Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Bark louder, little dog.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Fight them, without becoming them!

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

You are here: Home / CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Can’t Get a Straight Answer from Romney Adviser on Foreign Policy

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Can’t Get a Straight Answer from Romney Adviser on Foreign Policy

by | 95 Comments

This post is in: 

When a candidate has no core beliefs on any issue, and simply says what he thinks any given audience wants to hear, it’s pretty hard for that candidate’s advisers to provide answers to simple questions about policy positions.

Tara Wall, a Romney adviser, stammers her way through the answer to clear questions from Soledad O’Brien on Romney’s position on peace in the Middle East and the never-ending conflict between Israel and Palestine.

In public, Romney purports to want a two-state solution. In private, however, his position is “Screw Palestine.”

It is an obviously contradictory position, but Tara Wall can’t explain it. She simply claims that Romney has been clear on his position (he hasn’t) and repeats talking points about President Obama.

It’s embarrassing, and the look on O’Brien’s face is priceless.

[read full post at ABLC]

Reader Interactions

95Comments

  1. 1.

    quannlace

    Ugh, could only stand to watch a few minutes of R’s speech, but one thing struck me. He’s getting more and more that Michelle Bachmann crazy-eye look.

  2. 2.

    El Cid

    __

    the look on O’Brien’s face is priceless

    “Soledad O’Brien Is Tired Of Your Bullshit.”

  3. 3.

    GregB

    I stopped listening to Soledad after Roger Ailes told me she was named after a prison.<—snark

    She is one of the best prepped talking heads out there. She should get Stretch Gregory's spot on Meet the Press and let him retire to Dancing with the Stars.

  6. 6.

    Yutsano

    Video decided not to work for me, but I don’t feel the poorer for that. And just what the fuck did Ms Wall think Soledad was gonna talk to her about? Massive campaign surrogate fail.

  7. 7.

    Citizen_X

    O’BRIEN: …My point is, it’s completely contradictory. So my question is, which is it?
    __
    WALL: In your viewpoint.

    Also in the viewpoint of anyone who understands plain English, but whateva.

    (Imani: video’s no longer available on your website. Is there an original link?)

  10. 10.

    trnc

    ” … helping those who want to be free in Democrat societies across the Middle East”.

    I like how Wall accidentally uses Democrat as an adjective here when everyone knows that’s supposed to be reserved for democratic office-holders in the US. On the other hand, she made one true statement – “I’m not a foreign policy expert”.

  12. 12.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @trnc:

    I’ve heard this two or three other times in the past few months. Even when it’s small-d democratic, it comes out big-D Democrat.

  13. 13.

    SenyorDave

    One narrative that Team Obama sould be using (and I pray he uses it in the foreign policy debate) is that Romney’s foreign policy team is made up of the same shitbags that were architects and huge supporters of the Iraq war (Dan Senor, John Bolton, etc.) and STILL believe that it was a success.

    Obama has to make the case that when you are all bluster and aggressive action you end up with an Iraq war (and a strengthened Iran). He needs to make people realize that nuance is part of policy.

  15. 15.

    askew

    @lamh35:

    Then it is the Dems job to push back on Romney’s crazy speech. The guy lied repeatedly throughout the speech. Dems can’t rely on media to do their job. GOP sends out spinners after these major events to win the media narrative. Dems just sit back and hope they win the media narrative. That’s a big part of what happened post-debate. Our Dems were a disaster.

  17. 17.

    GregB

    Jeffrey Goldberg recently had an op-ed wherein he lied about Syria being Iran’s only ally in the Middle East. Conveniently forgetting Iraq which has become quite the regional ally of Iran since the war to remove Saddam, which Goldberg supported.

  19. 19.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Also, the spox said, very clearly, “Benjamin Netanyatoo.” Net-an-ya-too. Ya-too. Too. Also.

    This is Rmoney’s senior communications advisor? Sheeesh.

  20. 20.

    RosiesDad

    @El Cid:

    “Soledad O’Brien Is Tired Of Your Bullshit.”

    And she’s apparently become very willing to make this point repeatedly.

    So which is going to happen first: Is CNN going to fire her or is she going to become a pariah to GOP guests (a la Rachel Maddow)?

  21. 21.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @SenyorDave: I’d like to see Obama point out that Willard was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. Actually, I’d like to live in a country where people remembered that the Iraq War happened. I was listening to MSNBC heads talking about the speech and there was one off-hand reference to Iraq

  23. 23.

    The Other Chuck

    @Citizen_X:

    WALL: In your viewpoint.

    Yeah … As much of a failure as our mass media is, it’s still the best surrogate for the public we’ve got. And telling the listener “well that’s what YOU think, you obviously just don’t GET it” really goes over well when trying to make convincing argument.

    For all his money, Romney just couldn’t buy competence. Of course all he ever did in business was install management teams full of yes-men who would rubber-stamp liquidation plans, so of course that was to be expected.

  24. 24.

    Higgs Boson's Mate

    Why should Romney’s spokesmoron give a straight answer when Romney himself never does?

  26. 26.

    SenyorDave

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Good point, maybe Obama can remind people of the cost in human lives, injured soldiers and actual dollars that the Iraq war represents (and at the same time confront Mitt, who was not only a cheerleader for the war but wanted to double the size of Guantanamo prison – he treated that like it was a joke).

    People should always remember that the President only has so much direct impact on domestic policy, but has a much bigger impact on foreign policy.

  27. 27.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @SenyorDave:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Good point, maybe Obama can remind people of the cost in human lives, injured soldiers and actual dollars that the Iraq war represents

    honestly, I don’t think enough people care. Condi Rice had a 65% approval rating, at the time of her convention speech. It’s a national disgrace. and it’s depressing.

  28. 28.

    ThresherK

    Sole-O(TM) is really bucking the trend on all things MSM this autumn. Can we spike everyone else’s water with what she’s drinking?

  29. 29.

    Ben Cisco

    I love how the spokesperson says she’s not a foreign policy expert, but simultaneously KNOWS that MoneyBooBoo’s approach is at once similar to yet superior to President Obama’s. Classic.

  30. 30.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik

    @GregB:

    Is it just me, or has The Atlantic in general since the debate been in this weird, self-congratulatory “ROMNEY THE BEST DEBATER EVAAAR! OBAMA’S A SUPER MEGA DOOMED FAILURE NOW!!!” frenzy? I mean, even TNC, who I respect the hell out of, basically seemed to stop just short of calling it total disaster and gave a big fat love letter to political punditry for getting stuff right.

  33. 33.

    Chris

    @SenyorDave:

    Obama has to make the case that when you are all bluster and aggressive action you end up with an Iraq war (and a strengthened Iran).

    The mind-boggling thing about that is that in a context where al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were America’s biggest enemies, the opportunity for a rapprochement with Iran was definitely there (they even contributed to our side of the Afghan campaign back in 2001, if memory serves).

    But we didn’t go for it. The stupidity of that was monumental, and it was one of the things that paved the way for the nationalist revival that Ahmadinejad & co rode to power. Thanks again, George.

  34. 34.

    Suffern ACE

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Well, that’s why I wouldn’t count on winning the FP debate. Romney isn’t going to come out and say “Invade Iran.” But will just hint that the president hasn’t done enough. Romney talk about “soft power” because that polls better than “foreign aid.” And talk a lot about promoting our values, which will play well. The president will need to be careful about what he says, because he actually has to deal with people. Romney will talk about “leading from behind when we should be leading events” because people like to think our military and CIA can control everything and if it isn’t there must be something wrong. Once you bury Iraq, you go back to the idea that if someone looks at us funny in Venezuela, we should be replacing that person with a dictator.

  37. 37.

    ericblair

    @Ben Cisco:

    I love how the spokesperson says she’s not a foreign policy expert, but simultaneously KNOWS that MoneyBooBoo’s approach is at once similar to yet superior to President Obama’s. Classic.

    Well, see, Obama’s policy was a huge failure because it wasn’t clear. So Romney’s policy is very, very, clear, because it says so right here. Now, we haven’t figured out quite yet what we’re clear about, but honestly, it can’t be much clearer, because it says so in big letters itself how clear it is, right? So if you still think it’s not clear then you obviously can’t read very well and you’re a big stupid poopyhead. I mean really.

  38. 38.

    The Ancient Randonneur

    Romney is still going to lose. The problem with the President’s mediocre debate performance isn’t that it will change the outcome of the Presidential race but it will most likely effect how many seats the Democrats regain in the House. And any dream, or better yet fantasy, of retaking the House is just that–fantasy. Obama didn’t do down ticket Dems any favors last week. Make fun of the Romney idiots all you want, but the hard work at the state and local level continues.

  39. 39.

    jwb

    @The Ancient Randonneur: Oddly enough, the numbers in the Senate races polled after the debate seem to be holding up just fine. It’s not clear to me how that squares with increased GOP enthusiasm but there it is. I haven’t seen a post-debate congressional preference poll. Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium is now saying that incumbency and redistricting give the GOP a 2.5% (±1%) advantage in the House. According to Wang as of 10/6 had the Dems ahead exactly 2.5%…

  41. 41.

    RedKitten

    Yup, she can’t in ANY way explain how their foreign policy approaches are different. They just are, because shut up, that’s why.

    I almost feel bad for her. Spokesthingies don’t have any say on the message — just on how it’s delivered. She’s been asked to take a turd and make it sound like gold.

  42. 42.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Suffern ACE: Republicans haven’t balanced a budget since Eisenhower — and they’re still the party of fiscal prudence. Bush’s and Reagan’s drunken-sailor binges made zero impact.

    I expect Democrats to be ‘soft on defense’, and the GOP to be ‘the natural party to turn to’ in foreign policy until the last person who remembers Vietnam, or the Teheran embassy seizure, dies.

    Iraq will have made zero impact.

  43. 43.

    Faux News

    @The Ancient Randonneur:

    Sadly I have to agree with you. The Koch Brothers and other 1%ers are dropping huge amount of money on the Congressional races. I think the Dems will still keep the Senate, but it is going to be difficult to get the House back. That said the midterm elections in 2014 should be very interesting. My hope is the Dems get the House back and retain the Senate.

  44. 44.

    Corner Stone

    I’m confused. Why did MSNBC have McMegan on a panel last segment (funnily enough discussing truth and facts) and are now interviewing Dan Senor on Andrea Mitchell’s show?

    ETA, I swear DS has made a deal with the debil. He doesn’t look like he’s aged one bit in the last 10 years.

  45. 45.

    Mnemosyne

    @Chris:

    This is still one of the things I hold against Bush/Cheney the most — after 9/11, Iran made their first diplomatic overture to us in 20 years, and Bush/Cheney decided to spit in their faces.

    Any trouble we’re currently having with Iran I trace directly back to those fucking idiots.

  46. 46.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Faux News: The House was never not a longshot.

    Odds on flipping the House have never exceeded 50-50 on the Iowa Electronic Markets.

  50. 50.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Davis X. Machina: also, too, “Reagan taught us deficits don’t matter.” But then Bush II never happened, so let’s just move on.

    I am bitter today.

  57. 57.

    OGLiberal

    @SenyorDave: Nope, it’s definitely 50-45. The 47-47 was a special report for the three days after the debate, 10/4-10/6. The Gallup tracker is a 7-day so the 49-46 yesterday and the 50-45 today are from their standard 7-day numbers. They reported the three day just to show the impact of the debate. However, what that tells me is that not only did Obama have a very good day in their poll yesterday but probably a good one on Saturday as well – the 47-47 number was the three day average so Romney’s Thursday number was probably very good and his Friday probably wasn’t bad either.

    Of course, RCP went right ahead and switched the Gallup 7-day number with the 3-day one even though the 7-day one is the official Gallup number. They’re going to have to switch back to the 7-day.

  59. 59.

    ? Martin

    The +5 O Gallup poll is the one that just dropped an hour ago. It’s the most recent from Gallup and includes polling through yesterday. Also shows Obama at +7 approval.

    I’m guessing the jobs data on Friday erased any effects from the debate. We’re pretty much back where we started as of today.

  61. 61.

    gelfling545

    @GregB: Oh, no. That can’t happen because she is female and therefore not a serious person.Everyone knows seriousness is carried on the y chromosome.

  63. 63.

    ? Martin

    @Hill Dweller:

    MSNBC is awful. Maddow, Hayes, Bashir and MHP are good, but the rest of them are horrendous.

    So, given that they are awful. Tell us which network has 4 better hosts? Tell us which network has someone better than Hayes?

  65. 65.

    Enhanced Mooching Techniques

    @? Martin: I think it’s a bit more basic than that. Everyone’s made up their minds and the debates are just Rhetorical gladiator matches we amuse ourselves with.

    Anyway, what will the pants crapers do now with 0+5? They need their drama.

  66. 66.

    Suffern ACE

    @Mnemosyne: Yep. Because they thought. Wow. We’ll roll through Iraq and then onto Syria and Iran before anyone knows what’ll hit him. They want to settle scores. Iran I think fucked up as I think the President was sincere that he wanted a fresh start four years ago, but by that time those efforts were swatted down. And now where are we? Ugly sanctions and more dickwagging.

  68. 68.

    Davis X. Machina

    @nemesis: Older than that. “Democratic” is the proper name of the noble party of Jefferson, Jackson, Calhoon, and Davis. Of Theodore Bilbo and James K. Vardaman.

    “Democrat” is that other party, the one with Humphrey and Kennedy in it.

    I remember hearing the distinction in the early ’60s often enough to ask my elders about it.

  71. 71.

    Hill Dweller

    @? Martin: Being better than CNN and Fox isn’t exactly a high bar. Moreover, Hayes and MHP are only on during the weekends. Ninety percent of MSNBC’s coverage is awful, “both sides” Village bullshit. Gregory, Todd, Scarborough and Russert are every bit as bad as the liberal hosts are good.

    That said, I’ll always give that network credit for putting genuine liberals like Maddow, Hayes, MHP and Bashir on the air, but I feel like they spend the rest of their time trying to compensate for those decisions.

  73. 73.

    1badbaba3

    @The Ancient Randonneur: Congressional races were swinging our way not only because of Obama, but also due to the truly horrendous body of work the Republicans have shown for seven years running. There is no amount of lipstick that will make that pig appealing. They have attracted a bunch of morans to represent their party and it is showing. And Mitt is the leader of the pack. The problem with having such a large and unwieldy media machine is that it shows EVERYTHING. So when you say or do something stoopid, you cannot unring that bell. The last three months of incompetence, cowardice, intolerance, and downright idiocy shown by Republicans at every level, will not be scrubbed clean by a fake victory in a debate. It is still there, loud and proud, a testament of a party well on it’s way to extinction. They are three decades away from their peak in ’84 and fading fast.

    Let’s put the motherfuckers out of our misery, now and forever more.

  75. 75.

    jwb

    @? Martin: If I’m reading the numbers right, in the three days after the debate Romney had pulled even, but if it’s back up to 5%, then Obama must have had amazing Sunday polling, exceeding his polling before the debate (since it’s all a seven day rolling average).

  78. 78.

    Jay C

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: @Suffern ACE: @Davis X. Machina:

    If I were President Obama, I’d be careful – very careful – about bringing up Iraq in the context of a FP debate: Hideous clusterf*ck as it was (and happy as most Americans seem to be that US involvement has finally ended), coming out with what might even tangentially be spun as any sort of “anti-war” criticism is a sure loser in an election year. The Republicans, and their enablers in the media are just waiting to pounce on anything – anything – that will reinforce their tired, cliched memes: and the classic “Republicans are ‘tough’ on security, Democrats are disloyal hippie peaceniks” canard is still a hardy perennial. As is one or another variant of the Dolchstosslegende…

  80. 80.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Jay C: Agree. There are almost — almost — no votes to be gained, or lost, on FP-qua-FP, insofar as FP isn’t reduced to a brain-dead dick-measuring contest.

    When it is reduced to a dick-measuring contest, Democrats lose. We just don’t have, post-Vietnam anyways, a high enough pile of dead brown people to point to, for people who are into those things.

  82. 82.

    El Cid

    @Patricia Kayden: Because they don’t want moderators who do their job.

    And I’m not sure how much it would matter: if you don’t give a fuck what the moderator says or what question is asked and what the time limit is, what will he or she do?

    Look very, very angry? Tell you to go to bed early?

  83. 83.

    Uncle Ebeneezer

    @Hill Dweller: I wish they would just make Maddow the head of all operations. Let all the village glory-holers like Tweety, Gregory etc., go to another network and rebuild in the image that Maddow, Hayes etc. Lame-stream media cries will continue either way, might as well make a true counter to FauxNews (one that would still have a MILLION times more journalistic integrity.)

    Tara Wall’s response should have been: “It’s simple Soledad. He thought he was speaking off-the-record during that video.”

  85. 85.

    Higgs Boson's Mate

    @Suffern ACE:

    Iran I think fucked up as I think the President was sincere that he wanted a fresh start four years ago, but by that time those efforts were swatted down. And now where are we? Ugly sanctions and more dickwagging.

    My perspective is that the government of Iran and the Revolutionary Guard (Interchangeable parts?) need to have the threat of American intervention there to stay in power. Absent that, the people of Iran would vote to throw them out on their asses. The last thing that those in power want is rapprochement with the U.S.

  86. 86.

    Jay C

    @yopd1:

    Disagree: harping on that single issue (important as it is) is going the President look like One-Note Barry: more vital, I think, is to:

    1) Shift the subject to the Obama Administration’s FP successes in general

    2) Immediately and forcibly debunk Romney’s more egregious BS (like the “apology tour” crap)

    3) Force Mitt to come up with some sort of actual policy ideas – in public – and call him – immediately and forcibly – on any lack(s) thereof.

    Mitt Romney and his crew can’t come up, I don’t think, with much in the way of foreign policy ideas because, at bottom, they don’t really have any: just blustering sloganeering and carping armchair-general criticism. Sadly, for too many voters, that seems to be enough.

  87. 87.

    ? Martin

    @Hill Dweller: So your definition of awful is ‘better than anyone else’. Not arguing that a lot of what’s on MSNBC is indeed awful, but overall the network is moving in a good direction that nobody else is. They’ve been hiring top-rate people – Hayes and MHP and Maddow are all wonks. Lawrence is as well on tax/budget/Congress issues, though I don’t care for his style, personally, and wish he’d stick to those items more regularly and tone down the high drama. Hayes shouldn’t eat his lunch as regularly as he does. I like that Ezra is a regular fill-in.

    I think they’re steadily improving. My biggest gripe is that Hayes is on too early, but he and MHP need to stay on weekends. You give wonky people 5 hours to fill instead of 1-2 and they’ll burn out and churn out fluff instead and you’ve wasted them.

  88. 88.

    The Other Chuck

    MSNBC also has Ed … who quite frankly, despite being on our side, is still a doughy bloviating douchebag that makes Chris Matthews look like Bill Moyers. Style-wise I’d say he’s the Sean Hannity of the left, but I can’t stoop so far to insult him like that, since he isn’t actually a cynical liar like Inanity Profanity Hannity.

  89. 89.

    Brendanyc

    @El Cid: Why is O’Brien persecuting the man who got Osama?
    Is Soledad a Muslim name? i do know that it is common in Indonesia.

  90. 90.

    Brendanyc

    @El Cid: Why is O’Brien persecuting the man who got Osama?
    Is Soledad a Muslim name? i do know that it is common in Indonesia.

  92. 92.

    Bruce S

    @The Other Chuck:

    I love Ed Schultz. He’s the only one of those folks who could walk into a bar in Des Moines and hold forth for two hours on hunting and fishing before there’s a word spoken about politics. He has union people on more than any of the others, is always on the spot in places like Wisconsin and Ohio, and – like Rev. Al – has a voice and appeal that is much needed if we’re going to reach beyond the kind of folks who love watching Rachel and Chris Hayes. For myself, Chris Hayes is the only show I consider actually worth not missing a minute of – but I’m glad MSNBC has a variety of hosts. I think that having Rev. Al and Ed on the air is a very good move, out of the predictable “mainstream/liberal” cable host routine of either earnest wonks or Beltway hacks (Mitchell and Mathews.) Alex Wagner is also pretty good. The only ones I really hate are Scarborough, who is a self-absorbed bloviator of the first order who comes to his table totally unprepared with anything other than recycled bullshit and has the worst recurring guest roster this side of FOX News – and that show with the four young jerks, which borders on totally mindless. Given that it’s a cable news channel, I think MSNBC has a mostly good-to-excellent lineup, with particular props for their weekend mornings, which really do value intelligent discourse over rants-to-camera – especially Hayes’ must-see TeeVee show. Rachel and Harris-Perry get a tad too cutesy for my taste, but are both brilliant, almost compulsively civil, very attractive personalities and bring unique personal perspectives to their respective formats.

  93. 93.

    Bruce S

    Incidentally, given what she’s working with, Tara Wall did as good as one might expect. She earned her 30 pieces of silver!

  95. 95.

    graves007

    Soledad should be moderating the debates. She’s one of the few who can get her audience to see when her guest is completely full of horse shit without flat out saying ‘you are completely full of horse shit’.

Comments are closed.