The hopeless decline of the liberal world!


Watching us act just like Fox: Last evening, the cry was made all over cable, from Hardball through the Maddow Show.

Let’s present the point as the hapless Gail Collins presents it this morning. Last evening, on pseudo-liberal cable, you saw the highlighted point belabored all night long:
COLLINS (10/11/12): You have to calm down, Democrats. Romney hasn’t turned into some new super-candidate. You were just underestimating him during September. He’s the same old Mitt. This week in Des Moines, he told an editorial board that he doesn’t have any plans for pushing anti-abortion bills if he’s elected. (“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”) Meanwhile, back at headquarters, his spokeswoman was assuring National Review that he “would, of course, support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”

Maybe this will come up in the vice-presidential debate. Do you remember how well Joe Biden did against Sarah Palin?
Collins has one of the laziest minds in the known world. For the latest proof, just click here. (With several citations of Seamus!)

All last night, you saw that highlighted pair of statements presented as Romney’s latest flip-flop and/or contradiction. But that was just a big pile of crap—a marker of the liberal world’s headlong descent into the realm which once belonged only to Fox.

Is Romney involved in a new contradiction, a flip-flop? Just look at the two short statements there, even as they have been clipped.

In one statement, Romney says he knows of no legislation that would become part of his agenda. Is there some such proposed legislation that he is passing over?

We don't know what that would be. And no one felt the need to speak to this point last night on Our Own Liberal Fox.

In the second statement, a Romney aide says that he would be willing to support some such legislation. As anyone with two brain cells can see, that doesn’t contradict what Romney told the editorial board.

But so what! In truth, we liberals simply aren’t smart enough to create an actual politics! As the buffoons have always done on Fox, we have to gin up our cries of rage.

So it went all night on liberal cable, as we screamed about this fluff.

By the way: What did Romney really say to the board, if you read his fuller statement? At the Des Moines Register, Jennifer Jacobs gives her account of what happened.

More significantly, she provides the text of Romney’s fuller statement:
JACOBS (10/10/12): In the face of polls indicating eroding voter support and a shrinking gender gap, Obama aides worked feverishly Wednesday to try to enmesh Mitt Romney in a controversy over his abortion stance, turning a 30-second slice of a 40-minute interview in Iowa into a hotly discussed national news story.

Romney told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board Tuesday there’s no legislation regarding abortion “that would become part of my agenda.” The remark sparked a tidal wave of spin from Obama backers, even as Romney backers stated that he had not reversed his anti-abortion position in any way and has maintained consistency since he began running for president.


So, here's what Romney really said

Here’s an instant replay of what happened:

During a meeting before a campaign rally at a family farm in Van Meter Tuesday, The Des Moines Register’s political editor followed up a question about legislation on women’s issues by asking Romney if he intends “to pursue any legislation specifically regarding abortion.”

Romney answered: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda. One thing I would change, however, which would be done by executive order, not by legislation, is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy, which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries. It’s long been our practice here that taxpayer dollars are not to be used to fund abortion in this country. President Obama on the 10th day of his administration changed the Mexico City policy to say that abortion services were not prohibited in our foreign aid dollars. I would go back to the original so-called Mexico City policy.”

The Obama re-election campaign immediately seized on those remarks, drumming up news coverage by reaching out to reporters in emails and phone calls. And their comments quickly caught fire in the Twitter-verse and mainstream media.
Read that fuller statement by Romney. Does that sound like someone who is trying to hide his anti-abortion stance?

To our ear, it sounds like Romney couldn’t think of a piece of legislation to endorse, then compensated by offering a long spiel about Mexico City.

But that is all speculation. In the real world, there is no contradiction between Romney’s statement and the subsequent statement made by his spokesperson. Nor did Romney contradict some previous stance he has taken.

But so what? We need to offer cries of rage. And in truth, we don’t really know how.

By light years, Romney is the worst nominee for president of the modern era. He is a horrible candidate.

Despite that, our side is unable to formulate a serious case against him. We could all see that very clearly when Obama debated last week.

The gent arrived with nothing to say. But then, all summer long, our strategy had been the following: Wait for Romney to make a gaffe. Then, yell loud and long.

We don’t know how to build real claims, from our hapless president down. (He was just too polite!)

Sorry. There’s no contradiction in what Romney said to that editorial board. As far as we know, he didn’t reverse some previous stance.

The children looked very feeble last night. Good lord! We are so much like the buffoons we once mocked at Fox!

Our next post: Same problem, different horseshit


  1. [footstomp]

  2. Yes, Bob. It sounds very much like a candidate trying to hide his neo-anti-abortion stance, or else he would have said, "I am unaware of any such initiatives, but I would certainly support legislation that would protect human life."

    But he didn't say that. He said any such proposals out there were not on his agenda.

    Read carefully what he said. "There is no legislation with regards to abortion that I am familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

    Surely he is "familiar with" a myriad of proposals "with regards to abortion." Everything from de-funding Planned Parenthood, to required ultrasound tests. Not even he can pretend to be so uninformed that he is so unaware.

    That is why his campaign headquarters immediately had to walk it back, even to the point of calling key supporters and financial backers the minute the Register posted its story, and long before the "Obama campaign" had a chance to spin it into something that Romney actually said.

  3. This is a blatant reversal of his position. His running mate, the guy he picked as most qualified to replace him if he has to quit or dies, cosponsored all of the following: a federal person hood law, a law defining which raped women could and which raped women couldn't get abortions funded by medicaid, a federal law requiring women to get ultra sounds before getting an abortion, laws banning dc from spending their own funds on abortion, and laws defunding planned parenthood. The notion that Romney hasn't heard of these bills is just absurd.

    1. Or as Ted Kennedy famously said when Romney was trying to run against him as a pro-choice Republican:

      "He's not pro-choice. He's multiple choice."

    2. Thank you for clearly making Bob's point. I know the tribal stuff feels real good, but it never leads to a sustained progressive change.

  4. Quaker in a BasementOctober 11, 2012 at 4:00 PM

    Bob, you remember when GWB stood in front of the cameras and declared, "There is no plan on my desk to invade Iraq"?

    Romney's statement reads about the same.

    1. I also remember GWB at the second debate with Gore saying specifically that our nation's military shouldn't be used under any circumstances for "nation building."

      But he said it forcefully.

  5. "In the real world, there is no contradiction between Romney’s statement and the subsequent statement made by his spokesperson."

    Ummmm, Bob? Then why did his spokesperson have to issue a "subsequent statement" at all if they were saying the same thing?

  6. Hi there, just wanted to tell you, I enjoyed this post.

    It was practical. Keep on posting!

    My homepage: get redirected here

  7. I every time spent my half an hour to read this blog's articles daily along with a cup of coffee.

    Here is my web-site ... for more

  8. Really interesting post, thanks for sharing. It's interesting to view something from the other side. Keep posting more!