Cory Booker speaks his mind!!

Watch Newark mayor Cory Booker on this Sunday's Meet the Press....it's refreshing to see how some of these dimocrat political figures really feel about the BO machine (even though he was only allowed to express himself momentarily before Axelrod started attacking him) when speaking off-script.

 

I don't have the time to look up the video clip right now, but I'd like to see that!

 

You mean, this Cory Booker?

You might want to watch the Maddow interview. When you have time of course. I'd skip the first five minutes or so though. It's funny for us, but maybe not so much for the Mittens crew.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47512867#47512867

 

Yeah, I think that's referred to as "spin"...Axelrod, Gibbs, Plouffe, et al are masters at spin. Remember during the '08 campaign when this bunch started out so many press conferences with ..."What he meant to say was......"?
The Booker interview with Maddow was kinda sad actually as it appeared Axelrod must have gotten to him & clipped his nads. I felt sorry for Booker- after doing so well on MTP he had to go before Maddow with hat in hand.

 

It's funny because of all of the Righties that have given a lukewarm caveat-ridden endorsement of old Mittens and the media never seems to jump like they have over this one comment where Booker compared the attacks using Rev. Wright on Obama to the attacks on Mittens record at Bain when Mittens brought up Bain and is using it as a "selling point" for his credentials.

There is no comparison here. Just one more false equivalency the Right is pushing and Booker stepped into for 24 hours and then took back immediately. Smacks of desperation on the Right more than anything.

 

Here you go:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...ents-How-badly-have-they-hurt-President-Obama

 

Actually I'm glad for Rethug support of Booker. I'm glad that they are standing with him in recognizing the negative influence of super PAC money. I'm glad they are standing with him in opposition to negative campaigning. I'm glad that they are standing with him in support of women's reproductive rights. I'm glad that they are standing with him in support of marriage equality. I'm glad that they are standing with him on affordable healthcare for everyone. I'm glad that they are standing with him in favor of.... apparently pretty much all the stuff that they used to oppose him on. This is great. David, when do you think Mittens is going to come out and make it official?

 

How do you really know what Booker stands for? When given the opportunity to speak freely he expressed some pretty un-Obama opinions (and was quickly taken to task for it). Maybe all that other stuff you like about him is just Booker playing a role?

 

So the Rethugs really don't know what they are supporting?

 

Does anyone in a case like this?

 

Oh. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was going under the assumption that you at least thought you knew what you were talking about. So then what's the point of the thread of you don't know what you are supporting here?

 

The Cons want to paint Booker as the "victim" here. If you believe what Booker says then you'll believe it when he says he was not pressured in any way to basically change his message because he still says negative campaigns hurt both sides and he is right.

His only mistake was comparing the perfectly acceptable line of questions about Bain with the questions about Wright. I personally believe that he just pulled an example of an attack and didn't mean to conflate the two lines of attack. Clearly Obama isn’t out there holding up Wright for any reason while Mittens is using Bain in every speech.

 

Gee, I thought it was obvious. I was celebrating Cory Booker's decidedly anti-Obama campaign comments. Duh!
I also enjoyed watching the Obama machine work it's "magic" with the Booker smack down & forcing him the kiss the ring in public.
So, to re-address your earlier comment...neither one of us really knows what Booker believes, do we?

 

In the space of a few minutes you've gone from, "Does anybody [know] in a case like this?" to Gee, I thought it was obvious." So it's obvious to you in post 13 but it wasn't obvious to you in post #10. What happened? A quick conference with the folks on the Mother Ship? It would probably be easier for all of us if you'd just turn the posting over to them.

 

Well, you are talking about two different things here, aren't you?
But you knew that.

 

They are willing to believe Booker as long as it seems like he is saying anti-Obama things right up to the point where he says pro-Obama things and then he is a victim that they are concerned about. Talk about selective cherry picking. Geeeesh!

 

Oh now you're claiming that you were misunderstood?

Judging by your posts I'm not sure you had ever even heard of Cory Booker until Faux News or one of your feeders alerted you to this video. And then you posted it here along with the party line and shortly and predictably got in over your head. Your crap would go down better at FR or some other RW lair where you would be guaranteed an appreciative and uncritical audience.

 

I stopped at the Faux News channel and that was all they were talking about. If I ever have any interest in what David thinks, and that never happens, I can always tune into old Faux News and get his talking points.

 

I was referring to whether or not Booker actually believes what he says.

With this statement I was referring to the humor I found in Booker stepping off the reservation & how quickly BO's attack dogs forced him to recant.

**Now, I slowed this down so you would be able to understand. You're welcome

 

The sad thing about Cory Booker was he spoke his mind the first time and he spoke for what was best for those he represents but he was quickly muzzled and put on leftist media platforms to recant. It was very Stanlist. At one time there was room in the Democrat party for many voices, guess that is a thing of the past.