Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Great speech by Condoleeza Rice last night. She put our educational crisis into a perspective of national defense and global prominence.

"Self-esteeem comes from achievement, not from lax standards and false praise."

Very powerful, coming from a woman raised in Jim Crow Birmingham who couldn't get a hamburger at the counter in Woolworth's as a child, yet whose parents convinced her she could grow up to be President someday, who did grow up to be Secretary of State (and the first female member of Augusta National Golf Club).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like The Man With No Name is going to be a speaker.

Another theory: Zombie Reagan.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Meanwhile, somebody fact-checked Ryan's speech. It isn't really surprising that it had so many outright falsehoods. What was surprising was they are apparently not even bothering anymore -- they have moved completely into alt-reality mode.

The outright lies:

1. Ryan blamed the US credit rating downgrade on President Obama. But it was caused by the Republican Congress’s threat not to raise the debt ceiling.

2. Ryan continues to claim that President Obama said business owners did not build their own businesses. Obama said that business owners benefit from government infrastructure and programs, which they did not build.

3. Ryan depicted Obamacare as virtually a turn to Soviet-style totalitarianism, as incompatible with liberal freedoms for the individual. But the logical conclusion is that Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, turned Massachusetts into a Gulag.

4. Ryan slammed President Obama for not implementing the deficit-cutting measures recommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission. But he himself voted against Simpson-Bowles.

5. Ryan keeps attacking Prsident Obama’s stimulus program now. But in 2002 when then President George W. Bush proposed stimulus spending, Ryan supported it.

6. Even more embarrassing, in 2010, Ryan asked for $20 million in stimulus money from Obama for companies in his district, then repeatedly denied requesting stimulus funds.

7. Ryan slammed President Obama for the closure of an auto plant that closed in late 2008 under George W. Bush.

8. Ryan charges that Barack Obama has ‘stolen’ $700 billion from medicare for his Obamacare. In fact, these expense reductions do not cut Medicare benefits, and, moreover, Romney and Ryan supported these reductions!


Two others are listed but I don't count them as lies, just creepiness:

9. Ryan continues to push his longstanding plans for a steal-from-the-elderly-and-give-to-the-rich medicare plan, which President Obama warned would cost ordinary recipients over $6000 a year extra. Politifact checked and rated Obama’s charge as correct

10. Ryan neglected to note that under the tax plan he favors, Gov. Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in annual federal taxes

 

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

From what I've heard of Ryan's speech, I have these thoughts:

1) It was a great speech if the point is to bring conservatives home to the GOP ticket. If it was meant to reach out to the middle? Not so much.

2) Kep brought up something I've seen a bit today which is a bunch of half truths and outright falsehoods in Ryan's speech. I keep coming back to a theme I see time and time again, which is the Republicans are running a campaign from a bygone era. 20+ years ago you could make a speech, and by the time the media got around to fact checking it you could be on to the next point of attack. Nowadays its instant verification.

3) I have no idea who's going to show up at the polls come November, but "whities" have made up less of a % of the voters every election for decades now. In order to get to 50% +1 Mittens will need to outperform George HW Bush's #'s vs the hapless Dukakis amongst these voters. That's a tall order. Not sure a token Condi Rice appearance is going to change that, and its getting a little late in the game to start an outreach now.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Time to fact check you (or is it the dude on the website and you're just a robot?):

1. Ryan blamed the US credit rating downgrade on President Obama. But it was caused by the Republican Congress’s threat not to raise the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling was raised on August 2nd, and the downgrade was made on August 5th. Right after the debt ceiling was raised, Obama signed more spending into place.

2. Ryan continues to claim that President Obama said business owners did not build their own businesses. Obama said that business owners benefit from government infrastructure and programs, which they did not build.

The government itself does not build the infrastructure. They place a private construction company under contract to build the infrastructure. The only thing the government ever does is tell them where to put it. The businesses then determine the best location not only from the infrastructure placed, but also zoning ordinances.

3. Ryan depicted Obamacare as virtually a turn to Soviet-style totalitarianism, as incompatible with liberal freedoms for the individual. But the logical conclusion is that Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, turned Massachusetts into a Gulag.

Obamacare requires health organizations to cover specific things at cost to the organization, whether or not it is within their beliefs. This means that it gives the government the power to ban those same things, which is then passed to the individual.

4. Ryan slammed President Obama for not implementing the deficit-cutting measures recommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission. But he himself voted against Simpson-Bowles.

If Simpson-Bowles passed, regardless of Ryan's vote, the President still has the duty, under the Presidential oath, to defend the Constitution, which states that it is the executive branch's job to enforce legislation created by the Congress.

5. Ryan keeps attacking Prsident Obama’s stimulus program now. But in 2002 when then President George W. Bush proposed stimulus spending, Ryan supported it.

Perhaps he doesn't support it because of certain things that take place as part of Obama's stimulus, such as handouts instead of true reform.

6. Even more embarrassing, in 2010, Ryan asked for $20 million in stimulus money from Obama for companies in his district, then repeatedly denied requesting stimulus funds.

If it has already been provided, there's nothing that Ryan can do about that. He might as well get a piece of the pie.

7. Ryan slammed President Obama for the closure of an auto plant that closed in late 2008 under George W. Bush.

Which plant?

8. Ryan charges that Barack Obama has ‘stolen’ $700 billion from medicare for his Obamacare. In fact, these expense reductions do not cut Medicare benefits, and, moreover, Romney and Ryan supported these reductions!

Cutting money from Medicare does in fact cut the quantity of benefits. According to Medicare law, not only does the government provide funding for the coverages, but they are the sole provider, under risk of felony, for the coverages.

9. Ryan continues to push his longstanding plans for a steal-from-the-elderly-and-give-to-the-rich medicare plan, which President Obama warned would cost ordinary recipients over $6000 a year extra. Politifact checked and rated Obama’s charge as correct

Is there a clause within there that states that those wishing to receive a service covered by Medicare may pay out of pocket? If so, that actually significantly helps what you consider "the elderly", because it would take what you consider to be "the rich" out of the equation for medicare money provisions.

10. Ryan neglected to note that under the tax plan he favors, Gov. Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in annual federal taxes

Which, in terms of monetary amounts, is still much more than most people pay.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Meanwhile, somebody fact-checked Ryan's speech.

Um, in my dictionary, the word "fact" does not mean "opinion" yet the list you gave is high on opinion and short on actual data.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Which plant?

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

20+ years ago you could make a speech, and by the time the media got around to fact checking it you could be on to the next point of attack. Nowadays its instant verification.

It doesn't matter, though. To pick on FNC for example, but true of any Echo Chamber outlet, the people who get their news from those media (plural) will never encounter any cognitive dissonance because either (1) they will never be exposed to a fact check of the speech, or (2) even if they are, their "double-down in the case of being challenged" aversion to facts will insulate them.

A GOP candidate can say, literally, anything he wants in the post-Ailes world of the all-compassing conservative zeitgeist. The followers can check their talk radio or Conservapedia for verification. The other conservatives they talk to will all have identical sources and opinions. It is a perfect closed circle.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

Not so. Ryan said that, during the 2008 campaign, Obama came to the plant, which was already closed, on a campaign stop, and promised that, if he were elected, the plant would be re-opened. Here we are nearly four years later and the plant is still closed.

Now those are all facts:
> Ryan did say these things:
> the plant was closed in 2008
> Obama did visit the plant during the 2008 campaign
> Obama did say during that visit that the plant would be reopened
> the plant is still closed


Now, one can then have an opinion that it's not "fair" to Obama, since he has no direct control over the decisions involved; one can have an opinion that not every campaign promise can be honored, etc. However, to describe something as a "fact"-check and then include in the list things that cannot objectively be verified one way or the other is disingenuous (for example, how can anyone verify what the consequences of a proposed tax law change will be? that cannot possibly be "factual" since it rests upon a hypothesis contrary to fact!!)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

Indirectly, it could still very well be true, especially if Congress had a hand in legislating that decision. Remember, Obama was a Senator. Although his word was diluted out of 100, his voting record (assuming he didn't vote Present) would speak there.

 

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

It doesn't matter, though. To pick on FNC for example, but true of any Echo Chamber outlet, the people who get their news from those media (plural) will never encounter any cognitive dissonance because either (1) they will never be exposed to a fact check of the speech, or (2) even if they are, their "double-down in the case of being challenged" aversion to facts will insulate them.

A GOP candidate can say, literally, anything he wants in the post-Ailes world of the all-compassing conservative zeitgeist. The followers can check their talk radio or Conservapedia for verification. The other conservatives they talk too will all have identical sources and opinions. It is a perfect closed circle.

Kep that's all fine and dandy but I doubt too many Fox viewers are truly undecided. So I'll reiterate this will work splendidly if the 1988 electorate shows up in Nov 2012. Congressional Republicans, of which Ryan is currently a member, have a huge credibility and likeability gap with the public. Making up easily discredited statements isn't going to endear him any further to the voters.

Seems to me Ryan was trying to fill a void left by Christie. While I didn't hear Christie's speech some of the coverage out of more right leaning outfits was that it was more about him than a critique of Obama (who I'm not sure he ever mentioned by name). Perhaps Ryan felt the need to get the raw meat out there so Romney wouldn't have to.

So, if you look at a race of lets say 47-45%, that doesn't leave a lot of undecideds (8% assuming no libertarian votes). Breaking even on these people still equals a loss. Mittens needs to win them 2-1 to get over the top and I'm not sure anything has happened thus far aside from the boilerplate Ann Romney speech to get him there.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Kep that's all fine and dandy but I doubt too many Fox viewers are truly undecided.

There are places (I work in one) where Fox is the go-to on the public space TV, just as if it was an actual news network. I wouldn't exactly call most of the people here "Fox viewers" -- they wouldn't TiVo Hannity or whatever cheeseball RNCTV is sponsoring these days. But it does contribute to the general noise pollution in the same way that CNN or ESPN does in other places.

Also, there are no undecideds anywhere, anymore. It's all about getting your voters to the polls and keeping the other guy's at home (or off the rolls). The conventions are homecoming rallies designed to fire people up. Nobody's trying to appeal to the middle because it's a fiction.

 

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Also, there are no undecideds anywhere, anymore. It's all about getting your voters to the polls and keeping the other guy's at home (or off the rolls). The conventions are homecoming rallies designed to fire people up. Nobody's trying to appeal to the middle because it's a fiction.

Disagree with you a little here. I don't think there's a lot of swing voters but to say there's not 5% of the voting population that can be pursuaded to vote either way is a bit of an exaggeration IMHO. Of course turnout if a huge factor but conventions need to do both. Nobody's base is enough to put them over the top solely by itself.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Powerful speech by Ryan. He's a good speaker, and unlike certain other candidates, he talks substance. Which of course means that national headlines avoid covering his speech since they would only headline it if he make some gaff. Glad I'm not Joe Biden having to debate against this guy. Makes me feel a bit better about Romney that he made such a good pick for his VP. Haters can now que up.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Glad I'm not Joe Biden having to debate against this guy.

By all rights, Ryan should destroy him, but Gore destroyed Dubya in the 2000 debates and that didn't turn out well.

These things don't come down to substance often. Optics are way more important (the famous Nixon-JFK discrepancy between radio and TV viewers always comes to mind).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

By all rights, Ryan should destroy him, but Gore destroyed Dubya in the 2000 debates and that didn't turn out well.

These things don't come down to substance often. Optics are way more important (the famous Nixon-JFK discrepancy between radio and TV viewers always comes to mind).

Gore didn't destroy Bush. Gore wasn't a good enough debater to destroy a pinata. Agreed substance often isn't the determiner or even a major factor.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Gore wasn't a good enough debater to destroy a pinata.

To win a debate against Dubya, all you had to do was not drool onto the mic. Gore managed that.

Gore did destroy Dubya in debate #1 -- the only time a guy has been schooled worse was Quayle's painful debate against Benson. By the second debate Dubya had memorized his canned responses much better, but in the first one he made Rick Perry look like Thomas Henry Huxley. If it'd been a fight they would have stopped it.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Not so. Ryan said that, during the 2008 campaign, Obama came to the plant, which was already closed, on a campaign stop, and promised that, if he were elected, the plant would be re-opened. Here we are nearly four years later and the plant is still closed.

Now those are all facts:
> Ryan did say these things:
> the plant was closed in 2008
> Obama did visit the plant during the 2008 campaign
> Obama did say during that visit that the plant would be reopened
> the plant is still closed

Sounds to me like he's saying it was open and then closed after Obama came:

Especially in Janesville where we were about to lose a major
factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at
that G.M. plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama
said, ``I believe that if our government is there to support you,
this plant will be here for another 100 years.''
That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that
plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to
this day.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/29/transcript-paul-ryan-speech-at-rnc/#ixzz252jXYk6i

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Sounds to me like he's saying it was open and then closed after Obama came:

What is being said is that it was closed, Obama promised to open it, and it did not open. Obviously I don't know what the government can do in terms of opening those establishments, but the result is: "Obama lied, Capitalism died."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

You know it's bad when even Fox News calls out Ryan's speech for being "deceiving."

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.