General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN’s O’Brien bludgeons Romney adviser with Israel-policy ‘contradiction’ (brings up 47%) (video)
video link: http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/08/exp-point-wall-israel-palestine.cnn.html #cnn
In a contentious discussion with Tara Wall, a communications adviser for the Romney campaign, CNNs Soledad OBrien cites a contradiction in the Republican candidates position toward Israel. In his upcoming foreign policy address, Romney plans to recommit the country to a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state; yet in the secretly recorded video of 47 percent fame, Romney professed that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in peace.
When OBrien pressed Wall on the completely contradictory positions, Wall went deflective: The fact is its the president whos failed in the negotiation process, she said. OBrien congratulated her for an excellent shift but insisted that she answer the question. She said that a Romney administration would stand side by side with Israel. Which is tantamount to not answering the question.
The puzzle here is why Wall chose lame dodges instead of citing the portion of that surreptitiously taped video in which Romney says hes torn between two perspectives on this matter.. One is the perspective that OBrien cites in her question and the other is a peace-is-possible outlook. Herewith more Romney from that surreptitious video:
So the only answer is show strength, again. American strength, American resolve, and if the Palestinians someday reach a point where they want peace more than were trying to force peace on them, then its worth having the discussion. But until then its just wishful thinking.
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/cnns-obrien-bludgeons-romney-adviser-with-israel-policy-contradiction/2012/10/08/fe9e3bd4-1144-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html
BumRushDaShow
(129,063 posts)trailmonkee
(2,681 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,063 posts)earlier this year "out of context"?
Which Mitt Rmoney are we talking to today?
There are like a million defective clones of the man running around talking to the media.
trailmonkee
(2,681 posts)Reminds me of the Italian lady who defaced the Jesus painting in her church and is now asking for royalties? It's that kind of logic?
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...on the tape, he said he was torn between two perspectives, but Soledad only played the first of the two. Without also hearing the second, the first is out of context.
There is so much good, indisputable stuff to throw against Romney, that it bothers me when we let stuff like this happen.
I'm not saying that the tape of Mitt on a Palestinian state is not good material to use, but I think it is still pretty damning even when presented in complete context, so it is our detriment to present it in a way that makes it even worse than it really is, thereby giving the other side ammunition in their claims that their candidate is being misrepresented, which, when shown to be true, leads people to give less credence to other "accusations" from the same sources.
CitizenLeft
(2,791 posts)Bigleaf
(2,050 posts)Love it!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The Romney "spokespeople" are assholes.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)She is to Romney as Karen Hughes was to G W Bush. Here is an earlier of her deflecting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=231248
BrainMann1
(460 posts)made by Jeffery Sachs on Martin Bashir that Mitt and his staff are aggressively deceitful. I'm glad to hear someone say it for what it is.
It's a wonder to me how this country can vote for a man who would lie to be president.