My favorite thing of this election so far...

[Direckshun]

...has to be Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate.

You guys do understand this is the guy the Obama campaign has been attempting to pin the entire Republican Party against? That polling for the DNC suggested that telling people Republicans want to privatize social security and turn Medicare into a voucher system was the ticket to victory?

So Obama mentions the guy over and over again, which further raises his profile, and he becomes a poster boy for the Republican Party, because they just can't help themselves. If Obama hates the guy, let's turn him into a hero.

Romney's own advisors, it seems, encouraged Romney not to make this selection. Reportedly it was a decision Romney and his family made intimately.

It's not exactly Sarah Palin, because Sarah Palin was an idiot, whereas Paul Ryan is very smart.

It's about how to frame yourself every election. But the Romney message would ideally being about self-reliance and individualism. Adding Ryan to the ticket takes it even further, and tells the American people: you will be on your own.

Romney and Ryan have been playing defense ever since Ryan's been added to the ticket. And Romney has done the absolute worst thing you can do with Ryan, and has handcuffed him from presenting too many specifics about what he'd like to see done with policy. You shouldn't select Ryan unless you truly unleash the guy to answer 1,001 questions about his budget, which he's willing and capable and EAGER to do.

This may have been a double-whammy, as well. If Romney loses this election, and the numbers right now don't look great, this might very well be the anchor around Ryan's national ambitions past this election.

[Brock]

misremembering, lol.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by steve_minor

What else do they have to stand on. They can only cut down their oppenent to below their canidate. Unless they have a list of amazing things that have changed for the better in the last 4 years?

Which shows just how shitty Romney is to not to be able to capitalize on that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Do you really think misremembering your time in a marathon from decades ago is "not the usual politician [lie] but a real one"? It's absurd to put that untruth which may or may not have been intentional above such things as "my budget will cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years" or "the healthcare bill will not increase the deficit by one dime".

This effort by supporters of Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton, I might add) to define Paul Ryan as an extraordinary liar even by politician standards is absurd.

I don't view that one as significant and didn't even know the background (i.e. how long ago he ran it).

of course, that's the minor one compared to the appalling lie about bankrupt businesses, but there's no defense for that one so I can see why you ignored it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I don't view that one as significant and didn't even know the background (i.e. how long ago he ran it).

of course, that's the minor one compared to the appalling lie about bankrupt businesses, but there's no defense for that one so I can see why you ignored it.

Well, first of all, I picked one of the two examples that *you* bolded. I chose the one I knew the most about and could most easily explain.

Would it surprise you if I told you that I can explain the bankruptcy statement too and that the article you posted was arguably as misleading and most likely more intentionally deceptive than Ryan's statement?

Edit: I just re-read the article and I no longer think that it was intentionally deceptive.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Well, first of all, I picked one of the two examples that *you* bolded. I chose the one I knew the most about and could most easily explain.

Would it surprise you if I told you that I can explain the bankruptcy statement too and that the article you posted was arguably as misleading and most likely more intentionally deceptive than Ryan's statement?

Edit: I just re-read the article and I no longer think that it was intentionally deceptive.

Because I was interested (and had missed this entire topic until seeing it in TMQ), I did some brief bit of research. I see that Paul likely just misspoke, rather than intentionally lied. The 1.4 million bankruptcies number is correct when one counts ALL bankruptcies, rather than just business bankruptcies. By inserting the word "business", he made a fairly serious error, but it was likely just an inadvertent error.

HOWEVER, the entire statement is pretty misleading and easily blown to hell. He compares bankruptcies under Obama to Carter to argue, effectively, that THINGS ARE EVEN WORSE NOW THAN THEY WERE UNDER CARTER!!!!11 GIGGITY!!

Ignoring that bankruptcies of all types peaked in 2005 at over 2 million under George Bush. I therefore absolve him from his original crime but indict him for a different one.

Let me know if you have some fact(s) that I'm missing.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Because I was interested (and had missed this entire topic until seeing it in TMQ), I did some brief bit of research. I see that Paul likely just misspoke, rather than intentionally lied. The 1.4 million bankruptcies number is correct when one counts ALL bankruptcies, rather than just business bankruptcies. By inserting the word "business", he made a fairly serious error, but it was likely just an inadvertent error.

I agree, and I hadn't seen this before you posted it either so I had to do the same.

Originally Posted by Amnorix

HOWEVER, the entire statement is pretty misleading and easily blown to hell. He compares bankruptcies under Obama to Carter to argue, effectively, that THINGS ARE EVEN WORSE NOW THAN THEY WERE UNDER CARTER!!!!11 GIGGITY!!

Ignoring that bankruptcies of all types peaked in 2005 at over 2 million under George Bush. I therefore absolve him from his original crime but indict him for a different one.

Let me know if you have some fact(s) that I'm missing.

I'm sure you noticed in your research that the numbers Ryan used were both right (if you allow for the mistake about the numbers actually applying to total bankruptcies instead of business bankruptcies). What you're now criticizing him for is exactly the same kind of thing common in politics, i.e. not an outright lie, but a deception using a truth (albeit a partial one), which was why I was laughing at BRC and his belief that Ryan is some kind of unusually serious liar even for a politician.

Let's compare it to the silliness that Direckshun was regurgitating just yesterday that Obama is responsible for the largest tax cut in history. Apparently, that statement is true only if the measure of "largest" is based on number of people affected as opposed to a more natural (or at least more common) understanding, e.g. largest in terms of dollars. Ryan's deception is certainly no more notable than that creative use of the language.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Because I was interested (and had missed this entire topic until seeing it in TMQ), I did some brief bit of research. I see that Paul likely just misspoke, rather than intentionally lied. The 1.4 million bankruptcies number is correct when one counts ALL bankruptcies, rather than just business bankruptcies. By inserting the word "business", he made a fairly serious error, but it was likely just an inadvertent error.

HOWEVER, the entire statement is pretty misleading and easily blown to hell. He compares bankruptcies under Obama to Carter to argue, effectively, that THINGS ARE EVEN WORSE NOW THAN THEY WERE UNDER CARTER!!!!11 GIGGITY!!

Ignoring that bankruptcies of all types peaked in 2005 at over 2 million under George Bush. I therefore absolve him from his original crime but indict him for a different one.

Inadvertent? I'm not sure why you would be so charitable. What would make you think it was inadvertent?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I agree, and I hadn't seen this before you posted it either so I had to do the same.



I'm sure you noticed in your research that the numbers Ryan used were both right (if you allow for the mistake about the numbers actually applying to total bankruptcies instead of business bankruptcies). What you're now criticizing him for is exactly the same kind of thing common in politics, i.e. not an outright lie, but a deception using a truth (albeit a partial one), which was why I was laughing at BRC and his belief that Ryan is some kind of unusually serious liar even for a politician.

Let's compare it to the silliness that Direckshun was regurgitating just yesterday that Obama is responsible for the largest tax cut in history. Apparently, that statement is true only if the measure of "largest" is based on number of people affected as opposed to a more natural (or at least more common) understanding, e.g. largest in terms of dollars. Ryan's deception is certainly no more notable than that creative use of the language.

I would tend to agree that Ryan's cherry-picking of a comparison to Carter when the comparison to Bush is more recent but less favorable to him is typical "political lying".

[Direckshun]

Picking Ryan shifted the conversation to Medicare, which hurt Romney in swing states.

You could see this coming from a hundred miles away.

But Republicans just couldn't help themselves. Classic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...b04_story.html

Medicare working to boost Obama in swing states, poll finds
By Jon Cohen and Peyton M. Craighill
Thursday, September 27, 8:23 AM

Voters in three critical swing states broadly oppose the sweeping changes to Medicare proposed by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and, by big margins, favor President Obama over Mitt Romney on the issue, according to new state polls by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Among seniors, the issue rivals the economy as a top voting issue, undercutting Romney’s appeal in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Generally, the more voters focus on Medicare, the more likely they are to support the president’s bid for reelection.

A focus on Medicare as an issue also blunts potential fallout from Obama’s 2010 health-care reform law. The law remains controversial and is, according to an analysis of these new poll results, a drag on Obama’s reelection prospects. In Florida and Ohio, more voters have “strongly unfavorable” than “strongly favorable” impressions of the health law.

Sizable majorities of voters in each of these three states — as well as those across the country — say they prefer to keep Medicare as a defined benefits program, rather than moving to a system of fixed payments to seniors to buy coverage from private insurance or traditional Medicare. The “premium support” idea is one featured in the Republican budget proposed by Ryan and backed by Romney. The desire to keep the system as it is peaks at 65 percent in Florida, where more than one in five 2008 voters were age 65 and up.

Underlying support for not changing Medicare is the widespread belief that the system is working well for today’s seniors. In Florida, 70 percent of all voters say the system is working well — rising to 91 percent of the state’s seniors — and positive assessments of Medicare is nearly as high in the other states.

Asked whom they trust to deal with the Medicare program, Ohio voters side with Obama over Romney by a 19 percentage-point margin. The president has a 15-point advantage on the issue in Florida and a 13-point lead on it in Virginia. In a separate national poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation released Thursday, Obama’s 17-point lead over Romney on Medicare is larger than it has been across public polls all year.

The importance of Medicare as an issue also boosts Obama more directly: In the three Post-Kaiser state polls, voters who call Medicare an “extremely important” voting issue side with him over his challenger, 59 percent to 36 percent, while those seeing it as less than very important tilt toward Romney, 54 percent to 36 percent. Even among political independents, Obama support is higher among those putting higher priority on the issue than among those less apt to focus on it.

There is also a widely held public perception that changes are needed to keep Medicare sustainable for future generations. The problem for Republicans is that swelling budget deficits are not a sufficient motivator for voters. Across the three states, about three-quarters of voters say that Medicare cuts are not essential to deficit reduction.

[patteeu]

Three cheers for the demagogues who make it harder to deal with the looming medicare crisis. Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!

Well done, democrats!

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Three cheers for the demagogues who make it harder to deal with the looming medicare crisis. Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!

Well done, democrats!

Democrat's Rules to Follow in the 2012 Campaign:

1. Say whatever it takes to get elected.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132. Do what is right for the American people.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Democrat's Rules to Follow in the 2012 Campaign:

1. Say whatever it takes to get elected.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132. Do what is right for the American people.

I'm surprised they even included the last 131 items on that list.

[The Rick]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Democrat's Rules to Follow in the 2012 Campaign:

1. Say whatever it takes to get elected.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132. Do what is right for the American people.

Exactly. I'd rather see Romney-Ryan run on principle and lose than avoid the major issues altogether like the other side.

It just makes my head hurt though to think about how many people out there are fine with the "put your fingers in your ears and pretend you don't hear the bad news" tactic in avoiding looming problems. Democrats clearly capitalize on that for the sole purpose of winning elections, and further down the road the can goes.

It's hard not to lose a little faith in our nation when you see it happen.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by The Rick

Exactly. I'd rather see Romney-Ryan run on principle and lose than avoid the major issues altogether like the other side.

It just makes my head hurt though to think about how many people out there are fine with the "put your fingers in your ears and pretend you don't hear the bad news" tactic in avoiding looming problems. Democrats clearly capitalize on that for the sole purpose of winning elections, and further down the road the can goes.

It's hard not to lose a little faith in our nation when you see it happen.

What principle is Romney-Ryan running on? I think Romney is running for his personal principal.

[The Rick]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

What principle is Romney-Ryan running on? I think Romney is running for his personal principal.

Many of them, but in this case, trying to fix Medicare now instead of letting it continue on its current path toward insolvency.