In the editorial "Mr. Romney vs. Mr. Ryan," Aug. 14, on Mitt Romney's selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate, the paper stated: "More elaboration from Mr. Romney is required to determine if he'll be running with Mr. Ryan or, at times, from Mr. Ryan."Excellent idea.
May I suggest that when the Times Union editorial board meets with the Capital Region's candidates in the coming weeks, that similar hard questions are put to them, especially the incumbents.
Most notably, Republican Rep. Chris Gibson who, in April 2011 voted for the devastating cuts offered by the Ryan budget, which would end Medicare as we currently know it in exchange for a health care voucher system that will leave Medicare patients penniless.
But I have another question I want to ask: does Congressman Chris Gibson favor a woman's legally protected, constitutional right to choose whether to terminate a pregancy? If not, what are the limitations Gibson favors? Or, does Gibson side with Romney/Ryan/Akin when it comes to making abortion illegal even in cases of rape or incest?
If you don't believe that the GOP platform includes this language, try this on for size:
With little discussion, the committee on Tuesday adopted the same anti-abortion language it included in GOP platforms in 2004 and 2008. It seeks passage of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal rights to the unborn, essentially banning abortion.Voting for Gibson means that you are voting for the agenda of the GOP, which wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Of course, such an amendment would never pass, as you would need three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify it (I wonder if the anti-choice crazies have ever bothered to look this up). There are simply too many blue states for this ever to occur.
The language in the platform includes no exceptions for rape or incest.
But that's hardly the point, is it? Where does Gibson stand on this issue? He's been mealy-mouthed about supporting certain planks in the Tea Party platform, so is be betraying his base, or is he betraying his overwhelmingly pro-choice constituents?
Gibson cannot have it both ways. And it's the job of newspaper editorial boards to ask such questions. Lets see if the Times-Union's board is worth its salt on this one.