Archive for evasive

VIDEO: Fla Gov. Rick Scott ducks gun safety questions from CNN's Soledad O'Brien


rick scott 2

No matter how passionate Soledad O'Brien was, no matter how hard she tried, she couldn't get to square one with Governor Avoidy McGunGun who flat out refused to answer her directly. He ducked, he covered, he bobbed, he weaved, but true to form, Soledad was in his bald face.

But hey, he sure supports the Second Amendment.

Soledad O'Brien:

Okay. I think with all due respect, are you not going to answer my question, because I guess — I just want you to tell me what you'd be comfortable to support, and I get it, it's gonna be part of a conversation, but I think there have been a number of things on the table and I don’t feel like you’re telling me, you know, should people not be able to buy those high-capacity magazines? Some people suggested that. What thing are you willing to say would be a good start, that YOU would bring to the table in  any conversation about gun control?

Rick Scott (who kind of slurs his words, did you notice?):

Well, you know, my perch on things like this is, one, respect the families, mourn their losses, make sure our schools are safe, and then start the conversation and listen to Floridians. What I do every day is travel the state, almost, pretty much every day, and listen to Floridians and get their ideas and then come back, based on those ideas of what we can improve.

Soledad O'Brien:

Well, I that hope all those conversations turn into meaningful legislation somewhere down the road before I get to go out and cover another tragedy of which we’ve now done a bunch of them.

So to recap, what Gov. Avoidy will bring to the table is listening to others talk as he respects them. If that's not a man of action, nothing is.

Think Progress:

But Scott [argued] that “It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach.


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


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:


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.


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


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.


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


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.


Cliff Notes- Advice on how to handle the two Romneys: Public Mitt and the one behind closed doors


My dear friend and mentor, Cliff Schecter, has a new post up at HuffPo; hence, because Cliff has given me permission to share his work with you, I’ll give you the latest edition of what I call Cliff Notes.

He skewers better than a chef at Smokey Joe’s BBQ. He has comedic insights that rival those of our mutual friend, the hilarious Lizz Winstead. He’s sharper than the point on Sarah Palin’s pin head.

Here are a few excerpts from his latest, with permission. Please read the whole thing, because he has way more than I’ve included here:

... I am here to tell Barack Obama (and to a lesser extent Vice-President Joe Biden) what he should do in the coming debates, when taking on someone who takes more positions than yoga guru Bikram Choudhary, and will likely continue to bob and weave like he's Big Bird trying to escape Rick Santorum's teeth. [...]

So here it goes: President Obama needs to go into the next debate with a simple theme - one which happens to have the benefit of being true. There is the Mitt Romney you see in public, and then there's the Mitt Romney behind closed doors.  

Public Mitt Romney loves all of humanity like it's a baby cuddled close to his breast for protection. Private Mitt Romney thinks 47 per cent of us are moochers who are not worthy of his attention because we don't support his candidacy, as we're somehow not bedazzled by his heartlessness towards children of undocumented workers, attacks on women's rights and serial abuse of hair product.  

Public Mitt just hates offshoring. Behind-closed-doors Mitt used to attend secretive meetings while at Bain where he invested in a company that pioneered new methods for taking American jobs to China. Public Mitt just loves, (loves I tell you!), Medicare. The more private Mitt is meeting with his vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, to figure out how to voucherise it.  

Finally, you have public Mitt chastising President Obama for not being more "transparent". Yet, Private Mitt thinks he should have the right to only share one year of his tax returns [...]

So Mr President ... you have done many good things, particularly when it comes to healthcare, the Supreme Court, minority rights, the auto bailout and knocking off that bin Laden guy that Mitt Romney would've - by his own words - spent less time worrying about than finding new offshore homes for his lucre. You, Mr President, are the man for the job. [...]

So come out strong in your next debate. Bring the fire. And remind people that there are two different Mitt Romneys: The public Mitt, and the one behind closed doors. And God help us if we give either of them a chance to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Cliff Schecter is an author, pundit and public relations strategist whose firm Libertas, LLC handles media relations for political, corporate and non-profit clients. 

Follow him on Twitter: @CliffSchecter


Okay... It's fundraising time here at TPC. If you like the news and stories we bring you, then please, please consider donating, since our expenses go way beyond what we can afford out-of-pocket:

You can use PayPal via 'donate' button in the sidebar or below, plus WePay.

Even a few dollars make a difference! Your donations truly help us stay afloat.

Donate to The Political Carnival using WePay

If you need a snail mail addy, feel free to email Thank you.

We also still have our CafePress Political Carnival Swag Shop (with great coffee mugs)!
Please visit it here:


Mitt Romney-The 767 Lyin’ King Politics


Today's guest post is by Denis G. Campbell who graciously invited us to cross-post it from his site, UK Progressive:

While pundits were quick to jump all over President Obama for “losing” the debate last week, this poker player of a President has to be pretty happy today for one simple reason… the weekend chatter is all about more Mitt Romney lies.

Mitt keeps trying to twist himself into a moderate pretzel after spending nine months as a fire-breathing right winger. The ‘Etch-a-Sketch’ has run out of sand because it was shaken so furiously so many times by his woefully inept campaign staffers.

The first rule of debating when in the lead is: “do no harm to yourself.” The second rule comes from Napoleon Bonaparte: “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The third rule? When your opponent is digging himself a huge hole, toss him down a cool, refreshing drink and… an extra sharp new shovel.

Mitt Romney is nearly to China with his digging now. When even npr (National Public Radio) the mildest, least controversial of any network leads with “Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks,” you know you are in trouble.

Add in the Friday Jack Welch and FOX Business News led RW freakout over good September job numbers (stats the President would have seen on Monday or Tuesday before that debate) showing a huge national psychologically significant drop to Jack Welch and FOX Business News… it suddenly looks more like a shrewdly planned move by the President.

If the president attacked too ferociously in that first debate, he would be portrayed as the “angry black man” and done much harm to himself… Even by winning he would lose as the GOP propaganda arm, FOX News, would spend days calling him a bully. So he lets them crow for 36-hours then watches them all eat crow all day Friday over the jobs number freakout and then the media no longer focuses on President Obama’s debate performance, rather they look at Mitt’s lying. President Obama played them like a violin because he knows exactly how they will react. Light a match and yell FIRE! And the herd rushes to watch it burn.

Fact-checkers everywhere note that Mitt Romney uttered 29 lies in just 37-minutes. So the question is, who won the debate? Was it the wonkishly calm, nerdy sitting president or the attack dog challenger who had five full length rehearsals in three days and been preparing since July?


EVERYONE in the pundit class is now asking the simple question: “why can’t Mitt Romney tell the truth?” The 37th edition of Steve Benen’s weekly tabulation of lies: Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity was released Friday on Maddow blog.

37 weekly editions devoted to lies. There were 50 lies told last week. A typical week sees 20-35. Yet 29 were uttered during the debate alone, the rest out on the stump. The grand total number of lies uttered since the start of the campaign in late 2011?


Just let that sink in.

There is an old joke, “how can you tell a politician (lawyer, businessman, ex-wife) is lying? Their mouth is moving.” Politicians ‘stretch’ the truth all the time. They shade and use nuance quite liberally. They make bold promises they cannot possibly keep to make an audience happy.

But they cannot tell 767 bald-faced lies and survive. That number is so beyond the pale and we have four weeks and two more debates to go. He could conceivably hit 1,000 campaign trail lies!

And factor in one more nugget. Mitt has been a key leader in his church for decades. Even though his LDS Church (or perhaps despite) was originally built by a man of questionable integrity and was executed in his jail cell, their most sacred text, The Book of Mormon is completely unambiguous about lying. Lying is an offense punishable by eternal damnation.

“In Section 63, in verse 17 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormon Church we find this: ‘All liars, and whosoever loveth and and maketh a lie, and the whoremonger, and the sorcerer, shall have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death,’” Bashir said. “And from the Book of Mormon to Nephi, Chapter 2, Verse 34 we find this: ‘Woe unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.’”

Bashir said, is MSNBC’s Martin Bashir who first raised this issue on his programme months ago, “It doesn’t matter how many times he hears the truth, Mitt Romney prefers to tell lies,” Bashir said, going on to call the leading GOP candidate “Mitt the Mendacious.”

So will American voters reward lying behaviour on Election Day? My bet is no. And I am certain President Obama will not throw him any lifelines in the next two debates.

(I have chronicled Mitt’s lies and this entire election campaign in a series of e-books condensed into the paperback and e-book “Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show” available on and

is the author of 6 books including 'Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show,' 'The Vagina Wars' & 'Egypt Unsh@ckled.' He is the editor of UK Progressive Magazine and provides commentary to the BBC, itv Al Jazeera English, CNN, MSNBC and others. His weekly 'World View with Denis Campbell' segment can be heard every Thursday on the globally syndicated The David Pakman Show. You can follow him on Twitter via @UKProgressive and on Facebook.


VIDEO: The debate debate; let's not forget what preceded it.



My friend, the wonderful author Jane Devin, wrote a post about this video here. I'd like to add my two cents.

All I'm seeing on the Tee Vee Machine lately are swats to the president for his debate performance. Never mind the months and months that preceded that night. Never mind Mitt Romney's countless lies, Etch A Sketch moments, blatant hypocrisy, flip flops, sleazy out of context excerpts of President Obama's words in his campaign ads, and his own constant evasions and terrible policy positions. He's refused to give details of his tax plan, he's refused to reveal his tax returns, he's refused to let us know much about how he'd run this country at all, he's shown his dangerous foreign policy ignorance repeatedly, he's lied about his own bipartisanship, yet media commentators are frothing and hyperventilating over 90 minutes of television.

Yes, take the debate into account, but for goodness sake, look at the big picture. While the optics of that evening were disappointing for the president, he conveyed more than body language. He actually did rebut a few of Romney's jaw-droppingly idiotic ideas (whatever they were), and even pre-emptively went after others.

But Romney and Obama both have long track records. If the election hinges on one debate, then why go through the motions and expense of campaigning? 

Share this video. Broaden the conversation, because guess what? TV is about ratings and profit, not necessarily about fairness or truth. It's about entertainment (or in this case, infotainment). The media need a closer race, they must keep us hooked, because they thrive on our viewership.

It's up to each of us to educate ourselves about who will be our next president, and laziness is not an option. Watch, read, research, listen. And learn.


And then vote.


VIDEO: Fox News to Romney policy director on failing to provide tax plan details: "You’re just not answering my question. So let me put it AGAIN..."


When even ClusterFox expresses frustration over Team Willard's hazy, vaguey, Etch a Sketchy, detail-challenged secret plans, you know Romney's in trouble.

Gregg Jarrett to Romney policy director Lanhee Chen:

"He’s not saying which of the loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions he wants to close. That is huge. That’s significant. How can he not tell the American people those facts?"

"But why won’t he explain how and which ones and by how much?"

" But Mr. Chen, forgive me, you’re just not answering my question. So let me put it AGAIN ... Don’t they deserve to know which ones are going, which ones are not, and by how much?"

Via Think Progress.