Are there any policy questions Romney has actually answered?

[Skeptic Ginger]

This guy's worse than a SCOTUS Judge answering questions in a confirmation hearing. Romney avoided answering any and all specific policy questions in an entire interview on Face the Nation.

Face the Nation: Why is Mitt Romney afraid of the media?

Probably because he doesn’t have the answers. He prefers platitudes, generalities and sound bites to specifics.

For instance, Romney has yet to tell the American people where he will make his spending cuts to compensate for his immense tax breaks for the 1 percent. He basically says, “Be patient, trust me, you will get the details down the road.” We’ve been hearing this evasive rhetoric ever since the first Republican primary.

This comment cracked me up:

Just look at this convoluted non-answer to Schieffer’s question about Obama’s new immigration policy:

Schieffer: Would you repeal this?

Romney: Well, it would be overtaken by events if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution, with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a President but on a permanent basis.

Good Lord, what did he say? Does he even know, or does spewing gobbledygook just come naturally to him?

 

[Puppycow]

Romney: Being Vague About My Plans Helps Me Get Elected

In an interview with the Weekly Standard, Mitt Romney admits he’s being deliberately vague about his plans for sweeping cuts to federal programs, because if he gets specific he would lose the election.

One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” Romney recalled. “So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In other words he thinks people are too stupid to notice.

 

[theprestige]

Are there any policy questions Romney has actually answered?

FWIW, I'm content to accept your answer to this question, SG. If your List of Policy Questions Actually Answerwed by Romney has zero items on it, so be it.

Good Lord, what did he say? Does he even know, or does spewing gobbledygook just come naturally to him?

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding anything wrong with Romney's answer. The basic principle is sound: Rather than the President having to pick and choose what parts of what laws he will enforce, the laws themselves should be improved.

And it's certainly the case that we all should expect better than a policy that varies on the whim of whoever is in office. We all should expect a better law, not the temporary workaround we currently have.

So on those points, Romney is clearly correct.

As to the non-committal part of his answer? Why shouldn't he be non-committal? Obama could have implemented this deferment on Day One of his administration. Instead he remained non-committal about it for three years, right up until the day that he decided it was politically expedient for him to make an issue of it.

So why should Romney be bound by what Obama considers politically expedient? Why should he have any answer to this question, simply because Obama decided to talk about it? Doesn't Obama get to pick and choose his battles? Doesn't Obama get to fight them at a place and time of his own choosing? Why not Romney?

 

[BenBurch]

So, spineless is OK, theprestige?

 

[jj]

So, spineless is OK, theprestige?

It worked for 'W'. Oh, wait.

 

[DavidJames]

In other words he thinks people are too stupid to notice.

Indeed and the rest are simple apologists willing to dance to whatever tune this (or most any other) Republican plays.

 

[Twiggett]

Indeed and the rest are simple apologists willing to dance to whatever tune this (or most any other) Republican plays.

So are you saying if I don't see anything he said as being any more vague than is the norm at this point of a presidential campaign that I am stupid or an apologist? Just trying to understand before I react badly to something I may have all wrong....

 

[theprestige]

So, spineless is OK, theprestige?

Sauce for the goose.

 

[BenBurch]

Sauce for the goose.

Penn Jillette was comparing Romney to a squid just yesterday... What sort of sauce goes with that?

 

[Tricky]

Penn Jillette was comparing Romney to a squid just yesterday... What sort of sauce goes with that?

Squids make their own sauce.

 

[theprestige]

Penn Jillette was comparing Romney to a squid just yesterday... What sort of sauce goes with that?

Marinara.

 

[DavidJames]

So are you saying if I don't see anything he said as being any more vague than is the norm at this point of a presidential campaign that I am stupid or an apologist? Just trying to understand before I react badly to something I may have all wrong....

The part I put in bold is often used by apologists. Many here think Tu Quoque is a valid political debating technique. But ultimately it's your response which will define you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Examples (paraphrased so if anyone sees it differently speak up):

Romney: Obama's executive order on undocumented immigrants is wrong.
Schieffer: What would you do?
Romney: I'm not going to say.

Romney: I'm going to create jobs:
Reporters: How?
Romney: Cutting taxes and regulations.
Reporters: How would you pay for the tax cuts, which regulations:
Romney: I'm not going to say.

I guess you should expect your free pony if you vote for him because that's about what he's promising.

 

[DavidJames]

Examples (paraphrased so if anyone sees it differently speak up):

Romney: Obama's executive order on undocumented immigrants is wrong.
Schieffer: What would you do?
Romney: I'm not going to say.

Romney: I'm going to create jobs:
Reporters: How?
Romney: Cutting taxes and regulations.
Reporters: How would you pay for the tax cuts, which regulations:
Romney: I'm not going to say.

I guess you should expect your free pony if you vote for him because that's about what he's promising.

It should be noted Romney's opponent has proposed specific plans for both questions.

People should consider that before they label Romney's failure "normal".

 

[RandFan]

Romney: I'm going to create jobs:
Reporters: How?
Romney: Cutting taxes and regulations.

IOW: We will do the same things that got us into this mess. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. How has that worked out? The S&L scandal, Enron, banking scandal were all the results of deregulation.

So, more unemployment, weak economy and bailing out banks for gambling with depositors money like drunken sailors... yeah

 

[Twiggett]

The part I put in bold is often used by apologists. Many here think Tu Quoque is a valid political debating technique. But ultimately it's your response which will define you.

Can't lie, I had to look that up, point taken though.

As for my response, it is in large part to do with the fact that I decided some time ago that I was not going to vote for him, though voting for someone else for me does not mean voting against him either, that I don't see it as all that different than the norm. My reasons for deciding against voting for him are not really on topic so I won't discuss them here.

 

[ravdin]

In other words he thinks people are too stupid to notice.

Or he thinks that voters have an amazingly short attention span and will judge him based on sound bites. In which case he'd be right.

Sadly, politicians who are more candid on TV interviews are not likely to make it as far in the process as Romney has.

 

[Unabogie]

Or he thinks that voters have an amazingly short attention span and will judge him based on sound bites. In which case he'd be right.

Sadly, politicians who are more candid on TV interviews are not likely to make it as far in the process as Romney has.

But going back as far as I can remember, they always had a "plan" for this or that. I can't remember anyone saying they wouldn't even present a plan prior to an election.

Obama certainly outlined his agenda in 2008. If you look back at his original health care plan, it was almost exactly like what was eventually passed. I really can't recall any candidate who didn't even have a health care plan.

George Bush, 2000:

http://www.4president.org/issues/bush2000/bush2000healthcare.htm

That's pretty detailed, even if I don't think his plan would work. At least you can see where it would spend money and cut money.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I don't see a single number besides lying about Obama cutting $500 billion from Medicare! Not one number! Amazing!

 

[BenBurch]

But going back as far as I can remember, they always had a "plan" for this or that. I can't remember anyone saying they wouldn't even present a plan prior to an election.

Obama certainly outlined his agenda in 2008. If you look back at his original health care plan, it was almost exactly like what was eventually passed. I really can't recall any candidate who didn't even have a health care plan.

George Bush, 2000:

http://www.4president.org/issues/bush2000/bush2000healthcare.htm

That's pretty detailed, even if I don't think his plan would work. At least you can see where it would spend money and cut money.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I don't see a single number besides lying about Obama cutting $500 billion from Medicare! Not one number! Amazing!

Note all the follow-through on those Bush promises?

Romney will have no trouble following through on nothing at all.