When it comes to its budget pitch to voters, Romney/Ryan has quite a vision: they'll slash taxes, increase defense spending, increase entitlement spending, and balance the budget -- all while protecting the home-mortgage-interest deduction, the health care deduction, and the charitable-contribution deduction. How? By closing unnamed tax loopholes.
There's growing impatience over the campaign's refusal to offer any kind of substance or details, to the point that even some Fox News hosts not named Shep Smith are getting irritated on the air.
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Romney went so far as to try to redefine what the word "specifics" means.
David Gregory specifically asked for "specifics" to explain how Romney "gets to this math." The Republican replied, "Well, the specifics are these which is, those principles I described are the heart of my policy."
In other words, in Mitt Romney's mind, specific policy details and broad statements about generalized goals are the same thing. When Gregory asked the candidate to name a single tax loophole he intends to close, Romney would not.
On ABC, George Stephanopoulos pressed Paul Ryan on this, asked whether "voters have a right to know which loopholes you're going to go after." Ryan said voters would learn the details after the election, once the Romney administration begins workting with Congress.
Asked if this constitutes "a secret plan," Ryan insisted it does not, saying he and Romney "want to do this out in the open," having "this debate in the public" -- but not until after they're elected.
Let this argument roll around in your brain for a moment: Romney is trying to redefine the word "specifics" to give it the opposite of its intended meaning, while Ryan is trying to argue that secrecy is actually just a delayed version of transparency.
I'd long assumed Ayn Rand inspired the Romney-Ryan script. Now, it's looking more like George Orwell.
Leave a Comment:
Reminds me of 2008 and John McCain's secret plan to get bin Laden, which he would reveal only if he was elected.
Luckily, our President had his own plan.
This Twit and his stepford wife are as phoney as they come. Here is some reality for the Twitster and wifey!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#48967817
since i'm old i also remember nixon running on his secret plan to end the war in vietnam....i also remember how that claim played out
flip and flop, lie and cheat....whine.....I'm sick and tired of listening to the righwing insanity. Yes, and nixion's favorite verbible claim....."I'm not a crook!" ROTFFL>
Mitt Romney thinks he's Mr. Terrific;
His tax plan would do wonders prolific...
All men's taxes would be cut,
Keeping benefits, but
He refuses to say anything specific...
I could only watch Flipper in five minute intervals on Face the Nation. Listening to all those lies and garbage coming out of his mouth made me so mad. I had to put the DVR on pause and walk away until I cooled off! LOL
So, will there be more than one debate????
There will be 3 Presidential debates.... Oct. 3, 16 & 23, and the VP debate is October 11. The schedule and time link below ;-)
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Heh. Only the Democrats would faint at the idea of consulting with Congress and the public about which deductions to look at, rather than have Obama declare something by fiat. If Obama wins can we call it a coronation?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RQDqV3ZBNq8/TuaM7OeCOvI/AAAAAAAAAfw/wwxr4MEnHn4/s1600/SunKingObama.jpg
Poor Sh**ter-- doesn't understand the concept of an "agenda." Along with so many other concepts.
Romney is consulting with the public - That consultation is, in this country, what we call an "Election".
In an election, the public decides which candidates vision they would like the ultimate victor to bring to congress.
Not sure if you really understand that or not...I'd say not.
Take it easy on Pooper242. It is very difficult to be a paid repuknican troll trying to defend Willard.
The Twit and Ryan couple are avoiding answering questions. I don't want the hear the BS about telling us what loopholes they will be closing has to be discussed with Congress. That means you expect to be elected before we know how you're going to screw us??? LOL.. how dumb do they think the American citizens are? Both Twit and Lieing Ryan avoided answering direct questions... they pull a Palin!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#48967823
Poor Blanks. It's days like today that make it really hard for trolls to "stand by their man", isn't it? They know just about anything they say just sounds stupid.
shooter,
if Obama wins can we call it a coronation?
lest we forget the "annointed one" by his daddy's friends in the supreme court, the worst "president" in the history of the world, STEALING 2 ELECTIONS, w. bush.
I think after this Election they really need to come up with a list of specific things that each Candidate has to have in order to run for President. A detailed plan which calculates exactly what they are proposing, along with a signed affadavit on their views about social issues. Otherwise any Dick, Jane or Harry could run for President, which is exactly what we have going on here. They are unqualified and always have been.....Oh, yeah they need another refresher course in Arithmetic. I'm surprised they are able to dress themselves in the morning.
They can't. Have you seen the suits Ryan wears? He still looks like he's trying on his daddy's clothes...
I think any Dick, Jane or Harry SHOULD be able to run for president. What we really need is a media that will fully vet them and call them on their BS; a media that realizes that there are not always two sides to everything.
For example, this morning on NPR, the reporter called the "We Built It" thing rhetorical instead of what it actually is . . . an outright lie by the Romney campaign.
@Angel - a list of specific things and a detailed plan is sometimes called a platform. The candidates, of course, will tell you they don't really mean it.
Any non-rich voter who votes for these bozos, is voting against their own interests. Are Americans that ignorant? I hope not. But in my business and other dealings, I can never underestimate the stupidity of the public. Just watch TV ads. The gimmick rules.
Voting against ones own economic viability is a uniquely *Amercian proclivity!
It has worked well for repuknicans for several decades! While we might think that hate and fear and Roe v Wade would wear off, they are all the repukes have so they keep beating them to death. Plus, this year we get more 'n!gger, n!gger, n!gger'.
Let's just say "specificity" is not one of Prince Willard's strengths.. This campaign is the GOP's and potentially the nation's "Titanic". Has Rmoney started playing Céline Dion music at campaign appearances yet or was he already sued for using it?
The problem with the idea of Mitt Romney using "My Heart Will Go On" as a campaign theme is, once he eliminates the Affordable Healthcare Act, most heart problems will become terminal...
Romney & Ryan are so-o used to speaking to the Tea Partiers and other conservatives who simply nod in agreement that their policy specifics will be revealed AFTER the election. Really? Even Fox News (no, that's not a misprint) isn't satisified with this strategy and are calling them out on it.
We're real close to sticking a fork in this election. It's just about done and the fat lady is stepping up to the mic.
So basically, if you're into Pet rocks (you really need one of these!), scratch off tickets (you could win big $$$ !) or $5.00 surprise bags (Suprise! you don't need any of this stuff!) ... well then, Romney's your guy.
Next: "Hey, you reporters! Get off my lawn(s)!"
Romney also stated on Meet the Press when asked if he would be able to balance the budget in his first term Romney said no, I'd be able to balance the budget in my second term. He's admitting an eight year turn around for a President to get a balanced budget.
Paul Ryan is bashing Washington insiders for not getting anything done. Ryan, the insider, has been in congress for 14 years; that's longer than Obama has been in Washington. Ryan has two bills he has sponsored that were passed...very important legislation here, ya ready for this? The first bill was to rename a United States Post Office building to the "Les Aspin" building. The second bill, was to lower the excise tax on arrows for the bow and arrow industry. Now in 14 years in Congres Ryan has not gotten it done, how will he get it done as a VP? They won't!
Now, now, Kat. If getting two meaningless bills passed in 14 years in the House doesn't constitute a hefty record of achievement that proves his leadership bona fides, I don't know what does. (Eyes rolling)
Seeing that they are trying to privatize the USPS I guess Eddie Munster won't have any offices to rename, will he? So, he will accomplish less than he has for 14 years whether he gets elected as VP or just gets his Congressional job back. I'll bet he'll excel at lying, though.
That was the part that struck me as the most sickening when I watched the RNC and specifically Ryan's speech. Ryan kept making statements about how Washington was broken and how we needed to send new people to Washington. Aside from the fact that it pisses me off to treat DC as if it's some cesspool (remember it's the Democrats who are dividing us *eye roll*), it was particularly annoying because he was acting as though he had never been in office before. I'm Mr. Smith and I'm running for office!!! But that's not the case. Both Ryan and Romney have spent a HUGE portion of their working life in the public sector. To be fair to Romney, his portion is not as huge. Ryan has never had a non-public sector job since graduating college. Romney has had private sector jobs, but quit way back when to run for office. Both of these individuals have been either actively running for office or holding office (or in Ryan's case working as an underling to someone already in office) since I was like 2 or 3 years old. And yet I'm supposed to believe that they are the outsiders???
All the Republicans did this though- Chris Christie did it too. He complained about those Washington bureaucrats and all I could think was "dude- do you not remember that you're a bureaucrat?!" Although granted he isn't a Washington bureaucrat, he's a Jersey bureaucrat. But since we're not supposed to be dividing the nation- which is TOTALLY what Democrats do- then Christie totally wouldn't be distinguishing between himself and some leper from DC, right, right???
Kudos to Romney. He's making me look forward to the debates even more than I was before.
Gonna pour myself a nice glass of wine, sit back and watch the entertainment.
I can't wait for the debates either; Ryan will get ripped for his record inexperience and backpedaling!
Romney will get blasted for not having a plan, backpedaling on everything from Obama care to gay rights to women's health issues. I'd like to know what he's been doing for the last six years in getting the US economy on it's feet. What has he done to bring out new/fresh ideas to businesses in being more successful in this economy if he's a great business person....what the heck has he done for anyone lately? Because we'd all like to know.
Exactly , romney ryan will be posting 20 messages to every winger site after every debate , claiming they did not mean what they just said in that debate 20 minutes ago
And your point on the economy should be addressed by every reporter and dem romney meets , the gop claim is that the free market is the cure for the economy etc. , so whats been the hold up for the last 10 years?
So, the principle is, sign whatever the congress sends you? And that's supposed to be considered leadership?
It seems to me that Romney, Ryan, AND Fox News have already realized that Obama will be re-elected. Now each of them is doing it's best to preserve their own reputation post-election.
Remembering that Dubya famously said he wasn't going to "negotiate with himself" I realize that even this refusal to give specifics isn't an original idea of Mitt's.
The Nicest thing that could happen to American politics would be to have Willard removed from the political scene . He can go back to Bain and do what he does best.
Get Filthy Rich .
He sure as $hit ain't getting a spot on Faux nooze
Romney makes more money per hour sitting around than he could possibly get attempting to appear 'smart' on FOX 'News'...
Yeah, he makes $53,000 a day for doing nothing!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html
The repukes don't have any secret plans (oh no),. If there's a war, escalate it. Public services, privatize then piratetize. The econonmy, cut taxes/ripp off/deregulate/lie about it.
Probably the only "secret" is that all the big government contractors are repulicans and vice-versa. And yes, when you bilk government insured pension plans for a living, you'r a government contractor...
The secret might be to lie about your promises and then don't keep them. Clunk Eastwood,, what a hypocrite...
RapEthePUBLicasmuchasICAN
I'd long assumed Ayn Rand inspired the Romney-Ryan script. Now, it's looking more like George Orwell.
DoubleSpeak and Doublethink refined to an art form.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
You nailed it Steve
Regarding Romney's and Ryan's fully unspecified plans to eliminate tax breaks to make up for tax rate cuts or to cut spending in certain areas to support their tax cuts and defense buildup, an enterprising journalist might start asking Romney and Ryan (and their surrogates) a series of questions like this:
"OK, I understand that Congress will have to define which tax breaks are eliminated to make your tax cuts revenue neutral. But if Congress sends you a bill that takes away the deductability of mortgage interest on your primary residence, will Romney sign or veto the bill? Or if the bill limits charitable donation deductions for the middle class, will Romney sign or veto the bill? Or a 50% budget cut to the FBI? Or cutting road funding by 50%? Sign or veto?"
And so on, going through a long list of potential targets. It's really not that hard, but clearly too much for the Village Media.
The answer to that sort of questioning is usually: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals."
So, yeah, a reporter can ask it, but that doesn't mean Mitt (or any politician) will give a straight answer.
Romney knows damn well that every tax credit is a sacred cow defended by an army of lobbyists. Specific cuts to the budget, or specific increases in revenue (which is what the elimination of a tax cut is) are unpopular to those affected. Getting specific costs you votes.
Loopholes are what other people use to get out of paying their fair share. If it's your own, it's not a loophole, its a tax credit.
Orwell, always Orwell, Ayn Rand was a toddler compared to the depths that Orwells' antagonists go.
Does Romney have a secret plan to fight inflation too?
I don't think we're going to get any specifics about any part of his platform before the election. He's just too risk averse. The thought of going out on a limb probably gives him hives.
I still haven't heard any news reporter ask Romney the key question, "Are YOU, Mr. Romney, better off than you were four years ago?"
Damned if he says yes (means Obama didn't take away his riches), damned if he says no (people will ask about his losses, and thus call for his tax returns).
Which is why he would not answer the question either way. He would simply say "My view is that the country is not better off than it was four years ago." And David Gregory would say "okay" and move on to the next softball question.
"Let this argument roll around in your brain for a moment: Romney is trying to redefine the word "specifics" to give it the opposite of its intended meaning, while Ryan is trying to argue that secrecy is actually just a delayed version of transparency."
Benen: This statement is extraordinary. Kudos!
It was really painful for me to watch Mitt Romney squirm in his seat during the in-depth interview with David Gregory. I almost felt sorry for him with the penetrating questions and follow-up that Gregory did. Gregory was unrelenting and I'm sure Mitt was relieved when it was all over. NOT!
If yesterday's disgraceful performance by David Gregory isn't enough to convince NBC that he should be replaced, I don't know what it will take.
MTP is one of the crown jewels of the network's news offerings. Gregory is squandering the show's excellent reputation built by journalists from Martha Rountree and Lawrence Spivak to Tim Russert.
The American people aren't getting any help from DG when it comes to seeing through the vacuousness of the Romney/Ryan campaign.
David Gregory is a teapub pimp and NBC knows it.
David Gregory is a teapub pimp and NBC knows it.
As opposed to The Morning Joke and Chuckie Todd?
Opposed? No. I was making reference to MTP. As a matter of fact, I think Upchuck Todd has been hanging with the Willard family because when he was talking about the dems to Axelrod, he said "you people" instead of 'the dems'. Kinda surprised me he spit that out.
There's been very little said about the Harvard, Princeton, AEI and WSJ studies Romney cited in claiming his economic plan would work, and that's a shame. According to what I've read about those reports, they first acknowledge the numbers don't work unless the economy grows, and that they had to do a lot of guesswork because Romney doesn't provide specifics. That is a huge leap to take in calling Romney's plan workable.
Business is currently sitting on trillions. It doesn't need more tax cuts to create jobs here in the US. What it needs is increased demand, and nothing else will suffice. And while cutting the defense budget will indeed cost jobs, so will cutting all the other government programs Romney/Ryan want to eliminate.
Austerity is not the way to go right now. That's especially true when you look at Europe, where it's failed miserably, and even Romney said in the same Meet The Press interview that we shouldn't follow Europe's lead. Then he turns around and says we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!
We need a congress that will get off its duff and do the job the members were elected to do. Right now we need to rebuild infrastructure. Ours is crumbling, and it's not going to get any better unless we devote some money to fixing it. That in turn will create jobs not only for those construction workers doing the actual work, but for all the plants that have to supply the materials to do the repairs. This is something that should have been done at least three years ago, and we'd be in a whole lot better shape today.
Couldn't do that, however, because to hell with the country, "Our number one priority is make Obama a one term president." Disgusting!
It is amazing that if you had to come up with the perfect a*hole politician for a Hollywood movie, these self-important, condescending, bizarrely inept characters would work just the way they are.
We could cast them in the Vultures & Vouchers Snake Oil Show, starring, Trust Me I'm A Corporation Mitt Romney and his side kick Ludicrous Lyin' Ryan.
Running on broad principles isn't the same as specifics. If government were just about agreeing on principles, we probably have most of our problems solved. To adapt a thought from Michelle Obama's speech: how you would implement the specifics reveal what your principles really are.
It also reveals how much you've really thought about the issue and how feasible your solution is. You won't know how deep or committed Romney is to his principles until he has to commit to specific actions. For those who believe in Romney's character or in the Republican platform, then this may be good enough for them. It's also a question of how independent the independents are. Do they want to put their faith in Romney or do they want to know what they're getting?
I know politics is not the same as religion, but it seems like some people approach it more as a matter of faith: faith in party, faith in principles, and it seems a little blind.
I'd be curious how much Clinton's speech and future involvement will change the dynamic. Clinton provided the clearest articulation and defense of Obama's policies and, as Jon Stewart pointed out, Clinton even articulated more of the Republican platform than the Republicans did. And if you have someone who can clearly articulate the specifics and lay them out there for the Democrats, it makes it even more apparent that it is lacking on the other side. We need more of this clarity and I hope that all the Democrats can not only build from the blueprint Clinton gave them, but they can get stronger themselves at laying out their case.
And then I would wish that someone could put together a composite view/chart/diagram of Romney's positions and all his shifts. I suspect Romney counts on the public not remembering what was said a few days ago or even a week ago and he doesn't expect people to track what he says in one state/city as he goes to the next.
And since I'm just going off, it bothers me that Romney tries to make the defense cuts a White House idea. The Republicans didn't agree just to humor the White House. If we had to have real political issues ads, I'd wish for an ad that pointed out that Republicans proposed these cuts and that they have the power to avert the cuts if they're willing to compromise.
I'd also wish for a political ad about Healthcare that clarifies what was passed and how it is benefiting Americans. With all the money spent on negative advertising, why not spend some on something that was achieved, which Democrats can be proud of, and which has a lot of positive benefit for millions in need.
One of Twit's spoke persons doing the same dance as Twit and Ryan on specifics. Funny as all get out!!!! They all doube talk and stumble!! Ryan make me fall out laughing, when asked the question about specifics he drew a long breath and seemed like he gulped before he went thru a nonsensical shpeil ... actually saying nothing!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434#48971205