2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Akin was just a really, really unfortunate accident. That's not on Ryan. (I mean, yes, it's on him that his policy is the same, but Ryan at least has the brains to wheel it in through the service entrance in the dark.)

Setting the land speed record for most outright lies in a national debut speech was all him, though. It's possible that they have been living in their No Truth Zone for so long that he just didn't give a rip, but for a guy obviously angling for the future he did himself a disservice to become just another voice of righty mendacity.

On the other hand, if he's looking for a lifetime gig on the Fox gravy train, he's golden. They lapped it up, and apparently there's a spot opening up pretty soon.

They were supposedly going to tell the American people the truth. So, why lie?

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

They were supposedly going to tell the American people the truth. So, why lie?

If the biggest liar has been elected in 12 or so consecutive elections, why wouldn't you work on lying the biggest lies as your main campaign strategy? You can still call it "telling the truth", to keep with tradition.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If the biggest liar has been elected in 12 or so consecutive elections, why wouldn't you work on lying the biggest lies as your main campaign strategy? You can still call it "telling the truth", to keep with tradition.

Sure. Like Medicare Vouchers are telling me the truth. Tell me this. If you're going to give me a voucher so I can buy my own insurance why give me anything at all? Am I incapable of just going out and purchasing insurance?

See, these are the kinds of truths they were supposed to explain to me during their convention. They gave me nothing.

[Foxton]

If the biggest liar has been elected in 12 or so consecutive elections, why wouldn't you work on lying the biggest lies as your main campaign strategy? You can still call it "telling the truth", to keep with tradition.

Winners lie about what they are going to do, losers lie about things they have done.

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Absolutely devastating article about Paul Ryan:

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar


A week ago, Paul Ryan’s political assets included — alongside his chiseled torso, plainspoken Midwestern demeanor, and the unshakable loyalty of the entire Republican Party — a firm reputation for honesty among the mainstream media. That reputation has suffered a massive, swift erosion. News stories about his speech at the Republican National Convention focused on its many rhetorical sleights of hand. Over the weekend, the revelation that he dramatically misstated a marathon time added a crucial, accessible piece of evidence to the indictment. Now liberals are calling him “Lyin’ Ryan” — a nickname that, a few weeks ago, would have seemed silly, like “Wimpy Palin.” Now mainstream pundits are defending Ryan with versions of the “well, all politicians fib” defense. Given that this constituency was once portraying Ryan as unusually honest, this represents a huge retreat for his political brand.
What happened?
Here’s what has not happened: Paul Ryan did not begin telling an unprecedented series of lies that suddenly exposed a predilection for shading the truth. His marathon boast is certainly odd and may well be a deliberate lie, but it could also be a simple failure to recall. The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson, arguing for the prosecution, contends that “for someone who does run seriously,” missing a marathon time by as a vast a level as Ryan does is nearly impossible. On the other hand, given that the race occurred in 1990 and was Ryan’s only marathon, perhaps the explanation is that Ryan just isn’t a serious runner.
And Ryan’s Tampa speech, while pretty dishonest, was not especially so by Ryan’s standards. Here you can see why Ryan must view the sudden attack of the truth squad so bewilderingly. Ryan has been saying things like this, and worse, all along. The bit where he sadly shakes his head and blames President Obama for the failure of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that Ryan killed himself has been a staple of the Ryan shtick for two years. Reporters usually bat their eyes and coo sympathetically. Now it has become evidence of his duplicity .
Ryan seems to have fallen victim to circumstances he didn’t quite foresee. The Romney campaign has spent the last several weeks practically daring the national press corps to call out its lies. Well beyond the usual exaggerations of a national campaign, Romney has built its entire message around two accusations — “you didn’t build that” and “just send them a check” — that are obviously false. A day before Ryan’s speech, a Romney adviser told reporters, “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” The media that had spent the last two and a half years nuzzling gently in Ryan’s lap had been prodded with sharp sticks and reacted in the predictable fashion, though probably not predictable to Ryan himself.
The thing about Ryan is that he has always resided in a counter-factual universe. He is a product of the hermetically sealed right-wing subculture. Many of the facts taken for granted by mainstream economists have never penetrated his brain. Ryan burst onto the national scene with a dense, fact-laden attack on the financing of Obama’s health-care bill that was essentially a series of hallucinations, pseudo-facts cooked up and recirculated by conservative apparatchiks who didn’t know what they were talking about or didn’t care. His big-think speeches reflect the influence of fact-free conservatives and collapse under scrutiny.
During the last couple of years, Ryan took his act to the big city, expanding beyond his Washington conservative movement base and pitching himself to a broader audience as a straight-talking avatar of fiscal responsibility. That he managed to pull off the feat was completely incredible. Ryan’s entire career had been rooted in the “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” wing of his party, and he spent the Bush administration consistently pushing for even more fiscally irresponsible policies than even George W. Bush could bear, and then spent the Obama administration relentlessly killing any effort to ameliorate those deficits. The genuine Paul Ryan is a man deeply devoted to reducing tax rates for Job Creators, and staunchly opposed to universal health insurance and other social spending. He is not a deficit hawk. The tension between Ryan’s policy goals and the persona he crafted was strained to the breaking point. When the press corps finally applied even the slightest pressure to it, it immediately and inevitably snapped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The language employed in this story is "interesting." What's the source?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

The language employed in this story is "interesting." What's the source?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09...me-a-liar.html

[jmh]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Absolutely devastating article about Paul Ryan:

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar


A week ago, Paul Ryan’s political assets included — alongside his chiseled torso, plainspoken Midwestern demeanor, and the unshakable loyalty of the entire Republican Party — a firm reputation for honesty among the mainstream media. That reputation has suffered a massive, swift erosion. News stories about his speech at the Republican National Convention focused on its many rhetorical sleights of hand. Over the weekend, the revelation that he dramatically misstated a marathon time added a crucial, accessible piece of evidence to the indictment. Now liberals are calling him “Lyin’ Ryan” — a nickname that, a few weeks ago, would have seemed silly, like “Wimpy Palin.” Now mainstream pundits are defending Ryan with versions of the “well, all politicians fib” defense. Given that this constituency was once portraying Ryan as unusually honest, this represents a huge retreat for his political brand.
What happened?
Here’s what has not happened: Paul Ryan did not begin telling an unprecedented series of lies that suddenly exposed a predilection for shading the truth. His marathon boast is certainly odd and may well be a deliberate lie, but it could also be a simple failure to recall. The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson, arguing for the prosecution, contends that “for someone who does run seriously,” missing a marathon time by as a vast a level as Ryan does is nearly impossible. On the other hand, given that the race occurred in 1990 and was Ryan’s only marathon, perhaps the explanation is that Ryan just isn’t a serious runner.
And Ryan’s Tampa speech, while pretty dishonest, was not especially so by Ryan’s standards. Here you can see why Ryan must view the sudden attack of the truth squad so bewilderingly. Ryan has been saying things like this, and worse, all along. The bit where he sadly shakes his head and blames President Obama for the failure of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that Ryan killed himself has been a staple of the Ryan shtick for two years. Reporters usually bat their eyes and coo sympathetically. Now it has become evidence of his duplicity .
Ryan seems to have fallen victim to circumstances he didn’t quite foresee. The Romney campaign has spent the last several weeks practically daring the national press corps to call out its lies. Well beyond the usual exaggerations of a national campaign, Romney has built its entire message around two accusations — “you didn’t build that” and “just send them a check” — that are obviously false. A day before Ryan’s speech, a Romney adviser told reporters, “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” The media that had spent the last two and a half years nuzzling gently in Ryan’s lap had been prodded with sharp sticks and reacted in the predictable fashion, though probably not predictable to Ryan himself.
The thing about Ryan is that he has always resided in a counter-factual universe. He is a product of the hermetically sealed right-wing subculture. Many of the facts taken for granted by mainstream economists have never penetrated his brain. Ryan burst onto the national scene with a dense, fact-laden attack on the financing of Obama’s health-care bill that was essentially a series of hallucinations, pseudo-facts cooked up and recirculated by conservative apparatchiks who didn’t know what they were talking about or didn’t care. His big-think speeches reflect the influence of fact-free conservatives and collapse under scrutiny.
During the last couple of years, Ryan took his act to the big city, expanding beyond his Washington conservative movement base and pitching himself to a broader audience as a straight-talking avatar of fiscal responsibility. That he managed to pull off the feat was completely incredible. Ryan’s entire career had been rooted in the “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” wing of his party, and he spent the Bush administration consistently pushing for even more fiscally irresponsible policies than even George W. Bush could bear, and then spent the Obama administration relentlessly killing any effort to ameliorate those deficits. The genuine Paul Ryan is a man deeply devoted to reducing tax rates for Job Creators, and staunchly opposed to universal health insurance and other social spending. He is not a deficit hawk. The tension between Ryan’s policy goals and the persona he crafted was strained to the breaking point. When the press corps finally applied even the slightest pressure to it, it immediately and inevitably snapped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about a link or some attribution instead of plagiarizing someone else's material without acknowledging the source?

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Winners lie about what they are going to do, losers lie about things they have done.

To my knowledge this is far and away the smartest thing you've ever written. Beautiful. Who did you get it from?

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Sure. Like Medicare Vouchers are telling me the truth. Tell me this. If you're going to give me a voucher so I can buy my own insurance why give me anything at all? Am I incapable of just going out and purchasing insurance?

See, these are the kinds of truths they were supposed to explain to me during their convention. They gave me nothing.

It should be pretty clear to everyone by now that they have no actual plans for how to govern, only for how to get elected... and even those plans suck, among Republicans. If you have any expectations for our politicians at all, you're in for disappointment.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Absolutely devastating article about Paul Ryan:

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar


A week ago, Paul Ryan’s political assets included — alongside his chiseled torso, plainspoken Midwestern demeanor, and the unshakable loyalty of the entire Republican Party — a firm reputation for honesty among the mainstream media. That reputation has suffered a massive, swift erosion. News stories about his speech at the Republican National Convention focused on its many rhetorical sleights of hand. Over the weekend, the revelation that he dramatically misstated a marathon time added a crucial, accessible piece of evidence to the indictment. Now liberals are calling him “Lyin’ Ryan” — a nickname that, a few weeks ago, would have seemed silly, like “Wimpy Palin.” Now mainstream pundits are defending Ryan with versions of the “well, all politicians fib” defense. Given that this constituency was once portraying Ryan as unusually honest, this represents a huge retreat for his political brand.
What happened?
Here’s what has not happened: Paul Ryan did not begin telling an unprecedented series of lies that suddenly exposed a predilection for shading the truth. His marathon boast is certainly odd and may well be a deliberate lie, but it could also be a simple failure to recall. The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson, arguing for the prosecution, contends that “for someone who does run seriously,” missing a marathon time by as a vast a level as Ryan does is nearly impossible. On the other hand, given that the race occurred in 1990 and was Ryan’s only marathon, perhaps the explanation is that Ryan just isn’t a serious runner.
And Ryan’s Tampa speech, while pretty dishonest, was not especially so by Ryan’s standards. Here you can see why Ryan must view the sudden attack of the truth squad so bewilderingly. Ryan has been saying things like this, and worse, all along. The bit where he sadly shakes his head and blames President Obama for the failure of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that Ryan killed himself has been a staple of the Ryan shtick for two years. Reporters usually bat their eyes and coo sympathetically. Now it has become evidence of his duplicity .
Ryan seems to have fallen victim to circumstances he didn’t quite foresee. The Romney campaign has spent the last several weeks practically daring the national press corps to call out its lies. Well beyond the usual exaggerations of a national campaign, Romney has built its entire message around two accusations — “you didn’t build that” and “just send them a check” — that are obviously false. A day before Ryan’s speech, a Romney adviser told reporters, “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” The media that had spent the last two and a half years nuzzling gently in Ryan’s lap had been prodded with sharp sticks and reacted in the predictable fashion, though probably not predictable to Ryan himself.
The thing about Ryan is that he has always resided in a counter-factual universe. He is a product of the hermetically sealed right-wing subculture. Many of the facts taken for granted by mainstream economists have never penetrated his brain. Ryan burst onto the national scene with a dense, fact-laden attack on the financing of Obama’s health-care bill that was essentially a series of hallucinations, pseudo-facts cooked up and recirculated by conservative apparatchiks who didn’t know what they were talking about or didn’t care. His big-think speeches reflect the influence of fact-free conservatives and collapse under scrutiny.
During the last couple of years, Ryan took his act to the big city, expanding beyond his Washington conservative movement base and pitching himself to a broader audience as a straight-talking avatar of fiscal responsibility. That he managed to pull off the feat was completely incredible. Ryan’s entire career had been rooted in the “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” wing of his party, and he spent the Bush administration consistently pushing for even more fiscally irresponsible policies than even George W. Bush could bear, and then spent the Obama administration relentlessly killing any effort to ameliorate those deficits. The genuine Paul Ryan is a man deeply devoted to reducing tax rates for Job Creators, and staunchly opposed to universal health insurance and other social spending. He is not a deficit hawk. The tension between Ryan’s policy goals and the persona he crafted was strained to the breaking point. When the press corps finally applied even the slightest pressure to it, it immediately and inevitably snapped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entertaining article, but not sure why you characterize it as "devastating." It's not like it was written by someone on the right, or even someone who might be characterized a "centrist", if they exist anymore.

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Entertaining article, but not sure why you characterize it as "devastating." It's not like it was written by someone on the right, or even someone who might be characterized a "centrist", if they exist anymore.

This was a lot worse for Romney from that direction.

Wick Allison, former publisher of The National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, also reaffirms his Obama decision, albeit in anguished lukewarm tones. “I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have a Gary Johnson–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway.),” Allison wrote in an email. “Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

How about a link or some attribution instead of plagiarizing someone else's material without acknowledging the source?

Settle down Professor. I got it via e-mail and it looks like Scooby took care of business for you. Never tried to pass it off as my own.

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

In our own poll the Romney ticket is still tied with "Random Third Party Dingleberry." I have a feeling this election is going to be an Obama landslide of Reaganesque proportions, whatever the polls say right now.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

This was a lot worse for Romney from that direction.

It certainly shows Romney hasn't hit home with the entire conservative base. I suspect there are a lot of voters who are sitting out there like the "ObamaCons" who are pretty chagrined at the choice they now face.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

In our own poll the Romney ticket is still tied with "Random Third Party Dingleberry." I have a feeling this election is going to be an Obama landslide of Reaganesque proportions, whatever the polls say right now.

I wouldn't exactly call it a good sample, given the number of people on here of the left persuasion. It'd be like conducting a mayoral election survey poll at a post office when one of the candidates is a postal worker.