Really, a Romney advisor thinks the CBO works fo Obama
 

Good God, can a high level communications director for a Presidential campaign be any more ignorant. She just was expecting a softball interview from AC, who I really don't like, and she actually got asked a question. She immediately moved to talking points but that did not work.

Really, you want Romney as your President if this is his idea of hiring a good communications director. She thinks the CBO works for Obama. :confused:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...ney-adviser-cb

Oh the first comment is priceless:

This is the person Romney chose for one of his advisers? That should tell you something. She came on the show with a rubber knife and Anderson was armed with a sharp mind. She sounds like a little kid trying to convince daddy that she didn't break the vase when she was the only one in the room at the time. Weak and uninformed are the best words I can use for her performance on this show

It's not to say that many of these political consultants/advisors are worth a sh!t. Bunch of geeky Student Government/Cheerleader types.

Oh, I've heard the phrases, "Obamas FDA", "Obamas DEA"..........:confused:

Dave

And right next to that article;

""Related posts,

Gingrich: Abolish So(c)ialist CBO

Michael Steele: CBO report, "That's a Lie!""

Anyone see a pattern here?

The CBO releases figures these clowns don't like and it becomes "Obamas CBO", "So(c)ialist CBO" and a CBO that "lies".

Ahhhh, the villification of all that don't hop on board the wingnut train..........

I'm sure Obama would be readily claiming credit if those enitities did something that made him look good. Presidents have chiseled out a large domain of power in Washington such that most anything emanating from the federal government can be attributed to them IMHO. Personally, I'd like to see less presidential power. I didn't think the girl did that bad in the interview. Anderson was obviously attempting to shake her up by his questioning. In an interview, one should attempt to slow the pace as much as possible, however, that is possible only if the one being interviewed has more clout gravitas than the interviewer. Reagan and Clinton were experts at this and it.

I'd rather listen to her than the conniving, snickering Axelrod despite her use of a possessive pronoun instead of the definite article regarding the CBO.

I've never seen her interviewed. I suspect that she was simply nervous and misspoke and lacked the experience to tactfully recover.

Those articles are old and were likely put up automatically as relating to the CBO. The CBO is constrained by the inputs and use models for projection that may not be an accurate reflection of reality. Their scenarios, like most future predicting economic models, have been consistently wrong more than right even in the relative short term; hence, they are useful for politiicians to use, both sides, to make a point wrt legislation and policy. Given their current funding ($~45M/yr), I'm surprised they can keep up as well as they do in just generating reports, let alone model all the economic variables for our macroeconomy.

Of the two I'll put my faith in the mouse. Ok, Ok - crappy attempt at levity but nobody has a real crystal ball but I would accept the CBO's guesstimates in the absence of anything concrete coming from it's detractors. There's too much of the Cantoresque withering disdain and/or Bidenisms being tossed at the CBO without any defensible calculations/graphs/projections being pointed to.
We can chip at the assumptions used in modeling but to dismiss the CBO as partisan hacks is kinda ridiculous to me.

It's not the POTUS but the SCOTUS you ought to be worried about. Ever since Marbury v. Madison they've been a law unto themselves and ever since Nixon nominated Lewis Powell to the Court they've been about the business of turning the US into an oligarchy.

Yeah, I thought she did pretty well too...... for a girl.

How is it "attempting to shake her up" to point out that "Obama's CBO" is actually part of the Legislative Branch and not the Executive? "The girl" just kept on going though, repeating and repeating the same mendacious talking point, never answering a totally legitimate question. I suppose I have to give her credit for being pretty tenacious though.

Her use of the possessive pronoun, apart from being simply wrong, was calculated to reinforce the talking point that Obama "lied" when the CBO predicted that unemployment would be around 6%. The definite article wouldn't have been effective.

And the remarks about Axelrod are uncalled for,even if they're completely to be expected.

John

That campaign has been "misspeaking" for months.

John

SCOTUS has been the bastion of liberals for how long? You lefties sure liked them when they were advancing your causes. Now that they are slightly to the right and you drag out stale conspiracy theories.

She is a girl is she not. You PC folks sure imagine a lot into statements.

Isn't that what an interviewer is supposed to do? The best way is to be like Obama and minimize the taking of questions.


No, but I thought everyone was bitching because she said his CBO.

Fuck Axelrod. As a political hack, why the hell is he out there making comments on policy anyway?

Say what???

Oh, I guess ever since Herbie Bush appointed Uncle Clarence. That's about right, isn't it?

Clearly you don't know a fucking thing about Marbury v. Madison or Lewis Powell and the infamous Powell Memorandum, a memo that sold Richard Nixon and John Mitchell - mostly Mitchel - on him for the SC vacancy left by Hugo Black.

So you'll forgive this PC folk for saying, no, she's a woman.

So, what were you whining about before?

Like who???? Your boy Romney is the one who won't do any press other than Fox.

We are.... I am. That's because it has to be "his" for the campaign's lie to work.

Like I said, you guys always end up there,don't you? I suppose, ultimately, there's nowhere else for you to go.

Pretty lame.

John

I love this shit. :D

Actually I know quite a bit about Marbury v. Madison along with a lot of the other significant SC decisions. A brilliant piece of work by John Marshall. Marbury expanded the power of the judiciary. Remember all those decisions by the Warren Court that were held in such high regard by the left. I'd argue that the court's decisions during the latter part of the twentieth century significantly changed a citizen's relation to his or her government. Civil rights and limitations imposed on law enforcement all initially came about largely through the court and not the legislatures. BTW, most of these were ultimately good for the citizens, but hardly reflected the supposed will of the majority in a lot of places.

Given the times, it is obvious why business would seek to protect themselves from the palpable lawlessness that existed in the late 60s and early 70s among the radical left. I don't think there existed a unified nefarious conspiracy amongst businesses or corporations.

I did use the diminutive, but meant no disrespect to her. I'm certain my diminutive was less direspectful than the leftists calling her an idiot.

Romey is not POTUS.

Do you like political hacks like Axelrod or Rove? If you were Obama would you want Axelrod representing your policies?

Me too. Why do you think I waste so much of my life on it?

Keep your head buried in the sand BH, unfortunately when the corporations have completely taken over we will all get screwed, including you.:rolleyes:

Just follow the actions of Donohue at the Chamberpot of Commerce, he is more of a danger than al Queda.

So, been studying? :)

Yes, a proactive decision which expanded the Court's power beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

Specifically?

I don't get your point - or maybe I do.:rolleyes: I'm nowhere near as old as Rob ;) but I'm definitely old enough to have been around for all of that. In the final analysis, it was a pretty balanced combination of executive, legislative and judicial actions and decisions which brought about an end to institutionalized racism and segregation. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Mostly? Which ones didn't you like?

As for "reflecting the will of the people", that's not the role of the Judiciary. You do know that, right?

"Business"??? How was it that business sought protection? Insisting on the right to determine whom they'd serve? Employ?

Who said that? And where?

You won't mind if I call you "boy" then, will you, boy?

You like to call him Romey? I like to call him Rmoney. ;)

Presidents give press conferences for the most part, rarely granting one-on-one interviews. Been that way as long as I've been around. Candidates, on the other hand are essentially interviewing for a position. They're expected to give us, their prospective employers, a chance to find out who they are. Press interviews are an essential part of that but Romney doesn't have the self-confidence to open himself before objective scrutiny or field difficult but legitimate questions.

The other recent example of this was our beloved hockey mom - and we all know why that was. "I'll... have to get back to you on that, Charlie."

Like 'em? Don't know 'em. I suspect I wouldn't like Rove but I have no opinion about Axelrod.

Do you say "fuck so-and-so" to/about everyone you don't like?

No, I'd much rather have Karl Rove, Roger Ailes or Lee Atwater doing that.

John

The courts were turned to by both the civil rights movement and the environmental movement. Legislators and the excecutives eventually came around, but IMHO the vanguard to both nascent movements were the court cases.

I never said it was. I said that the court's decisions were not reflective of the will of the majority in some geographic locations. Consider the south for the civil rights movement and mining states for the environmentalist movement during this period.

The current Citizens United decision and the Powell Memo are the current topic here. Corporations were losing the PR game and some decided to get more broadly involved politically. You could also track the rise, or rather, the emphasis change in institutional advertising following the 1960s.

No, but without my Model M keyboard and considering my poor eyesight I sometimes mistype.

I can agree with this, however, the press of late likes playing the "gotcha" questions more than objective questions.

I'm generally polite and rarely call non-politicians names. However, Axelrod is such a hypocritical jerk I couldn't control myself. Here he is in 1994:

I assume you're being a trifle sarcastic here.

The court decisions were indeed important but so were parallel efforts by the Congress and President. But, of course, this is irrelevant unless you consider these landmark decisions to have been wrongly decided and/or outside the scope of the Court's mandate.

And my contention is that whether or not these were reflective of the will of the people, nationally or regionally, is irrelevant to the mission of the Court.

So it's about PR?

You're denying that the Powell Memorandum was the outline for a conspiracy? Or that Citizens United (a case requested by the Chief Justice Roberts, by the way) doesn't advance the aims of that conspiracy?

Yeah, like what newspapers do you read or what are your views on the Bush doctrine? If these constitute "gotcha" questions to Republican candidates then that party is in serious trouble.

What's your problem with that?

I'm never sarcastic.

John

Fixed it for ya ;)

:D