Archive for evasive

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

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

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.

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

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

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

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

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 thepoliticalcarnival@gmail.com. Thank you.

We also still have our CafePress Political Carnival Swag Shop (with great coffee mugs)!
Please visit it here: http://www.cafepress.com/politicalcarniv

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare