Romney throws stones from his glass house

April 26, 2007

We need not delve back into whether Democratic presidential candidates should participate in a debate co-sponsored by Fox News, but Mitt Romney’s take on the subject is particularly entertaining.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Democrats of cowardice in ducking presidential debates hosted by sponsors they dislike, saying that Republicans have proven more willing to appear in potentially hostile forums.

Romney said the May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — co-sponsored by The Politico and MSNBC — proves that Republicans “have a lot more courage of our convictions,” because they are willing to take questions from a moderator who earlier in his career worked as an aide to Democratic politicians. Democratic presidential candidates have refused to take part in two debates co-sponsored by Fox News, arguing that the network is slanted toward Republicans.

“Why is it that the Democrats wouldn’t even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O’Neill?” asked Romney, in a Tuesday evening interview here with The Politico. “We’re happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won’t even go on Fox.”

This is amusing for a couple of reasons. First, for Romney to suggest that Chris Matthews is some kind of Democratic partisan is silly. Has Romney ever actually watched Matthews on television? Is he aware of Matthews’ near-constant criticism of Dems and equally frequent praise for Republicans?

And second, Romney may not be aware of it, but his hypocrisy on the subject is breathtaking.

On Wednesday, Romney insisted that presidential candidates that duck debates based on the partisanship of the media outlet are cowards. On Tuesday, Romney’s campaign declined an invitation to participate in an online debate co-sponsored by Yahoo, Slate, and the Huffington Post, because the HuffPo is generally liberal.

As the Democratic candidates blow off debates sponsored by conservative-leaning FOX News, their Republican counterparts are giving the same back-of-the-hand treatment to liberal Huffington Post blog.

Sen. John McCain’s camp was the first to dis the HuffPo. The Arizonan’s spokesman, Brian Jones, complained to the New York Times that the blog’s founder, Arianna Huffington, had called him at home to push the forum.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, told me that they also would not participate in the HuffPo debate.

Now, go back and look at that first sentence from the Politico article again: “Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Democrats of cowardice in ducking presidential debates hosted by sponsors they dislike, saying that Republicans have proven more willing to appear in potentially hostile forums.” Hilarious.

As Obama spokesman Bill Burton put it, “Is [Romney] really in any position to be questioning anyone’s convictions?”

Romney is a delusional little snot. Chris Matthews will probably, or might as well, start the debate by asking each Republican:

“How would you, as President, inspire me to love you as much as I love George W. Bush? Because I’m easy, but I’m not going to be easy for *ALL* of you. Well… okay, I am and would, but I feel like a slut saying so.”

  • Is it just me, or is Romney essentially admitting that Fox is a tool for the right? I mean, by making the argument that Dems won’t go on Fox, while Republicans are more than happy to be quizzed by a supposedly left-wing moderator, isn’t it implied that Fox is, then, right-wing? Doesn’t he know Fox is fair and balanced? Or did they forget to keep putting that on the talking points memo? Boy, if the media gets a hold of this, I know one naughty Mormon who’s gonna get the bad-boy brush…

  • Well, for those who say it’s “bigoted” to note that the best way to understand the Mormon Church is to remove the second “m”, Romney is certainly doing a great job of proving the accuracy of that point of view.

  • Here we go again—another RePunk that never served, calling people cowards.

    Here’s the solution to Foxnoise: Get every Liberal and Progressive in the country to buy one share apiece of Rupert’s silly corporation. Then on a given day, at a given time, we’ll all issue a “sell” order on those shares, crashing the stock value. We then buy each other’s shares at the depressed price, wait a few days, and do it all over again.

    Rupert will be living on a park bench by Christmas—and he’ll have his stable of neocon mules to keep him company….

  • Remember, it’s not a lie if you really believe it. I’m an amatuer compared to Mitt.

  • Romney Watch:

    On the Imus show a few weeks before it got cancelled, Romney spoke about the Walter Reed scandal and the role of those who tried to cover it up. He said, and I quote this almost verbatim:

    When you shade the truth, you give people a slanted perspective of reality.

    I swear, I wish somebody could extract that and use it for all sorts of ads against the GOP folks who still suck-up to the President’s flim-flam.

  • CB, I think you are a bit misdirected here… perhaps the GOP candidate pool is not entertianing the HuffPo’s offer because probably 95% of all voters don’t know what the HuffPo even is. Why would they debate of a media outlet that has such limited reach??? Heck, even the NYT article that the Politico cites the number of debate requests as the reason why they declined, not the politicsl leanings

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/us/politics/23debates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    When the Dems dissed FOX (which like it or not, has probably over 1000x the audience size of HuffPo, I mentioned that we were going down a slippery slope… and so here we are now: Any time a debate invitiation made, are the pols now asking, Is this a friendly enough venue for me???

  • CB, I think you are a bit misdirected here… perhaps the GOP candidate pool is not entertianing the HuffPo’s offer because probably 95% of all voters don’t know what the HuffPo even is.

    Welcome back, JRS Jr., it’s been a while.

    To clarify, HuffPo is one of three co-sponsors of an innovative online event. The other two are Slate and Yahoo, and I suspect more than a few people have heard of Yahoo.

    But HuffPo is clearly on the left, so Republicans are reluctant to show up. That’s their right, of course, but then why criticize Dems for shunning FNC?

  • There is a different between “friendly enough” and actively hostile. If the news media even pretended to be neutral, this would be mute.

    Chris Matthews is enamored of power and access. If the Democrats reassume power big-time, Chris will forgive them for whatever they did in the past to offend him and suck up to them as he does now with the Republicans.

  • Chris Matthews or even George Stephanopolous are not the counterparts to FOX News. HuffPo isn’t even the counterpart — it’s an abashedly opinionated site, whereas FOX poses as a legitimate news organization. Or was it someone else who tried to trademark the words “Fair & Balanced”?

  • CB, thanks for the welcome and thanks for the clarification. But answer me this: Are the other two other co-sponsors for this “innovative event” deemed left leaning as well? Or did the GOP just decline because of HuffPo? If so, please do cite the evidence. And how many viewers was this “innovative event” expecting to reach?? Anywhere near the anticipated FOX audience? I would happen to think not.

    By your logic (which is based on connecting dots without any direct evidence, even ), perhaps the GOP candidate is ducking debates held by moderate or nonpolitical media outlets as well! If that’s the case, I hope, for the sake of the nationally televised interparty debates expected to occur in ’08, that a news journalist from PBS doesn’t look host debate, as the GOP could claim bias and decline that one as well!!! Now that wouldn’t that be “hilarious??”

    Bottom line: See what candidates ducking high profile debates due to an outlet’s political bias has done to the system? Now we’re all skeptical on the reasons for declining a debate… Heck, I am now skeptical that the institution of the presidential debate is destroyed, as I will always ask myself if there was a quid pro quo for attending the deabte and see if the host is acting “too friendly” to the participants.

  • Hey, even “hostile” is a tame word for FNC. Right wing hell…these are attack dogs filled with hate and lies whose only purpose is to incite to riot for ratings. FNC is beneath contempt and should not be engaged in any political debates. They have proven themselves poisonous to our political system with their ugliness and were it not for the money they donate out to get groups to allow them to “present” (the illusion of) themselves as partners in presenting political exchange, the CBC would not even be talking with them. Romney belongs at C-PAC with cheerleaders rather than a debate audience. His political debate rhetoric is better characterized as…Smear & Cheer….along with the other GOP hopefuls.

  • I don’t get it. Mitt and Arianna seem like a match made in heaven. Between them they have every position staked out. When one of them tacks Left the other can tack Right. And vice versa.

  • I think the lesson for Dems to take and the response to this, for them to give to themselves, is “You don’t have to walk into every trap.”

    The Dems, every time the Republicans try to set things up, choose the ground, and choose one or two of the rules of the political fight- over an issue, or more broadly (in a campaign) or whatever- don’t have to just automatically jump in there, and bang around for a little while before they decide whether to start complaining about whether it feels fair.
    Instead, you can look at things beforehand, assess how it would effect you and what you’re trying to do, or how it could, before you mess with it, and then make a decision (that has nothing, or less, to do with what people think of you) on what you can do to effect that situation to make it more beneficial or safer, or whether even to mess with it at all.

    Imagine Luke Skywalker and Han Solo have just busted Princess Leia out of the detention block. The first route they find for escape is a huge trash pit, which they instantly recognize as containing a man-eating, disgusting monster beneath the surface of the water pooling at the bottom of it, and having walls that are going to close in to crush all the trash at a regular interval, and only one door out which might be locked. Do they jump in automatically if they recognize all this first? No, common sense dictates they can look around for another escape route first if that’s not obviously the only one out of there.

    Also, you can tell other Dems about traps you see which they may not. It’s not wrong to notice the kinds of things Repubs are doing to us and do something about them when this is obviously how they play the game.

    Watch out for Republicans, don’t acquiesce to them.

  • I personally hope none of them debate anything remotely thoughtful or important. Anyone watching already knows what a bunch of third rate bums they are, and why should they be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves. McCain? Rudi? The Mormon? They are all self destructing as we speak before they even get a chance to debate. Arianna Huffington was formerly a right wing Republican who reversed herself after her closeted gay millionaire husband came out. They are scared of her because she knows where the bodies are burried.

    I like Ms. Huffington and I admire her willingness to recognize the BS and change directions. Unlike the FOX people who are paid to be partisan while they claim to be neutral, she has her point of view and is not afraid to share her conclusions. I also believe that, unlike FOX, she would ferret out the BS, no matter which side of the isle it comes from.

    As to Chris Matthews, as it has aready been pointed out, that guy is a friend of power and the monied interests while he does his blue collar dance. I say that though he may have once called himself one, he is not a liberal anymore. I don’t think Mitt Romney is paying attention to the game, and he must think the voters are stupid.

  • Let’s not forget this from Tuesday:
    “The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s multimedia page exclusively features clips from Fox News. You’d think the network was the media organ of the Republican Party or something.” – CBR (See Digby, too)
    Anyone who thinks that there’s any partivcle of fairness to the Fox Channel is not paying attention or can’t pay attention due to mental incapacity.

  • Mitt is throwing Fox a bone.

    You can’t win the party’s nomination without the approval of the party’s house organ.

    By coming to Fox’s defense he quite naturally gets the corporate board’s nod of approval.
    [Side issue: Is Mitt tampering in markets? Does he own any shares of Fox?]

    Prediction:

    John and Rude-e will soon throw Fox juicier bones. They can’t let Mitt run away with the network’s approval rating…..

  • “Mitt is throwing Fox a bone.” – ROTFLMLiberalAO

    Good analysis! That throws the whole Debate debate into a new light.

    JRS takes the devil’s advocate view, but fails to take into account history. The Clinton – Chris Wallace disgrace is but the tip of the iceberg on this whole question of whether Fox is an acceptable host for a debate. My litmus test would be if you can, without a doubt, tell who the questioners in the debate (the whole issue about Dem refusals to work with Fox is because Fox would be manning the artillery batteries in these “debates”) would vote for for president, the the debate would be a character assasination and not a true debate. To take on JRS’s point, I couldn’t say with any certainty who Jim Lehrer would vote for in the booth in Nov. ’08, Brit Hume? Charles Krauthammer? The rest of the Fox Crew? I can promise you it won’t be a Democrat. That’s reason enough to question the integrity of a co-sponsor of a presidential debate and provider of a debate’s moderator.

  • As for Tweety being anything CLOSE to a liberal:

    “In private, [Jack] Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.”

  • Well, I guess I’ve stumbled onto yet another liberal echo chamber. I’m happy to be the lone voice of dissent (and reason) in this conversation.

    First to Tom Cleaver (#4): very mature. Of course, like all liberals, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence or references of any kind to back your insult.

    Slappy (#2), your logic is flawed. In fact, it makes no sense. I think I know what you were trying to say, however, and there is no such implication. It’s very simple: Dems won’t participate in a debate moderated by Fox, Republicans will. Republicans will also participate in debates hosted by any legitimate news organization (there’s no evidence to the contrary), even those with a pretty apparent left-leaning bias, as will Dems, I expect. To call Dems cowards for not going on Fox, while maybe a little rude, isn’t an admission that Fox leans right by any means, it’s just…well, true. Romney’s comments just indicate that he recognizes that the Dems believe that Fox leans Republican, and based on that belief, they won’t participate in the debates. The same cannot be said of the Republicans.

    More generally now, the comparison of the post is flawed. I know you liberals love to claim that Fox News leans right, but you can’t provide any evidence to that effect at all other than the fact that often the real stories in the news are not as pro-liberal as other media outlets like to report them. So, since Fox News is not “in the tank” for the liberals, they must be in the tank for the Republican Party, right? Brilliant logic. I’ll invite any one of you to show me proof of a Republican slant at Fox News. If you can, I’ll reconsider.

    Anyway, Fox News (contrary to your bomb-throwing) is a legitimate news outlet with a massive viewer base. It would make sense for any serious political candidate to participate in debates sponsored by the network, if for no other reason than to have a chance to gather evidence and reveal to the nation just how right-leaning Fox News is when they slant the debate in their coverage (which, of course, won’t happen).

    Conversely, “HuffPo” doesn’t even try to disguise its committed liberal leanings, and neither HuffPo, nor Yahoo, nor Slate are legitimate news organizations. So it would make sense that any political candidate would be careful if not leery of participating in an event sponsored by those organizations, especially a Republican. It’s their prerogative, of course, and it’s a smart decision since you can’t trust HuffPo to be objective in their coverage. I know you’ll say the same of Fox News, but without proof, “that dog won’t hunt,” so to speak.

    Finally, you’re basing your comments about Chris Matthews on Media Matters? Are you kidding? All you have to do is watch him for a little while to see just how pro Dem he is. He doesn’t even try to hide it most of the time. He may criticize them, just like Republicans criticize the Republican Party all the time. That doesn’t mean anything. It’s still obvious, from his past employment and his commentary record, that he bleeds blue. Media Matters just doesn’t like him because he’s not liberal enough for them and their benefactor, George Soreass…uh Soros.

    So carry on with your little liberal “me too” party all you want, but you should at least try to get one brain between you before publishing your “analysis.”

  • ***Fox News … is a legitimate news outlet with a massive viewer base.***

    Legitimized—by whom? Putin has such a “legitimate” news outlet. So does Kim-Whatever in North Korea. So do the Iranians, the Syrians, and the House of Saud. Bush tried to have the entire national media become such a rubber stamp—but a wee little thing called the Constitution, with specificity to the First Amendment, got in his way….

    ***show me proof of a Republican slant at Fox News.***

    Democrats who disagree with the President’s Iraq policies are “cowards, defeatists, and unpatriotic. They are bordering on treason. They want bin Laden to come here, and kill us.” Republicans who do the same thing, however, are never mentioned….

    It would be wise, skagjunglesqueak, if you were to find a way to erase all evidence of Foxnoise promoting such drivellous goo, before challenging anyone to refer to it. Someone might think you to be whoring for the Rupert—and I’ll not deny you the fact that the Rupert has plenty of fodder, ready and willing to “bend over and take it all” for the the Reich of Bushylvania….

  • Thank you for illustrating my points:

    1- Again, plenty of accusation, no proof. You are apparently quoting someone, or want people to think you are, but you provide no references to the source of the “quote.”

    2- Still no evidence of a brain

    Seriously? That’s the best you could do?

    • Comments are closed.