The rightwing blogosphere thinks they scored a major victory with this 'brutal takedown' of Debbie Wasserman Schultz by CNN"s Anderson Cooper. They are gloating about this interview
that supposedly leaves her shivering in embarrassment and exposed as a liar.
This is a MUST WATCH! And it is brutal. In his “Keeping them Honest” segment tonight, Anderson Cooper completely exposed Debbie Wasserman Schultz over her lies about Romney’s position on abortion. From beginning to end, Cooper refuses to let DWS dodge the issue, holding her to account for taking reporting LA Times out of context to raise money against Romney.
Seriously, watch the whole thing. It’s awesome!
Even the normally level headed (for a Republican) David Frum
urges us to watch the smackdown.
Now from Anderson Cooper at CNN, here's a good example of that concept in action: a devastating interview cross-examining DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for misleading fundraising messages about Mitt Romney's abortion stand.
Essentially, Anderson Cooper is obsessed with a few words of a partial quote in
a fundraising email from the LA Times and faults Wasserman-Schultz for "attempting to link" link Mitt Romney's position on abortion with that of his VP candidate Paul Ryan, and even that of GOP Senatorial candidate Todd Akin". Because, as you know, (he tells her) "their positions are different". Imagine, trying to suggest that candidates from the same party might or should have the same positions! How dare she! He takes great exception to Wasserman-Schultz's 'claim' that Mitt Romney directed the GOP to craft the strict language in the anti-abortion plank and seems highly offended at the suggestion that this could even be contemplated. He says:
Factually speaking, Mitt Romney did not direct or design the language on abortion. It is virtually the same as that of 2004 and 2008.
He talks over Wasserman-Schultz not allowing her to answer his questions and repeats ad nauseum his point that Romney can't be held responsible for the language in the platform, and
You have to acknowlege that he has said for years publicly, that he supports abortion in the case of rape and incest.
So Cooper is defending Romney on the basis that his position differs from that of his party's, having no objections to the inconsistencies in Romney's own varying positions, and those of his party. He spends much of the interview badgering Wasserman Schultz about whether an LA Times article referring to technicalities of platform language being voted down was misquoted by the DNC. "Accuracy is important" he says.
From Ed Kilgore we have a more rational look who pins down the nonsense of Cooper's thesis. There is no disputing that Mitt Romney must have approved the language of his party's platform. But more importantly he gets to the heart of the absurdity that such incessant badgering is now an example of 'triumphal journalism' at work. He does fault DWS for letting herself get dragged down into the weeds of the discussion. Nevertheless she does make her main point that there is a huge difference between the two parties' positions on abortion, and there exists a crystal-clear choice for voters to make.
Man, if this is a “gotcha” moment, then the definition of “gotcha” has been debased to the vanishing point. As someone involved in Democratic conventions (including on two occasions the platform process) for a long time, I can confidently assert that it is a fact, of which the entire CNN staff appears ignorant, that not a sparrow falls to the ground in the drafting of a national party platform that is not approved by the nominee and his or her staff.
That Team Mitt did not choose to publicly challenge the traditional “constitutional ban with no exceptions other than life of the mother” language does not absolve it of responsibility for it. Romney’s extraordinary “flexibility,” shall we say, on the abortion issue over the years is hardly news, but the basic point that Romney is indeed complicit in an extremist platform if he doesn’t bother to explicitly distance himself from it is sound, even if Anderson Cooper doesn’t “get it.”
But even if Republicans want to hang their hats on this fine example of investigative reporting, let's not forget what Anderson said - "accuracy is important". There is a much greater nugget of irony at work here. Wasserman-Schultz did say that in the past Romney has said he would "be delighted to sign a national anti-abortion bill outlawing all abortion". She quoted Romney verbatim - he said he would be "delighted" to sign such legislation. Unfortunately Wasserman-Schultz neglected to remind Anderson Cooper where and when Romney said these words, because he really ought to have known. Mitt Romney said them to Anderson Cooper in a 2007 Presidential debate. Apparently Cooper has forgotten that he himself asked Romney about his position on abortion, and Romney responding that he would be "delighted to sign a nation anti-abortion bill".
A. COOPER: Gov. Romney?
M. ROMNEY: I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion at all period. That'd be wonderful. I'd be delighted, let me say it, I'd be delighted to sign that bill.
Factually speaking, Anderson, Mitt Romney
did not publicly support exceptions to abortion legislation for rape and incest. Accuracy is important, after all.
.
My previous diary on the 2007 debate is here .