‘political whiplash’

Steve Benen: Jon Huntsman is no doubt aware of his predicament. He’s running for president, as a Republican, despite having been a member of the Obama administration. He also has to impress a far-right GOP base, despite taking center-left positions on a range of issues – climate, gays, immigration, economic stimulus, health care, the TARP bank bailout – important to his party.

What’s his solution? In effect, Huntsman has two choices. He can (a) run as a moderate statesman, hope centrist Republicans still exist, and watch the rest of the GOP field to knock each other out competing for the same right-wing votes; or (b) Huntsman can abandon his moderation and scurry to the right just as fast as he can.

As of this morning, Huntsman appears to prefer the latter.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” the former U.S. ambassador to China maintained a level-headed tone, but nevertheless moved sharply to the right on a range of domestic issues.

(See the breakdown of the issues in Benen’s post)

….To his credit, Huntsman was less willing to flip on civil unions and immigration, but on everything else, Huntsman was moving to the right so quickly, I’m surprised it didn’t cause whiplash.

For that matter, his willingness to explicitly endorse the Ryan agenda – including Medicare privatization – would prove to be wildly problematic in the general election, should he get that far.

Full  post here

multiple choice mitt

Politico: …..Former Democratic operative Matt Ortega immediately launched “Multiple Choice Mitt,” a site that juxtaposes clips of Romney making different comments about the same topics – displaying different policy positions, of course.

“Mitt Romney is not even an empty suit. He’s a Ken doll without the lifelike realism. The man will – literally – say anything to placate the audience before him.”

Visit the site here – it’s superb!

Ooops …. Mitt is having internet trouble with right-wingers too – here’s conservative Boston radio host Michael Graham’s site:

john king’s credibility? (if he ever had any). bye bye

At a time when even some Republicans are conceding that Michele Bachmann is bat-shit crazy, King says this:

Yep, “You have taken what I would describe as a reasonable position……”

It gets worse…..

Let’s have a look at that exchange again:

Bachmann: We need to have the fight on Obamacare … I think it is a crime against democracy because Speaker Pelosi and President Obama failed to even tell the members of the House and Senate, much less the American people, that if a member casts a vote for the Obamacare bill they would also be voting to spend $105 billion…..it is my opinion that that money should be given back because it was passed fraudulently, no one knew that money was there…..

King: As you know, a lot of Democrats dispute your numbers on the healthcare bill, but I want to save that one for another day….

****

No, no John, it’s not that Democrats dispute her numbers, it’s that every single independent observer has concluded that she was talking complete and utter shit about this “bombshell, hidden $105 billion”. eg:

Washington Post (Fact Checker) …. Bachmann’s main points have been that “this money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill” – something akin to a “slush fund” – and that it was done “secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress.”

This is bordering on ridiculous.

…The Obama administration insisted that the health care bill be “paid for” through various revenue raisers and cost cuts in order to not increase the deficit. In the end, CBO declared that the health care bill would reduce the deficit over the next decade.

… it is disingenuous of Bachmann to talk only about the costs without noting that, in theory, all of this spending is fully funded.

There is a further problem with Bachman’s charge of “hidden” spending … the administration has not tried to hide this money at all; instead, it has trumpeted each dollar spent in a press release.

As for the claim that “this money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill,” we think she means that there were different sections in the legislation, depending on the issue. This is common practice for virtually all major bills, and it is not unusual or nefarious at all….

The Pinocchio Test: There is no “bombshell” except Bachmann’s bombast.

She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was “hidden” does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law…..

Four Pinocchios:

****

With Beck’s imminent departure from Fox, you have to wonder if King is looking to fill the gap. He was already a joke, but after suggesting that the racist nutjob that is Bachmann had taken a “reasonable position” on anything … and failing to challenge her on her debunked lies about that ‘fraudulent’ $105 billion …. oh dear, oh dear.