liar (3+ / 0-)

    Notice how in the debate quote he weaseled around the issue:

    "I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not."

    In the narrowest, most crabbed and technical sense, Romney's support of the Blunt amendment does not contradict this statement, because the Blunt amendment is about paying for contraceptives, not about legal access. So employers can't tell someone whether they can have contraceptives, but they can tell them to pay for it themselves.

    Is this a B.S. distinction? Of course it is. But it is also typical of Republican obfuscation on this and other issues: pretend that the actual ability to access contraceptives in real-life circumstances doesn't matter, only the theoretical ability to do so counts. In other words, pretend that class doesn't matter.

    That's why Obama's comeback on this issue, when he emphasized that this is a family issue, was so important.

    "Karl Marx and Frederick Engels came to the checkout at the 7-11 Marx was skint - but he had sense Engels lent him the necessary pence What have we got? Yeh-o, magnificence!!" (The Clash, 1976-1983)

    by Le Gauchiste on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:47:33 AM PDT

  •  Shame on you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rabel, thestructureguy

    You are lying to your readers.

    On the question whether employer health group insurance must provide coverage to pay for contraception Romney was and is opposed. But that is not the same thing, at all.

    On the other hand, Romney will, if he can, name supreme court judges who will overturn Roe, probably by denying there is a constitutional right to privacy.

    And if that goes states will be able to use the law to forbid or limit not only abortion but also sale or use of contraception.

    •  A spurious distinction without difference. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      Inability to pay out of pocket = women won't get it.  

      Defunding Planned Parenthood and letting insurers and employers refuse to cover contraception means Romney doesn't support access.  

      Like I said, you're drawing a spurious distinction.

      "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

      by Pierro Sraffa on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:55:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  hey, (0+ / 0-)

      if Romney wants to weasel in a way that sounds like he's answering the question, but he really isn't, it's his problem if his "Yes, by which I mean no" is contrasted with his prior "no."

      It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

      by happymisanthropy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:21:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think he very carefully parsed his (3+ / 0-)

    words.  He says, "I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives "  

    This could literally be construed as true because what he is trying to do is to allow the bureaucrats to make women PAY for the contraceptives. So sure, we can have them, but he's going make it as difficult as possible by closing down Planned Parenthood and making Catholic hospitals off limits and supporting legislation that will not let insurance companies pay for contraceptives.   But, OF COURSE,  that won't reflect what he "BELIEVES."   I mean he is trying to mislead the ignorant with his every breath, but he gives himself denial room.

    Even his statement about the president being wrong about his policy gives him deniability (in his view) because who the hell knows what his policy is, if not him, and his constant obfuscation makes this interpretable only by him.

  •  "access" vs "affordable access" (6+ / 0-)

    Once again Mitt is practicing wordplay.  When he says

    ..and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not…
    he doesn’t mean that he believes employers should offer insurance that pays for contraception.  He’s just saying that he doesn’t think employers should be able to prevent employees from getting contraception (like, say, at their local drugstore).

    Sure, there are Republicans that would gladly outlaw contraception, but there are many more that grudgingly support the concept but don’t think insurance companies or the government should pay for it.  So when they hear Mitt’s statement above, they can parse their way to agreeing with him.  

    What Democrats need to stress more clearly, and what the President touched on last night, is that for many people, people that can barely pay for their family’s meals, it’s not “access” that’s important, it is “affordable access.”  Without insurance support, contraception may as well be illegal, because they’re not going to be able to afford to buy it.

    So Mitt thinks he can have it both ways when he says

    Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.
     Democrats need to highlight what this really means, and why it isn’t nearly as progressive a statement as Mitt would have everyone believe.
  •  note too (0+ / 0-)

    that this was another instance of Romney not following the rules. Before his lying lie about contraception, here's the exchange. There was a new question from the audience, but:

     GOVERNOR ROMNEY:  Thank you.  And I appreciate that question.  I just want to make sure that -- I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that I don't believe --

    THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think so, Candy.  I want to make sure your timekeepers are working here.

    GOVERNOR ROMNEY:  The time --

    MS. CROWLEY:  The timekeepers are all working.

    THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

    MS. CROWLEY:  And let me tell you that the last part, it’s for the two of you to talk to one another, and it isn’t quite as ordered as you think.  But go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to, the question is on the floor.

    Pretty obvious at this point that everytime he gets pushy and insists on the last word, he's going to deliver a real whopper.
  •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)

    To be honest, Romney would probably reply that what he means is that the Government shouldn't be paying for contraceptive care or forcing companies to provide contraceptive coverage in their employer-sponsored health care benefit plans if they object to it. He doesn't want the government providing funding for Planned Parenthood.  

    I'm sure he'd say that if PP can survive purely on private donations then he doesn't have a problem with them existing, and that as long as the government isn't funding contraceptive care either directly with money or indirectly with government mandates for coverage then sure, everyone can of course have access to contraception. It's dumb, short-sighted, and ignores the reality of women's health care in this country, not to mention imposing one's religious views on everyone else by denying funding for a particular women's health treatment as well as ignoring the economic impact of unplanned pregnancies and ... damn, I could go on and on.

    But the point is, he's not really lying, assuming he truly believes that PP is fine as long as it's privately funded, and every woman should have access to contraception as long as it's not directly or indirectly enabled by the government.

    It's a ridiculous position and for the life of me I can't get my head around why anyone would give a damn if someone else is taking birth control pills. But I also don't understand why they care if someone else is gay, or has a different religion, or skin color...

    [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

    by rabel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:51:50 AM PDT

  •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    is that Mitt Romney will say anything he thinks he needs to say to the group that's currently listening to try and get their support. How dare you try and hold mittens up to something he said just WEEKS ago? People CAN change their mind you know!

  •  Roms has debated so much he's a mass debater (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow
  •  what I love the most (0+ / 0-)

    about all the 'religiousity' of christians, is that a romney presidency would probably move more to the center than his current expose.  That being said, christians will once again have their collective stupid ignorant asses handed to them.

    republicans are feeling the heat of the christian/teaparty BS.  If there are any leaders left, they'll distance themselves from these guys in order to try to recapture the dream of a republican majority.  (The majority will never happen, but they can dream - can't they)

  •  Shake it up, baby (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    twist and pout. Shake up the Etch-a-Sketch, open up the memory hole and throw it all in there. It's a new day. Shape-shifting Willard's at it again.

  •  OK, it's pretty obvious Mitt is a lying sack of... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bear, raincrow

    shit, but where are all these polling numbers coming from? How can this campaign be even remotely close when the GOP has chosen this charlatan as their candidate?

    This frustrates me more than anything. The snake oil salesman actually seems to have a shot at the White House when he should be laughed off the stage.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:55:42 AM PDT

    •  This. Oh, so this. It's disheartening to realize (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, DSPS owl

      that half the country is composed of idiots gullible enough or delusional enough not to be able to see how absolutely insane the Republicans have become, and not to be able to see through the carnival barker patter just how fake and privileged and smarmy and smug Mitt is.

      I'm starting to believe the Republican tactic of projection isn't always (or even mostly) a deliberate tactic, but an actual psychological foible that most of them suffer from.

      The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

      by jayjaybear on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Massive flip flopper (0+ / 0-)

    The only thing consistent about Mitt doubleface Romney is his inconsistency.

  •  I think he was simply prevaricating... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    ...trying to confuse people by saying it's okay for women to have contraception if they want it, leaving unsaid the critical phrase, "if they can afford it."  I'm sure he still supports bureaucrats and employers having the ability to not have it covered by insurance.

    As for being half-witted....Evidently quality of wits is more important than quantity

    by Drummer1954 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:59:00 AM PDT

  •  Romney thinks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    Romney thinks all women should have access to contraceptives. But Catholic women aren't allowed to use them. Just buy them, set them on the coffee table, and stare at them in severe silence until they realize how evil they are.*

    *Which will be a lonnng time because inanimate objects tend to be very slow at coming to realizations.

  •  All medicine should be free (0+ / 0-)

    When are we going to nationalize the drug companies and end this fiasco?

  •  Remember what Romney believes about (0+ / 0-)

    "religious freedom," too. Your employer gets to decide which religion you practice in your private life, if you're lucky enough to get a job at all. So I guess if Romney ever got a job with a devout Jewish* employer, he'd have no problem with that employer telling him he can't buy pork products with the salary the employer's paying him.

    *No, I don't think this is likely, but it is at least theoretically possible given the entire R party's "your employer gets to control whether you have contraception and that's religious freedom" stance

  •  There is no real R-Money! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    He is nothing but a "house of lies".  Lies stacked on more lies and he crumbled last night when the President pushed him.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:05:23 AM PDT

  •  What about pharmacists who refuse to fill? (0+ / 0-)

    Due to their religious convictions.
    Then even if a woman has the means to pay, she doesn't have access.

    It's easy for many to dismiss this issue because it doesn't seem to apply to them. They don't have to worry about family planning or issues with their menstrual cycles that the pill might help.

    But this is the thin edge of the wedge. How long before employers decide other medication is contraindicated according to their religious (The Church of All My Wealth Are Belongs To Me) beliefs?

    Won't it be fun when you don't qualify because you're too old, fat, smoke filled, schlerotic, young, skinny, addlepated, depressed, manic, chemical filled or organic to qualify for assistance according to Mammon?

  •  One of my favorite moments of last night's debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    417els

    was when an audience member asked Romney about how he'd be different from G.W. Bush.  In Obama's rebuttal, he pointed out several areas where Mitt does not measure up to the standards of Bush. Bush never tried to 'get rid of' Planned Parenthood, for instance.

    Mitt will be worse than Bush. There's a meme I could get behind.

    Dogs are people, but corporations aren't.

    by Greasy Grant on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:13:45 AM PDT

  •  Remember how wrong it was when Gore exaggerated? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlwaysProgressive, raincrow

    ... Or how bad it was that Kerry  flip-flopped?

    IOKIYAR Foreveahs !!

    Actually, I'm so old  I can remember an election when both candidates were basically honorable men who prized honesty. Really kids --- it was once upon a time in 1976

  •  I just about choked on... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    my popcorn when I heard this statement. What a crock of shit. These POS's are all about deciding contraceptive alternatives and choice.

    Of course it hurts like Hell, You're getting screwed by an elephant...

    by wesinCA on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:20:54 AM PDT

  •  He's weaseling, not lying (not much better) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    Romney believes very broadly that all Americans should have access to whatever their heart desires: superyachts, private jets, multiple houses, dancing horses, contraception, food, healthcare, etc.  Romney only puts one tiny little limit on this guaranteed universal access: "if you have to ask the price, then you can't afford it".  That's how the greedos define "freedom".


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

  •  It's semantics: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow
    I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.
    He just believes that women who DO use birth control (for birth control or any other health concerns) should pay for it out of their own pockets.
  •  Romney lies. People who lie are (0+ / 0-)

    LIARS. Romney is a LIAR.

    “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.” Reference to Paul Ryan showing up uninvited and unwanted at a soup kitchen.

    by reddbierd on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:09:45 AM PDT

  •  Hijack! (0+ / 0-)

    Please forgive me. This is too good not to post in a ladyparts/misogyny diary, and I apologize if this is old news (it was new to me).

    http://www.rawstory.com/...

    !! Four more years !!

    by raincrow on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:10:57 AM PDT

  •  Romney and Ryan are EXTREMISTS. (0+ / 0-)

    Google the four words and two numbers “willke romney ryan akin 2007 2011” and see what turns up.

    Both Romney and Ryan are EXTREMISTS on women's issues. Both are in close philosophical agreement with John C. Willke, the nut-job doctor who came up with the idea that Todd Akin espoused, namely that "legitimate rape" does not result in pregnancy.

    Here is the PROOF:

    In 2007, John Willke endorsed Romney when he first ran unsuccessfully for President. Romney even issued a press release.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...

    The press release says:

    Welcoming Dr. Willke's announcement, Governor Romney said, "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President."

    In 2011, Willke AGAIN endorsed Romney.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

    Mitt Romney met Jack Willke, the doctor credited with popularising Todd Akin’s controversial views on rape and abortion, during the current election campaign and told him they agreed on “almost everything,” Dr Willke said.

    Willke also separately endorsed Paul Ryan. Read the documents for yourself.

    Need anyone say more??

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry November 6, 2012 MA-4 I am voting for my friends Barry, Liz and Joe (Obama, Warren and Kennedy)

    by BornDuringWWII on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:45:21 PM PDT

  •  I know it would be very difficult (0+ / 0-)

    But I would pop in ecstacy if Obama spelled this narrative out in real time at the debates.

    -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

    by Blueslide on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:46:19 PM PDT

  •  So which is it? (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney: "I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not."

    Mitt Romney: "I support the Blunt Amendment."

    Pinball Willard.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site