Archive for details schmetails

GOP: The party of no ideazzzzzzz

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

The GOP is "the party of big ideas”? Seriously? Don't make me laugh.

Actual policy plans? Oh come now.

Solutions to real problems? Feh.

Meaningful proposals? Puh-leeze!

Details Americans can hang their collective hats on? Hardly.

Ultra super duper double whammy partisan rhetoric? Now you're talkin'.

Then again, Republicans have had, erm, difficulty accepting reality.

Jonathan Bernstein at Salon draws our attention to the rehashitude of the more outspoken up-and-coming "leaders" of the party, or as I like to call them, deficient blowhards:

Start with Jindal. An alleged policy guy, he ... had all of two ideas: a Balanced Budget Amendment and term limits. In other words, the same old ideas that Republicans have been trotting out since …well, certainly since the Reagan administration. [...]

Marco Rubio? ...  His big idea, as Dave Weigel reported this week, turns out to be the exact same policy ideas that Republicans have been giving for some time now but labeling each one as a benefit for the “middle class.” Which mainly involves reciting the words “middle class.” [...]

Paul Ryan... as Jonathan Chait put it... has “no policy to offer the poor other than the incentive of being hungrier and sicker.”

And the money line:

For the last several years, the way to get a big reaction in conservative circles is to make a teleprompter or a birther joke, not to bring up unsolved problems in the nation.

Wake up GOP. The self-described Big Idea Party has devolved into a slumber party. And you know what they say:

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: What's the deal with Republicans and their refusal to provide details? Talkin' to you this time, Boehner.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

To go all Seinfeldian for a moment, what's the deal with Republicans and their refusal to provide details? Remember this collection of GOP evasion and secrecy?

Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Republicans just can't seem to learn from their mistakes, because here we go again.  Then again, if Americans knew the details of their plans... fugetaboutit.

Today at a press conference, John Boehner said the following:

Boehner:

There has been no serious discussion of spending cuts so far. And unless there is, there is a real danger of going off the fiscal cliff. [...] So right now all eyes are on the White House…It’s time for the President, Congressional Democrats to tell the American people what spending cuts they’re willing to make.

Q:

So your 2011 position still stands, then? I mean, are you still offering, those talks from 2011, is that still the basis here?

Boehner:

Listen, I’m not going to get into the details, but it’s very clear what kind of spending cuts need to occur, but we have no idea what the White House is willing to do.

Pot. Kettle. Elusive.

Think Progress:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) called on President Obama and Democrats to specify entitlement cuts that could balance their desires for tax increases in a hypothetical deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff,” even though only Republicans have demanded spending cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security. Despite their support for putting entitlement programs on the chopping block, GOP lawmakers have refused to specify how, or by how much, they would cut the programs.

First, it's not a "fiscal cliff," more like a "fiscal bluff," and a crisis of their own making. Second, they're not entitlements, they're earned benefits.

And third, killing Medicare is not an option, voucherizing is not an option, avoiding direct questions is not an option, but this sure is: Liberals double down: No entitlement cuts.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Paul Ryan would play "leading role" if Romney wins. Then why won't he answer any questions?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

I got this email alert today. Since I'm not a subscriber, my access is limited, but here's the tease:

Paul Ryan Is Said to be Planning an Active Role: Representative Paul D. Ryan expects to play a leading role in a Romney administration’s drive to enact a budget-shrinking government and overhauling programs like Medicare.

Two things: One is the obvious concern over their agenda. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher system that will cost more out of pocket, and they'd love to cut things like, oh, let's see... FEMA. And that's just for starters.

But the other thing is this: Romney-Ryan’s shunning the press. Both of these cowards are refusing to answer questions, neither will be interviewed and haven't been for weeks. So what we got (or didn't get) during their campaign was a conspicuous lack of details about their policies and plans, a press blackout, and a whole lot of lies.

Yet if-- and that's a big if-- they win on Tuesday, Paul Ryan would suddenly become very visible and is already previewing the horror story that will become the United States of America should they gain the powers they crave so much. He aspires to be the next Dick Cheney, and we all know how that turned out.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Romney-Ryan's fear of the press

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

I previously posted this:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Willard M. Romney’s real closing argument is M.I.A. Why? Because his closing argument is “Don’t ask, because I won’t tell.” He won’t answer a question because he has no answers. And he has no answers because his policies are inferior, destructive to Americans, would sink this country, are discriminatory, and don’t actually exist anyway. Romnesia’s like that.

Details? What are those? Details schmetails.

Facts? What are those? Facts schmacts.

Integrity? What’s that? Integrity inschmegrity.

Amazingly, Romney hasn’t held an interview in over three weeks. Think about that. A candidate for president of the United States, leader of the free world, is afraid of the press.

That's pretty important. Think about it for a moment. The guy who wants to lead the country won't give the people of his country details about his tax returns, his policies, won't answer questions, lies a lot, and-- ta-daaa!-- refuses to give interviews.

Now his running mate is following suit. Politico is reporting that Paul Ryan has gone dark:

[S]ince the week of the vice presidential debate, Ryan has gone dark on battleground reporters — doing no local television and only a handful of network interviews and syndicated radio shows. [...]

Ryan aides shot down the theory that Ryan avoided local interviews to dodge Mourdock-related questions, saying flatly that wasn’t true.

Romney and Ryan aides instead argued that the vice presidential nominee no longer needed the earned media in the final days of the campaign as much as he did when Ryan plucked him out of virtual obscurity to those outside-the-Beltway [...]

In explaining the sudden dip in Ryan’s presence on local television airwaves, campaign aides pointed to the fact that Vice President Joe Biden rarely sits for local interviews.

Using the old, "Well THEY do it!" isn't exactly effective, let alone credible.

Truth is, they just don't want him opening his big ultra-conservative mouth before Tuesday, just as Romney has avoided questions like the plague. They both know they'd bungle it, plus both prefer to keep us all in the dark about those pesky specifics that they know would turn voters off quicker than they can Etch their next Sketch.

Rachel Maddow noticed "Where's Pauldo's" diminishing presence back on October 26th:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“The election is a week from Tuesday. You’re in Alabama? Is Alabama swinging this year?”

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Mitt Romney's closing argument

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Willard M. Romney's real closing argument is M.I.A. Why? Because his closing argument is "Don't ask, because I won't tell." He won't answer a question because he has no answers. And he has no answers because his policies are inferior, destructive to Americans, would sink this country, are discriminatory, and don't actually exist anyway. Romnesia's like that.

Details? What are those? Details schmetails.

Facts? What are those? Facts schmacts.

Integrity? What's that? Integrity inschmegrity.

Amazingly, Romney hasn't held an interview in over three weeks. Think about that. A candidate for president of the United States, leader of the free world, is afraid of the press:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And thank you Ed Schultz for raising the GOP inauguration night plan to obstruct and destroy President Obama’s every attempt to reach across the aisle in order to create programs and laws that benefit Americans (at about 4:00). You can read about that unpatriotic plan and all about Robert Draper’s book here:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Romney too busy with "flag football" game, avoids questions about talks with Iran

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Last night NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor released a statement that it was “not true” that Iran would hold one-on-one nuclear talks with the U.S. for the first time. As the L.A. Times noted this morning, they didn't deny that the overture was made by Iran, just that there are no talks in the works:

The White House on Saturday issued a statement denying that it had agreed to one-on-one talks with Tehran after the election. But it didn't deny a report on the New York Times website that Iran had offered, for the first time, to engage in such talks with the United States after Nov. 6. The White House statement also noted that U.S. officials had said "from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."

The reaction I got from Obama supporters on Twitter and Facebook to the initial reporting was a big "yay!" that this could be the president's October surprise, then a collective "booooo!" when the New York Times article was contradicted by the White House. We were all a-flutter about how Mitt Romney would respond at the next debate on foreign policy.

Would he attack the president for “negotiating with terrorists”? Would he finally say definitively that he’d rather bomb Iran to smithereens, engaging in yet another war in the Middle East? Or would he *gasp!* agree that a meeting might be productive?

He was asked about all this today, which he of course sidestepped, because see, it cut into his time flipping a coin to determine the starting team for a flag football match between his aides (and his wife) and some traveling press corps members.

The latest from the L.A. Times:

DEL RAY BEACH, Fla. — On the eve of the final presidential debate — on foreign policy — Mitt Romney declined Sunday to say whether he would favor one-on-one negotiations with Iran to resolve the deadlock over that country’s nuclear program. [...]

Romney aide Garrett Jackson, interrupted: "Guys this is a football game. Come on. Are you kidding me?"

"I thought you were talking about one-on-one talks with the president,” Romney said. “I was about to answer."

You thought I was exaggerating? Oh "you people" and your silly questions. Oh that Willard and his priorities.

And his lack of specifics.

Romney has never directly addressed whether he would engage in one-on-one talks with Iran. But he has hinted that he would not, criticizing Obama for saying during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down with Iranian leaders without preconditions. [...]

The Romney campaign has not issued any statement on the New York Times report, and does not plan to do so before the debate.

Of course he won't answer. He's saving it all up for that Big Pounce tomorrow night. With any luck, it will be as effective as the one he got so lathered up about when Candy Crowley nailed him on a lie.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO- Gov. Bob "Forced Ultrasound" McDonnell: Questions on specifics about Romney/Ryan budget "laughable"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I watched MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell try to force an answer from Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) the way he forces ultrasounds on women. But she got nowhere. He floundered, he bobbed and weaved, he ducked and covered, he tap danced, he mocked, he stammered, he blamed, but he never gave voters any details about how Willard Romney's tax cuts for the wealthy would balance the budget without raising taxes on the rest of us, among other things.

Had he been doing a decent Paul Ryan impression, he would have brushed off Mitchell by telling her he simply didn't have the time to go into it:

Andrea Mitchell: Where is the math, and is Mitt Romney going to be under pressure in this debate to produce some specifics about how it will all add up?

McDonnell: Well, Andrea, first, that’s a laughable question. Where’s the president’s plan?

Are we laughing yet?

Think Progress:

"McDonnell tacitly and perhaps unknowingly admitted... [Romney] would have to raise taxes on the middle class to avoid blowing a hole in the budget."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare