Kinda, Sorta Real Time Thoughts on Meet the Press (September 09, 2012)

Post DNC Convention, Meet the Press with David Gregory is meeting with GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And the conversation will be as anemically interesting and substanial as the anemic job growth out and about the U.S.

(Why does Meet the Press no longer offer conversations as interesting as those thrown around on Chris Hayes’ and Melissa Harris-Perry’s shows?)

David Gregory has made one decent point: independent analysts are pointing to the fact that the underpinnings of the economy are finally stable and ready to take off. So Romney’s promise 12 million jobs would have been created at any rate, under a Democratic or Republican administration.

On the GM bailout and eventual recovery, Romney is pointing out the fact that President Obama did let GM go into bankruptcy that he, Romney, advised GM to go into bankruptcy and that the government was too late. (This point needs to be fought back. What Romney wanted was to let GM go bankrupt and let it re-structure with private investments. Private investments from firms like Bain Capital, the same Bain Capital that refused to invest in GM. Pres. Obama let GM go bankrupt and then bailed it out with government funds after the private sector refused to intervene and invest in GM.)

Ann Romney is admitting that she and Mitt have not experienced financial struggles but that they nevertheless understand what it is to struggle. To that, she points out that she has struggled from medical affects, like Multiple Schlerosis but that somehow allows them to understand financial struggles. (To that, I’ll say: Financial struggles are financial struggles, Mrs. Romney. They don’t necessarily equate to medical struggles. In fact medical struggles with money are fundamentally different than medical struggles without money. The struggles of Americans has to do with the lack of money as such.)

On Clint Eastwood, Mitt Romney:  I was laughing AT Clint Eastwood. Oy vey! (What a buffoon!)

“We’re all sons and daughters of the same God.” Romney’s Judeo-Christian ethic is his view on how to get in bed with the Evangelical Christians. (And, of course, Obama is an Evangelical Christian. And I’m not sure Romney’s move working.)

David Gregory is addressing, not pointing to, the fact that the Romney ticket is laying out principles to cut taxes and raise defense spending (Holding defense spending constant while inflation goes up is precisely the same thing as raising defense spending.)  And what loopholes would Romney close?  Romney claims to have some principles but apparently no facts that he’d share with we Americans, facts that we might need to know about. (Romney’s big thing is the economy but he still has no answers on the one issue that actually would do quite a bit to change economic incentives: our tax code! And why is he referring to Harvard and Princetons studies that plump for his cherry picked arguments? Give David Gregory some answers Mr. Romney, give us some answers.)

Romney has come out against sequestration and against the Republican leadership that helped design sequestration. What the hell? What is that all about unless it’s playing swing state politics. And playing swing state politics badly. Indeed, I’d say this is playing right to the base.

Replacing Obamacare requires that you repeal it first you dumb bastard. And saying otherwise, that you someone wouldn’t already knock out the really popular bits about the ACA is just wrong.

President Obama’s policy promises that he’d talk to his enemies. To that Gregory points out that neither President Bush nor President Obama have been able to stop a nuclear Iran though both promised to stop a nuclear Iran.

What’s the Redline? How do you stop a nuclear Iran. How can Romney succeed when two presidents said the same thing that Romney bandies about?

Is Mitt Romney going to roll back Roe v. Wade? He’ll encourage that move in the Supreme Court, though he won’t fight for it.

San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Bill Bennett, Peggy Noonan and Chuck Todd are the roundtable.

Romney is against the sequestration and Ryan last summer was all for it. What the hell? The Republican Party was all for it before it’s come out strongly against it. Flip flop on the sequester!

Mayor Castro is pointing out that Romney’s whole schtick is non-specificity. And how does that play hold water?

E.J. Dionne: Romney wants to cut taxes, raise defense spending without raising taxes. E.J. Dionne pointed out something David Gregory should have showed up, that Romney is pushing an issue without really telling us what that is, how that might go.

And it’s a funny thing that Romney couldn’t answer any of the fake questions Gregory pointed out and instead pointed to Princeton and Harvard studies about the tax code and its causal push to spur growth. That’s like…errr, err, something odd and funny.

Peggy Noonan is saying that Romney will lose the debates if he fails to draw the line between his Republican Party and the one that George W. Bush led. He needs to point out that his policies wouldn’t lead to Bush’s policies that led to the destroyed economy and two failed wars.

Chuck Todd: if Romney doesn’t win the first debate he’ll lose the opinion vote for the presidency.

E.J. Dionne: as Greg Sargent points out Bill Clinton is a sort of referee for independent voters.  People have long forgotten how bitter politics was in the 1990s; Clinton is their anchor for their nostalgia. For some independents Clinton has offered the “go” sign to vote for President Obama.

~ by Faheem Haider on September 10, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: