Personally, I don't think anything Cheney says should be taken seriously. But when a journalist repeats a specific accusation and questions a White House adviser about it, an evasive answer is just plain strange. Axelrod is the one who advanced this story by dodging the question.
I'll ask you again -- do you believe that Talking Points Memo has an ulterior motive in pursuing this story (as you seem to think I do)? Do you question their integrity because they felt that Axelrod's evasive answer warranted a follow-up query to the White House?
I don't question your integrity and motives. Only your judgment. Unless you have some sound reason to believe that I have an anti-Obama agenda, you really should stick to debating the merits of my argument and not impugning my motives.
Is that such a problem? Not if you have blind faith in President Obama.
When Obama says "we do not torture" I give it profoundly more credence than when George Bush made the same claim. But I will not shut off my faculty of reason and ignore a suspicious response from one of Obama's closest advisers.
Do you also believe that Talking Points Memo has an ulterior motive to advance some kind of anti-Obama polemic?
I have been and continue to be an ardent supporter of Barack Obama. I have tremendous respect for David Axelrod. But they are both fallible human beings, and I would like some reassurance that Axelrod's answer wasn't what it obviously appeared to be -- a classic non-denial denial.
It's unfortunate that you find it necessary to impugn my motives, Shaun. Apparently, Talking Points Memo is also in on my disingenuous "tactic" when they note the obvious -- that Axelrod "danced around" the question and wonder if Cheney is right about this.
When Axelrod appears on television, he does so as a spokesman for President Obama. Which is appropriate, since he's one of the few people actually in the room with Obama for these kinds of decisions. If Axelrod's evasion was a "misstatement" as you claim, it would be easy for the White House to correct the record. But they're apparently not interested in doing that, even when queried directly by TPM.
I really hope you're right. But Axelrod is anything but a lummox. Perhaps there's some other reason he didn't want to deny it, but I'm at a loss. The usual reason that one refuses to deny something is that it's true.
The title of my diary is straightforward and factual -- the question was asked and Axelrod offered a classic non-denial denial.
was when Rove was forced to admit that Obama is giving a tax cut to 95% of working Americans...then snarled that some of the cuts are going to people that don't pay income tax -- an argument Katrina quickly eviscerated.
It's not a given. But it's clearly the preferred route. I suspect that they'll include some essential provisions in the budget bill that won't violate the Byrd rule, but will set the stage for additional reforms in future legislation.
McCain freaks out whenever anyone questions his "honor". It seems to be a sore spot (probably ever since he "broke" under questioning as a POW). I'd love to hear Obama drop a couple of honor-bombs during the debates. Preferably right before firing a difficult question at McCain.
I'd also like to see more Obama surrogates hammering the line McCaskill used the other night about McCain: "You can't have honor without honesty."