Showing posts with label eric fehrnstrom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eric fehrnstrom. Show all posts

Monday, July 16, 2012

Follow the R-money

There is only one issue on which Mitt R-money has a consistent position: lower taxes for himself.

But even on tax transparency - as with everything else - Mitt has taken multiple contradictory positions:

[Emmett] Hayes had filed his taxes separately from O'Brien – and Fehrnstrom, then Romney's deputy campaign manager, demanded that O'Brien come clean about her husband's financial ties to Enron.

Fehrnstrom made the demand even as Romney was refusing to release his own returns.

That drew accusations of hypocrisy from editorial boards, but Fehrnstrom defended the campaign's posture, saying that O'Brien was trying to hide important information from voters by declining to reveal her husband's returns, while Romney was simply acting on principle.
R-money? Principled?

Only the me principle.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

They all do it

Politicians all need room to maneuver. Sometimes they have to take half a loaf or less and spin it as great. The Democrats just did on health insurance reform.

Sometimes they have to reverse themselves. Unlike Duhbya, as coached by Karl Rove, it is possible to learn something while in office (or in Duhbya's case, learn something anytime at all).

Compromise is what the Greens don't get - and especially supporters of the inflexibly perfect Ralph Nader. In democratic politics (heck, even in aristocratic politics), you don't get everything you asked for at the outset.

Democrats, on the other hand, get the necessity of compromise far too well. The insurance reform law they just passed (two cheers!) is a case in point. Had President Obama not started by compromising, we would have wound up with far better and more effective law, and it still would have received zero Republican votes.

For all the nasty things I say about the Bushists (and will continue to say), even Duhbya understood that you don't start negotiations by trying to choose a compromise that your adversary might accept. He'll just want to split the difference again in his favor.

The honest politicians have core convictions and reveal them to the voters. Sure, all pols, even the honest ones, confront from time to time the dirty job of trying to make a sow's ear into a silk purse with the right trimming and spinning. Cynical voters often conclude from this occupational hazard that all pols are insincere hacks whose only goal is to continue suckling at the public teat.

These cynical voters are not wrong about every pol.

Mitt Romney is a craven pol who is so insincere that even the Republican base, which generally shows ovine credulity whenever anyone says what they want to hear, could tell that Romney has only one principle - himself. He was pro-choice for Massachusetts. He was anti-abortion for America. He put on his new outrage like TV makeup. He was a resident of Utah for tax purposes. He lived in Massachusetts for political purposes. He loved his, ahem, home state until he had to vilify it to gain the approval of mouthbreathing yahoos on the national Republican campaign trail. He despised tax increases but raised every state government fee in sight.

Now he rails against the Democrats' health insurance reform:

Romney is taking a hard line against Obama's health care bill, and calling for repeal. "America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power," Romney said in a post at National Review. "President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation -- rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends."
Romney does this despite the Democrats' plan's strong sibling resemblance to his very plan, enacted in Massachusetts. His nefarious spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, argues that that's different, "it was designed for Massachusetts and not the entire country." Well, yeah, that disposes of all the similarities.

Maybe they all do it. But many of them trim and spin in honest furtherance of the causes they advocated when they ran. Not Mitt Romney. He leaves you guessing what he actually believes, other than in Mitt. If that too-obvious fact kills his chances among the Republicans, it couldn't happen to a more deserving cipher in a suit.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Counter-intuitive

Something I heard last night from a friend who happens to be my state rep: The Boston Herald drives what happens on Beacon Hill, especially in the House. I have to admit that I was shocked by this. I almost never read the Herald. Hardly anyone except hardcore wingnuts out here in the 'burbs reads the Herald. It's the paper for people who find the Globe too hard to read.

Conservative media outlets like the Herald relish propaganda. They don't see their role as objective. They see it as a counterbalance - against outlets like the Globe that do actually provide op-ed balance to their political ideology. By contrast, today the Herald has two conservative editorials (no surprise), three conservative op-eds, and Howie Carr for a clean sweep.

Maybe that's not representative. It looks as though I'll have to add the Herald to my news stack for a while to gather more data.

One of the op-eds comes from my bĂȘte noire Eric Fehrnstrom (professional Romney shill). He analyzes the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial race with the goal of electing Republican Charlie Baker. Former Democrat Tim Cahill, says Fehrnstrom, stands in the way, and the GOP needs to co-opt him.

Get this, Fehrnstrom's analysis is right (heh) on target. Another three-way race greatly benefits Deval Patrick.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Expressed remorse? Really?

Tom Finneran's only continuing his appeals because...?

It's a rare occasion when I side with Mitt Romney, but "no comment" is about the furthest I could imagine going toward yes if asked to support a pardon for Finneran. Actually, I'm not even going that far.

Of course, the special bonus for me is that Eric Fehrnstrom had to restrain his usual outrageous invidious knife-twisting rhetoric.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Brave new media world

Eric Fehrnstrom waxes nostalgic for the gatekeeping of big media. What he really misses is outlets he can bully and bullshit. He used to know the game. Now he's just another punk.

What matters in the new media age is reputation. Readers who want to judge the credibility of what they read have to remember the names of writers - or their consistent pseudonyms. The publisher is no longer paramount.

After all, the Boston Globe published Fehrnstrom, and, as many of the commenters point out, his credibility is low, approaching zero.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Isn't it rich?

The best bullshit peddlers are Republicans - by a long shot. Here's the sequence:

1. John McCain defines rich this way:

“So I think if you’re just talking about income, how about five million?” he later added. “I’m sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.”
2. Barack Obama, whose definition was $250,000, jokes about it:
“Which I guess if you’re making $3 million a year, you're middle class,” said Obama.
3. McCain mouthpiece Tucky Bounds retorts:
Obama is “shamelessly distorting” McCain’s comment.

"Remember when Barack Obama said he was ‘tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems?’ Neither do we," wrote Bounds.

So, one campaign claims the well-worn and debunked standard issue Republican bullshit that tax cuts for the wealthy paradoxically increase revenue. The other campaign makes a completely legitimate and humorous dig about McCain's crazy claims. Yet, it's McCain's campaign that accuses Obama's of distortion. Up is down. Big Bushist Brother loves you.

If you have a job like Tucky's (Eric Fehrnstrom), you can't have a functioning conscience because you have to say shit like that. You're not being paid to put the best face on your candidate. You're being paid to pull wool over the eyes of the credulous as the first step in giving them a bullshit bath.

And these are the so-called Christians.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Earth to wingnut

Every Republican campaign needs someone to semaphore their ugliest messages to the wingnut pundits and to media outlets like McCNN. Mitt Romney kept Eric Fehrnstrom barking on a leash. Too bad he didn't use a choke chain.

John McCain's junkyard dawg is Tucky Bounds. It's his job to get Gingrichian phrases like "partisan rant" and "hysterical diatribe" into circulation.

The wonderful upside of this story is that Obama is hitting the right notes:

“I’m running for president to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course.”

“I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain, and with the people of South Dakota,” he said at a Watertown campaign stop. “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place and that is debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.”

It's no wonder the McDuhbya camp is feeling a little sting in their morning newspaper.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

The little things in life

One of the joys of the doom of Mitt Romney's Presidential candidacy is the prospect of Eric Fehrnstrom unemployed. Too bad a hired lip, who has mastered the bullshit, passive-aggressive rejoinder the way he has, will always have a comfortable home in the Republican lie-rarchy.

He was so good at getting under my skin that I noted his name the first time I ever heard of him, which must have been 2001 or so.