Mitt Romney doesn't want to have to deal with his Todd Akin problem anymore -- and he's taking steps to ensure he won't.
In this case, Romney was willing to sit down for an interview with the CBS affiliate in Denver, but only if he could establish a ground rule: "The one stipulation to the interview was that I not ask him about abortion or Todd Akin."
Now, at the national level, Romney can't get away with a move like this, and wouldn't even try. The Republican tends to avoid interviews that might challenge him anyway, but I suspect if the Romney campaign approached, say, David Gregory, and said, "We can do an interview, but you can't ask about issues I don't like," the host will refuse.
But for a local affiliate in Denver, where interviews with would-be presidents are a little tougher to get, the reporter was willing to accept the interview opportunity with the strings attached.
The problem, of course, is that Romney feels the need to deem the subjects off-limits in the first place. It's not like Akin and abortion rights are some obscure trivia with no bearing on the presidential campaign -- this is now a major topic of national conversation.
1. Does Romney agree with his own party platform on a federal ban on all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest?
2. Did Romney meet late last year with a controversial doctor who believes rape victims can't get pregnant?
3. Does Romney agree with the 38 anti-abortion bills introduced by his own running mate, including one that redefines rape as it relates to Medicaid funding?
4. Does Romney still agree with what he said in 2007 when he boasted that that he'd be "delighted" to sign a bill that would no longer allow abortions "at all, period"?
5. Does Romney stand by what he said to Mike Huckabee during the primaries, when he said he "absolutely" supports a "Personhood" measure that would ban abortion and some forms of birth control?
These are legitimate areas of inquiry, which Romney no longer wants to deal with. Worse, he's trying to muzzle journalists who might even try to raise the subject. This kind of cowardice in a presidential candidate can only last so long.
Leave a Comment:
Cowardice, hubris, spinelessness, indecisiveness - that's all Mitt's got going on right now.
this spineless man and his running mate both wouldn't know/admit the truth even if it bit them in the a&%! they both say one thing despite their record being the exact opposite. what a disgrace! this on to of them and their superpacs distorting the words of the democrats and Pres Obama. ryan is my NONrepresentative who appears incapable of any actual dialogue or compromise--lying seems second nature to him on the stump. no one side is right all the time but the Greedy Old Party is stooping to new lows every day. mcconnell admitted it on tape that the only goal was to destroy a president. akin clearly stated the gop platform and now they are running from him. what a disgrace. the gop would rather let our country fall off the cliff than do anything that would benefit the middle class. the gop hates women, seniors and the middle class pure and simple.
You're both right, but I hope we aren't the only ones seeing this. A good journalist would refuse to do the contrived "interview" and then write a piece about the strings themselves and what they mean.
Mitt
You can run but you can't hide. This will come back and bit your sorry white ass that you have had kissed all your life.
Cowardice, hubris, spinelessness, indecisiveness - that's all Mitt's got going on right now.
Plus lots of Free $peech!
Sad Old Veteran: Thanks for jabbing at the Citizens United decision, if legislation is needed to effectively overturn undesirable Supreme Court precedent that is the one we should be working to overturn, not Roe V. Wade (which, even if idiotic State "personhood" rules are enacted, will continue to govern abortion policy in each and all of the United States).
The thing of it is, any local interview becomes a de facto national interview - there isn't a news outlet that won't take clips or the entirety of that interview and air it if they can, so Mitt doesn't need to risk pissing off a David Gregory.
The question is, what will major news outlets DO with that footage? If they complain, as you are, that Mitt wouldn't be able to play those games with them, those will be interesting discussions. If on the other hand, they think "hey, WE'RE willing to play softball with Mitt if it means nabbing an interview," then things only get worse.
Here's what even the local TV stations could do: have a banner across the bottom of the screen saying, "As a condition for this interview, Gov. Romney demanded that there be no questions asked about abortion."
And no, they shouldn't ask Romney if that's OK. As long as he doesn't rule it out in advance, the TV stations should just do it.
It would be fun to watch him explode when he found out.
You beat me to it!
No. It would be better for the station to announce that the interview was scheduled and cancelled by Romney because he wanted preconditions. The station should go further and not allow any Romney surrogates, national and local, to give interviews. And the media should not allow sound bites from his speeches during the news. This should be done on a national and local level. It would leave Romney only his ads in the media and Fox.
But, you forget how many millions of ad dollars are at stake if Romney won't pay them to run his and his PAC ads. It is really about the money. He is willing to take money to dispose of aborted pre-persons (fetuses) through one of his investments, money from a gambling magnate (Adelson) and God only knows any others. We are seeing the COM (Corporate-Owned Media) for who and what they are: corrupt and greedy, without ethics or courage.
This evening, I thought of a diabolical improvement: after doing what I suggested earlier, the TV station should show Romney the tape themselves - and videotape his reaction.
Political TV just wouldn't get any better than that. People would be talking about that moment for years.
The PAC ads have already been paid for and/or Romney would not cancel that air time because Obama would snap it up.
Ms. Boyd, rather than rising to a high journalistic standard as Rachel discussed last night, "sucked up" to be "one of only four local reporters" allowed to interview the candidate. There's apparently no more spine at the Denver CBS affiliate than one finds in an average politician. Pathetic sale of soul for access.
Only one condition? Good. Maybe they will talk about other substantive issues like tax policy (including Romney's returns), business models for creating jobs (like Bain), foreign policy (including bank hideaways), and how Romney's economic policies differ from those of the most destitute third world nations.
There are so many issues to press Mitt on: why he won't release his taxes, why he won't explain his tax or budget plans, the lies he's told in his ads, what are his plans for medicare and other safety nets, etc. I'd take the same deal if I were a reporter since there are so many topics that make Mitt uncomfortable.
There's just one question I would want to ask Romney: If you don't want the media to do their jobs, why should they bother covering your campaign?
If you don't want the media to do their job now, how do you expect them to do it
if you happen to get elected. W/H reporters ala Thomas. Rather, etal are long
gone and won't be back for decades.
Rule #1: "If You Don't Want The Skid Marks In Your Underwear
Exposed, Stay Out Of Politics".
Romney is
Pro Anti-Choice with abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother,
with no exceptions what-so-ever,
and for person-hood,
and for a woman's right to choose her own brand of dish washing liquid.
and believes in respecting women,
and believes that women lie about rape.
Just pick a topic and sides to stand on about that subject . . .
And Mr. Liar Liar pants on fire Robme Hood will be on all of those sides !
His pants may be on fire, but Mitt can afford the super flame resistant "magic underwear".
He should. He stolen most of his money from the workers pension, 401k's and deposited in the Cayman Island...
Since Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are able to change or modify their positions on various issues with such frequency (and seemingly unaware they are flip-flopping as some like to call it), why not encourage local reporters to accept the conditions simply to engage these people in an on-camera interview only to watch their reaction at having their feet held to the fire? If they choose to evade the question, shame on them and if they decide to pull the plug on the interview, the reporter should be prepared to capture this on video tape...asking the fleeing would-be leader-of-the-free-world if they will be prepared to address the issue in an upcoming presidential debate, since they're unwilling to tackle the topic presently.
It would be nice too, to ask him about his investments, then when he starts the spiel about how its all in a blind trust and he doesn't know anything about it, to run the tape of him saying a blind trust is just a easy way to get out of discussing investments. That you CAN move things around in a blind trust. I believe it was in 2007.
>> This kind of cowardice in a presidential candidate can only last so long.
It only has to last until Nov 6 and he wins.
Remember when we had a hardball, useful news ecosystem? Good times, good times...
I respectfully disagree, Steve. It's gotten him this far.
Romney is about to accept the nomination of one of the two major political parties In the United States.
Why stop now? He's got 45% simply by being the nominee of one of the parties.
and by being white
And fabulously rich, and connected to the Koch brothers, who are not just fabulously rich, but obscenely rich, and happy to dump mega-millions into getting whomever the party would nominate elected.
When someone shows you who they are, believe him...the first time. Romney has said he'd sign personhood and he chose Ryan,with his views, as his running mate. I am surprised to hear many liberal commentators claim Romney did not know about Ryan's views or does not subscribe to them. I find this naive. Just because R&R both have non threatening in person personalities (in Romneys case it is close to ridiculous how he consciously does that) does not mean they don't hold definite or extreme views. Many people in history that have done much damage have been *nice* people. If voters choose to vote people into office when they do not know what views and plans they have, and voters do not educate themselves, we get the government we deserve.
Also...the statement that they won't OPPOSE abortion in case of rape doesn't mean much if they plan on giving those decisions to the states. R&R never said they would support it either.
My 5 cents for today :-)
You made some very good points, Ms Northlight.
Thank you :-)
Not sure if anyone here heard about the "interview" that the President did either last last week or early this week with a radio station in New Mexico. It was one of those "morning crew" type formats and the ONLY questions they asked were the following type:
- What is your favorite color
- If you could pick one super hero ability, what would it be
- Where can you get good soul food in Chicago.
Now I am not sure why this "morning crew" got an "interview" with the POTUS and I don't know if there were stipulations on what they could ask, but I just found it puzzling on the purpose. Personally I think anything goes questin-wise for any candidate - no pre-conditions. I did find out that a restaurant named Romero's (which the President visited a couple of years ago) supposedly has the hottest green chiles in the U.S. - so that is good to know. :)
Wow, Skip, that is one magnificent effort at false equivalency. "The morning crew" can probably barely name the Sec. of State -- neither they nor their audience were going to be interested in policy-chat... you know that old saying, 'when in Rome...' However, the Prez did also hold a WH press conference on Monday - where journalists, as usual, seemed free to ask him about whatever was on their minds.
June,
There was NO false equivalency intended. Just thought about it when this blog came up. I actually thought it was fun. I just wondered how a morning radio show in New Mexico got the chance to do that interview in the first place.I highly doubt Romney would fare as well as the POTUS on an interview like that - he's too stiff.
I was not trying to defend Romney as I stated:
Personally I think anything goes questin-wise for any candidate - no pre-conditions.
The unfortunate thing about this election is the fact (which you point out) that most of the people that listen to the "morning crews" across the country - as well as watch American Idol and Survivor - ALSO do not know the Secretary of State, etc, and will be swayed by misleading ads and lawn signs on who to vote for. I would imagine that not many people watch interviews with the President or candidates for President except for the small minority of people - like folks here - that are engaged in politics and the future of the country.
Okay, Skip, I'll take you at your word on it.
Non Sequitur would be a more apt description, June. But, I agree with the sentiment.
Right... the zany morning shows "dudes" are going to ask the POTUS about the Constitutional case law that helped get Citizen's United through SCOTUS and the majority ruling citations.
The whole point of Benen's posting was that Mittens set conditions for an interview. If you have evidence that Obama set conditions for the interview you reference, provide them. Otherwise, you are using the 'they both do it' false equivalency to justify what Mitt does. If that is the case, you are just another repuke troll (too subtle to be one of the normal paid trolls).
I agree Sandy. No place for those questions. As June points out - their listening audience is not interested in politics or the election until the week before, if then. Sadly that is the case with the majority of the voters. But how and why did they get an interview with the POTUS?
SadOldVet,
See my post at 12.2 - I was not trying to make a false equivalency. I just remembered hearing some of the POTUS's interview with the morning jocks and thought it was fun/funny. And my "stipulation" comment was said tongue in cheek - like you honestly thought the President would tell the "morning crew" to be careful what they ask. I was not putting down Obama and not defending Romney. Why do some people here get so defensive if they think there is a hint of disension against the POTUS or the left in general - and immediately call someone a troll? This is NOT that important - it is a silly tiny blog visited by a handful of people just "chatting". This blog does not matter. I think some take it wayyy too serious. SORRY I brought up the New Mexico interview Sad..didn't know it offended you and others so deeply.
Geez...lighten up. :)
skip, do you think they edited to sound like that? I've heard those book spots where I suspect they make it sound like they're asking questions from a recorded interview and call it theirs?
I have been suspicious of those interviews that are supposedly a scheduled interview. But I'm skeptical like that.
The President is going to be offered cookies and he will politely take a bite and praise them, not say "I don't trust these cookies".
hahhahahahah! It does not matter what Romney "says" or who asks him the question ... If Romney's lips are moving - he is LYING.
Why interview a man who acts as if every question is the same--"Do you still beat your wife?"
Local TV? Wasn't it last week that Republicans were criticizing (and Andrea Mitchell was acting like a whiny child) about President Obama giving time to local media and non-traditional outlets?
Yes. Yes, it was.
Maybe Romney think's that any question's about Akin are'nt "legitament".
"I suspect if the Romney campaign approached, say, David Gregory, and said, "We can do an interview, but you can't ask about issued I don't like," the host will refuse."
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? Given his past performance, I don't see Gregory having a problem with that condition. Game show hosts don't have to live up to journalistic standards.
Either Steve Benen has a much different (and higher) opinion of David Gregory than we do or he is afraid to offend the lead softball questioner at his network.
Or, as Tweety Matthews says "you cannot call a republican liar a liar because it is not polite and you might not get him again as a guest".
At least the reporter told us that Romney set a condition on the interview. Good for her, I doubt we would hear the same from a lot of the national reporters. They would just accept the condition and pretend they got to ask anything they wanted.
I think this is more accurate of our MSM journalists even with their softball questions.
The question is, will Romney demand that certain subjects (abortion, his tax returns) be off limits in the debates? And demand that the networks not reveal the terms, or else Romney will refuse to participate? And if he does refuse, demand Obama accept a "fair and balanced" debate on Fox? Outrageous, you say? Never been done, you say? Well, Romney's breaking so much new ground with special rules for himself, I sure wouldn't put it past him.
How rehearsed will Ryan have to be in his debate against Biden? Will he simply repeat one line over and over (Republican style) and consider it a 'legitimate' response?
My question is this,
What will he do during the debates, when he can't make the rules about what he is and isn't asked.
I predict a lot of swing answers that turn things back on Obama , but don't really answer the questions asked.
I don't understand why the news media (you included) don't raise the issue of the plummeting crime rate in this country beginning in 1993, 19 years after Roe v Wade. The crime rate has fallen every single year since then 33% (FBI figures as quoted in Wikipedia (US crime rate). At about the same time in Romania they had a forced pregnancy policy and now they are having an unprecedented rise in crime rate (Frekonomics).
That's the hypothesis of a recent book -- anyone recall the one I mean?
Are you by any chance referring to this piece of pseudo-intellectual nonsense?
Freakonomics
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
If the crime rate is going down, it isn't being reflected in the prison population in this country!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Interesting theory. It might be a false correlation (just because A correlates to B does not mean A causes B, for one thing there might be a C not taken into account). Still interesting. As to the overpopulated prison system, war on drugs answer for a lot of it, the number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980, violent crimes have dropped.
Sounds like a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy to me ("after it, therefore, because of it") which is, as Ms Northlight points out, a false correlation. As we psych majors get to hear over and over, correlation does not equal causation.
(but, thanks to Dr Goodword for giving me an excuse to dust off "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ... just don't get to use that often enough anymore! :-) )
It may not have been proven within the book, but it does raise the question of causation. Of course, as in most studies, the conclusion seems to be 'more studies need to be done.' I think it's a plausible hypothesis that unwanted, unplanned children of poor, single mothers who often live in poor communities might have a higher than average rate of children who become criminals. Of course, I'm talking about the small time street crime, not Wall St. mega crimes (perps seem not to get jail time, most of the time).
This is what happens when you hire Sununu as an advisor on messaging. He was let go from pappy Bush's administration and rode out on a rail for messing up in very similar ways there. Arrogance, and pissing off the media are his specialty and is usually in full force in the face of disasters such as Akin has delivered upon Romneys' doorstep. I suspect that Romney will stay away from all major networks until after the convention... assuming "Hurricane Karma" doesn't delay, or postpone it.
Wait until the debates.
We will find the GOP candidates also drawing 'off limits' lines so severely restricting that there won't be any reason for anyone to show up for them.
I hope they bookended the interview with a couple of 30 second explanations why Mr. Romney was opining on the heights of trees and heaviness of rocks instead of answering the questions their viewers tuned in to hear him answer.
"...again for our viewers that tuned in late, we should explain that in order to get Mr. Romney to sit down with us, we had to agree not to ask any of the questions our viewers submitted...."
Mother f-ing Newsvine you suck with this double posting nonsense!