Ryan Channels Romney’s Flip Flops


Now this is just funny. Paul Ryan, the alleged fiscal conservative, is trying to blame the sequestration deal that could lead to very small cuts in defense spending on President Obama. Guess what? Ryan voted for that bill. You can almost hear Romney saying, “You have learned well, young jedi.”

Comments

  1. says

    You can almost hear Romney saying, “You have learned well, young jedi.”

    …followed later that day by, “Where did you learn that? I never said that!”

  2. blf says

    …followed later that day by, “Where did you learn that? I never said that!”

    …followed a bit later in the day by, “You cannot discuss that in an interview.”

  3. d cwilson says

    The amazing thing is, when republicans voted for sequestration, they were crowing about what a victory it was for them. Remember Boehner’s “I got 99% of what I wanted” quip?

    Now that they’re realizing that those cuts may actually go through and there will be less money for killing brown people in 2013, they’re in full panic mode.

  4. Michael Heath says

    Last evening I watched a bit of Piers Morgan interviewing Mr. Romney’s five sons. Mr. Morgan let them lie on CNN where he didn’t even question their false assertions, let alone rebut them.

    In addition Mr. Morgan could have had some skepticism for obviously absurd arguments made by some of the sons, such as one son arguing Mr. Romney wasn’t changing his positions out of political expedience but instead because he was adapting, which he rightly argued is an admirable trait when done for principled reasons.

    Mr. Morgan should have immediately asked how one laudably adapts from supporting the equal rights of gays as Romney once did to now promoting the denial of their equal rights while also promoting the bigotry against gays which is a plank in the pending GOP platform his dad had significant influence on developing. Especially since other sons repeatedly asserted their dad promotes loving others.

  5. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #5

    They should also have been asked how they can reconcile the support of a bill by Paul Ryan that would outlaw in vitro fertilization with their use of the same procedure to make up for their poor sperm production.

  6. Michael Heath says

    slc1 writes:

    They should also have been asked how they can reconcile the support of a bill by Paul Ryan that would outlaw in vitro fertilization with their use of the same procedure to make up for their poor sperm production.

    That’s a slam-dunk which is why I instead raised Romney’s obvious hypocrisy and bigotry on gay rights. The Romney camp, including Rep. Ryan, note that if Romney wins, he’ll set the legislative agenda and not Ryan, where the Romney camp differs from Ryan on some positions. I prefer journalists not lob softball questions as you advocate here.

  7. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #7

    What’s softball about it? It’s my information that Romney has promised to sign such a bill if it reached his desk as president so it’s anything but a softball question.

  8. greg1466 says

    I don;t see anything unusual about the fact that Ryan (and a lot of other conservatives) voted for it, but now appear to be against it. I think they voted for it largely because they couldn’t afford to be perceived as being against cutting the deficit and because they were (and still largely are) confident that sequestration won’t actually happen.

  9. Michael Heath says

    slc1 writes:

    What’s softball about it? It’s my information that Romney has promised to sign such a bill if it reached his desk as president so it’s anything but a softball question.

    That’s right, I forgot about that. But see how easy it is to avoid a vaguely worded point like what you originally raised? So you are right and I’m wrong, but a better version of the question would be on par with:

    Mr. Romney, you’ve previously claimed you’d gladly sign a personhood bill. Such bills would prohibit access to IVF here in the U.S., in spite of the fact X(3?) of your own sons have used IVF producing Y(5?) of your grandchildren. Why do you currently promote the prohibition of a right which has directly benefited your family?”

    A really tough interviewer would follow with:

    “Is it because your family is rich enough it can easily access IVF in other countries while you don’t care about such prohibitions since your family can avoid such restrictions; that your current position helps your political ambitions while your own family won’t suffer from your position if the personhood bill becomes law because of your wealth?”

  10. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @ericthered:

    Some weird combination of Kirk Cameron and the Jeebs character played by Tony Shalhoub in Men in Black.

  11. says

    On the “Jedi” thing, I was tempted to do the obvious and specify “Sith,” but then I remembered Obi-Wan’s immortal line of “…from a certain point of view,” and that fits right in.

  12. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #10

    My suspicion is that the response would be that Romney was unaware of all the implications of the bill but now that the reporter has brought it to his attention, he would insist that the provisions on in vitro fertilization be expunged from the bill. If, at that point, the interviewer really wanted to get nasty, he might ask whether it was appropriate for Mary Cheney (who was unmarried at the time and whose current marriage to another woman would be annulled if the constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to 1 man and 1 woman, supported by Mr. Romney, was adopted), to receive in vitro fertilization.

  13. lordshipmayhem says

    Comparing Ryan to a fiscal conservative is like comparing a shopping addict to a miser: complete opposites.

    He’s only against running deficits when the Democrats have the power. When it was a Republican president, he couldn’t tap the taxpayers’ credit card fast enough.

    The truth needs to be pointed out, repeatedly and loudly: Ryan is no fiscal conservative. He’s a spendaholic.

Leave a Reply