| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:23 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The triumph of style over substance
THE MADDOW BLOG
By Steve Benen
-
Thu Oct 4, 2012 8:00 AM EDT.
One of the main drawbacks to televised political theatrics is that we tend to evaluate the events in an unconstructive way. We see players on a stage, after extensive rehearsals, playing to a packed house, and we judge them as if they are actors -- who seemed "crisp" and looked "confident."
In other words, we invariably value political theater on its theatrical qualities, watching to see who knew their lines and delivered them more effectively.
By this measure, when it comes to determining who "won" last night's debate in Denver, I'd argue the conventional wisdom is right: it wasn't close. Based on style and performance, Mitt Romney did all of the things a "winning" debater is supposed to do.
Did he know his lines? Obviously, yes. Did he deliver them well? Flawlessly. I argued last week that Romney's "strength as a debater is wildly underappreciated" and "if Democrats expect Romney to falter in the debates, they're making a big mistake." Last night illustrated what I was talking about.
President Obama, meanwhile, was listless and timid. He stumbled on his words. At times he seemed distracted and unfocused. There were key opportunities for the president to go on the offensive, but for whatever reason, he chose not to engage. For pundits checking boxes -- who gave the appearance of being "in control"? -- Romney excelled.
But all of this overlooks an element I like to think it sometimes important: substance. The men on the stage last night aren't actors; they're candidates for the nation's highest office. Delivering lines well is a nice quality, but as the dust settles, it's worth pausing to reflect on whether those lines were true and reflect reality in any meaningful way.
Indeed, it seems to me Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it.
Romney told viewers his proposed $5 trillion tax cut isn't really his proposed $5 trillion tax cut. He suggested he could eliminate a $1 trillion deficit by going after Big Bird. He said his non-existent health care plan protects those with pre-existing conditions when in reality the exact opposite is true. He cited trumped up "studies" from far-right ideologues as if they're legitimate, assuming the public won't know the difference. He said a deficit that's shrunk has actually "doubled."
And when Romney wasn't repeating falsehoods, he was furiously shaking an Etch A Sketch, rolling out yet another version of himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new model -- version 8.0? 9.0? -- likes regulations of the financial industry, wants to work with Democrats, thinks his Massachusetts health care law was a great idea, and has no use for the goals of his running mate's budget plan that Romney enthusiastically endorsed. Does this in any way reflect the candidate who's been running for president the last year and a half? No, but the Republican assumes most voters won't realize and most news organizations covering the campaign won't tell them.
He might very well be right.
But as Romney and his supporters take a victory lap this morning, it's fair to note their success was a triumph for style over substance.
. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:33 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Politifact: Romney Claim That Obama Robbed Medicare of $700 Billion Is “Mostly False”
Posted by icarus on 16 Aug 2012 / 9 Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politifact says plain as day that Romney’s claim that Obama robbed Medicare of $700 Billion is “mostly false” HERE:
The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?
First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.
Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years
.
What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.
And I’ve already given a lengthy rebuttal to the Romney lie that Obama stole $700 billion from Medicare HERE.
But Romney keeps propagating the lie … in person and in political ads like below:
Now … the video above has been rated “Mostly false” and thusly … so have all of his personal statements and remarks that parrot that same talking point. But just one week ago … Mitt Romney said this HERE:
“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad. They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”
~Mitt Romney
So – now that Romney has been called out for lying AGAIN by the fact checkers … will he stop repeating this lie? NO. No – he won’t. Just as we explained HERE:
This video below is a presentation from the National Republican Congressional Committee showing how they “fought back” against the Republican support for the Ryan plan i.e. the Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher plan. They use this as a case study. In short – they’re going to amplify the talking point that Obama “stole” $700 billion from Medicare when he passed Obamacare. Of course – that’s not true. We’ve debunked that lie HERE.
If you combine the video above with the leaked GOP memo that says in order for conservatives to protect themselves politically regarding Medicare … they must not talk about “entitlement reform” and that they should say they are trying to “save”, “protect”, “strengthen” etc. We talked about that HERE.
Notice these two quotes from today alone:
“It is our duty to save the American dream for our children and theirs.”
~Paul Ryan
“We want to make sure that we preserve and protect Medicare.”
~Mitt Romney
How many times have you heard Romney or Ryan use the words “save”, “protect”, “strengthen”, “preserve” etc in the last couple of days? EVERY TIME they talk. Because – this is how they’re going to try to kill it.
And President Obama responded to the dishonesty of the entire Medicare debate today and everything he says is TRUE:
Read more: http://www.classwarfareexists.com/politifact-romney-claim-that-obama-robbed-medicare-of-700-billion-is-mostly-false/#ixzz28MBWDVMK
Follow us: classwarfareexists on Facebook |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:39 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rating Wednesday Night's Debate Whoppers
—By Dana Liebelson
| Thu Oct. 4, 2012 11:46 AM PDT
61 total whoppers
Pundits largely took two things away from the debate last night: President Obama turned in a lackluster performance, and moderator Jim Lehrer let Mitt Romney walk all over him. A presidential debate moderator's job is not unlike a parent with two squabbling six-year-olds: While it's important to maintain neutrality, it's also necessary to find out which kid is lying about cutting the legs off all the Barbie dolls. Because Lehrer could hardly get a word in last night, let alone call out any questionable truths, we've done it for him: by comparing the statements made by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on "The Whopper Scale." Five Whoppers means that the statement is complete baloney. One means that the statement is kind of tasteless, but basically real: So…like the beef you'll find in fast food restaurants!
Mitt Romney
The Statement: "Let—well, actually—actually it's— it's—it's a lengthy description, but No. 1, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan."
How Accurate Was It? Coverage for preexisting conditions keeps the most vulnerable Americans from falling through the cracks, and according to the Department of Health and Human Services, without Obamacare, up to 129 million citizens could be denied coverage. Romney, who has repeatedly promised he will repeal Obamacare, is misleading those Americans here. According to Talking Points Memo, even a top Romney adviser implied yesterday that under Romney's plan people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.
Number of Whoppers: 5
The Statement: "[Unlike Obama] We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive."
How Accurate Was It? Romney didn't go so far as to invoke Sarah Palin's "death panels" in describing Obama's health care plan, but that's essentially what he was referring to. The idea that there is one board to rule them all, which will determine what kind of treatment Medicare patients receive, is false. The board Romney is referring to is the Independent Payments Advisory Board, which, according to PolitiFact, is "forbidden from submitting any recommendation to ration health care" and can't make decisions about individual patients.
Number of Whoppers: 5
The Statement: Obama said: "The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more [under Romney's tax plan]. Now, that's not my analysis; that's the analysis of economists who have looked at this." And in response, Romney replied: "Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong."
How Accurate Was It? Romney has pointed to these studies before (this time, he added one) in trying to convince the middle class that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are a good idea. The problem is, these aren't reliable studies. According to the Huffington Post, three of the "studies" are opinion pieces, which are not academic in nature and have an overlapping author. One is paid for by Romney for President Inc. And the last one, an actual study, is being misinterpreted by the Romney campaign.
Number of Whoppers: 4
President Obama
The Statement: "I've put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It's on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for a dollar of additional revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit."
How Accurate Was It? According to the Washington Post's Fact Checker, "virtually no serious budget analysis agreed with this accounting." Obama's figure includes two questionable sources of income: the bipartisan, $1 trillion budget reduction cleared by Congress last year (which would apply to Romney, if he is elected), and also billions in so-called savings from leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, which, as you'll see next, don't really count.
Number of Whoppers:4
The Statement: "I think it's important for us to…take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way."
How Accurate Was It? "The use of this war gimmick is quite troubling," writes Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As the committee points out, the $850 billion Obama claims the United States is getting by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan hardly amounts to savings: Instead, it's money borrowed from abroad, which needs to paid back with interest. But at the very least, Obama is right that we won't be continuing to funnel money into active conflict zones.
Number of Whoppers? 2
The Statement: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut."
How Accurate Was It? Obama repeated the $5 trillion figure several times, then Romney denied that he even has a tax cut of that scale. So who's right? According to PolitiFact, Obama's figure, which is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, is "accurate but misleading." That number includes tax cuts over the next 10 years. And while Romney does have tax cuts of that scale, he theoretically plans to reduce tax breaks to offset the cuts. But the problem is, no one knows how Romney plans to do that exactly.
Number of Whoppers: 1
.
Dana Liebelson
Writing Fellow
Dana Liebelson is a writing fellow in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. Her work has also appeared in The Week, TIME's Battleland, Truthout, OtherWords and Yahoo! News. RSS | Twitter |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:58 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
