A Pathetic Looking Handsome Man

[rjwould]

Mitt Romney was a guest on Fox News Sunday morning, and the man just walked all over himself, even though that unbiased(?) joker of a journalist Chris Wallace threw him mostly softballs and let the guy get away with obvious inconsistencies and blatant untruths for the first half of the interview. Wallace actually challenges Romney during the second half (probably due to the fact that most Fox conservatives disagree with Mitt on almost everything he stands for except hating the ****** in the White House) and the man simply fell apart. It was easy to see because watching Romney's eyes, his brow began to tighten.

Anyone else see the 'show'? What did you think?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't see that one but I saw Juan Williams interview Romney on CSPAN and it got so disgusting I couldn't sit through it all.

First, they introduced Williams as being from NPR, leaving out any mention whatsoever that he's a regular on Fox News. It gives quite the false impression of William's lack of neutrality.

Then Williams asked nothing but softballs and didn't follow up on anything. Challenges to Romney's false claims were totally absent. Sounds a lot like the Wallace interview.

Romney makes the usual denials about having decided to run for Pres, that's pretty standard. Clearly he is going to run. The book is essentially a campaign theme, "No Apologies", and Romney had nothing to say except Obama criticisms, all false. Romney claims Obama made international rounds apologizing for America, yadda yadda. Romney repeated over and over how that has made us unsafe, yadda yadda.

It's unfortunate so many Americans believe that. They believe Bush's military aggressiveness made us safer. It's nonsense. You could just as easily argue that invading Iraq made Iran more determined to get nuclear weapons to prevent a similar invasion of their country. But of course, Williams offered no counter position to Romney's campaign slogans.

 

[Brainster]

The evidence you present is compelling. The examples you give clearly back up your case. Have you considered becoming a blogger at the Huffington Post?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Duplicate post. I blame Lisa.

 

[rjwould]

The evidence you present is compelling. The examples you give clearly back up your case. Have you considered becoming a blogger at the Huffington Post?

I may be able to dig up a you tube video or a transcript if you'd like. Will you read it if I do?

 

[rjwould]

Heres the transcript.

I'm of course figuring you were not disputing my assertion Mitt Romney is a handsome man!

 

[MikeMangum]

Heres the transcript.

I'm of course figuring you were not disputing my assertion Mitt Romney is a handsome man!

I guess the 3rd question where Wallace asks:

In your book, you criticize actions by your successor, Governor Patrick, but then you write this, and let's put it up on the screen. "Even with these added costs and policy choices by the legislature and the new governor, the plan is working."

But let's look at the record. According to the Wall Street Journal, average Massachusetts health care premiums are now the highest in the nation. Per capita health spending is 27 percent higher than the national average. And fiscal 2010 costs are $47 million over budget. Is that your idea of, quote, "the plan is working?"

is a softball?

The 4th question (a follow up) is:

WALLACE: But, Governor, let's look at the plan that you signed into law in Massachusetts in 2006. You have an individual mandate. You have an employer mandate. You have subsidiaries for some of the uninsured. You set minimum insurance coverage standards.

Again, a lot of e-mails I got from conservatives say — make this point. They say it sure sounds an awful lot like "Obama-care."

The 5th question (the second follow up) is:

WALLACE: Yeah, but I want to pursue this, if I may, Governor. The libertarian, and certainly the somewhat conservative, Cato Institute says that your plan in Massachusetts is a mirror — a mirror plan of "Obama- care." They say it's quite right you didn't raise taxes, but they say, in fact, you got millions of dollars from the federal government to finance your plan.

I got about 6 or seven questions into the transcript and got to "WALLACE: Governor, I want to — I want to press this just one more time on a different angle" before I decided that I had read enough to see that these weren't softballs.

I guess since Wallace didn't declare that Romney was evil and ritually disembowel him on live television, he threw "softballs". Yeah, whatever...and I don't particularly like either Romney OR Wallace.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can see the Williams/Romney interview on CSPAN. It's airing once more on Sunday and I think you can watch it online anytime. I'm not sure if there'll be a transcript available anytime soon.

It was more softball than the Wallace interview, at least as far into the program as I watched.

 

[Region Rat]

Mitt Romney was a guest on Fox News Sunday morning, and the man just walked all over himself, even though that unbiased(?) joker of a journalist Chris Wallace threw him mostly softballs and let the guy get away with obvious inconsistencies and blatant untruths for the first half of the interview. Wallace actually challenges Romney during the second half (probably due to the fact that most Fox conservatives disagree with Mitt on almost everything he stands for except hating the n%^#@r in the White House) and the man simply fell apart. It was easy to see because watching Romney's eyes, his brow began to tighten.

Anyone else see the 'show'? What did you think?

Care to support the bolded statement?

Care to support the use of the barely disguised descriptor? Or will you use the Rather defense (tm) that "Of course I don't use that word, but the racist conservative FOX watchers do?

Pretty thin, my friend.

 

[rjwould]

Care to support the bolded statement?

Care to support the use of the barely disguised descriptor? Or will you use the Rather defense (tm) that "Of course I don't use that word, but the racist conservative FOX watchers do?

Pretty thin, my friend.

I admit thats my interpretation of the actions and attitudes of most divisive conservatives.

 

[Brainster]

I admit thats my interpretation of the actions and attitudes of most divisive conservatives.

This tells us more about you than it does about those divisive conservatives.

 

[rjwould]

This tells us more about you than it does about those divisive conservatives.

Such as what, I have an opinion and am willing to put it out there? All any one of us knows about the other is what we want known.

 

[Scootch]

Such as what, I have an opinion and am willing to put it out there? All any one of us knows about the other is what we want known.

What is the difference between putting an opinion out there and being devisive? The language you use to describe conservatives can be construed as devisive.

 

[Brainster]

Such as what, I have an opinion and am willing to put it out there? All any one of us knows about the other is what we want known.

This is not true at all. There is what you say, and then there is what I learn about you from what you say, which may not be what you want known. For example, on many threads Lefty Sergeant has referred to conservative women as sluts, tramps, whores, etc. What he intends for us to know is that conservative women have loose morals. What we actually learn, however, is that he indulges himself in casual sexism.

Similarly, with your OP and several other posts in this thread you want us to know that Mitt Romney and most Fox conservatives are a bunch of racists who think of President Obama as a n-----r. What we actually learn, however is that you have a comically one-dimensional and unsophisticated view of conservatives. Not, presumably, something you want known.

 

[rjwould]

This is not true at all. There is what you say, and then there is what I learn about you from what you say, which may not be what you want known. For example, on many threads Lefty Sergeant has referred to conservative women as sluts, tramps, whores, etc. What he intends for us to know is that conservative women have loose morals. What we actually learn, however, is that he indulges himself in casual sexism.

Similarly, with your OP and several other posts in this thread you want us to know that Mitt Romney and most Fox conservatives are a bunch of racists who think of President Obama as a n-----r. What we actually learn, however is that you have a comically one-dimensional and unsophisticated view of conservatives. Not, presumably, something you want known.

Ah! I see!