←
→

“Winning” in the Sheen/Romney mode: Does truth matter?

Posted: October 4, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 elections, 2012 presidential campaign | Tags: |42 Comments

Okay, so my first impression of the “new” Romney was actually thinking he came off like the old Charlie Sheen. How can people be impressed with some one that continually lied, presented himself and his agenda as something diametrically opposed to what he’s been saying for the last year, and continually, frantically interrupted both the moderator and the president?  Is this really WINNING!? Are we after a debate where we learn about issues and facts or a reality show meltdown?

Obama has never been a spirited debater.  Any one that was paying attention to the 2008 primaries knows that.  The big difference that I can see in this debate performance and the 2008 performance is that Obama actually has a grasp on policy this time out and he can talk about it.  Evidently, that’s not enough for the punditry these days.  They want tingly legs. They want something akin to a reality show. IMHO, only Romney gave them that.

The morning after appears to be filled with fact checking in the print press.  Romney is losing on substance and facts.  I posted a series of fact checking posts early this morning.  There’s more today.  Here’s the shrill one.

And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.

Above all, there’s this:

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.

I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.

And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.

Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.

So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.

Here’s another one from Jonathan Chait.  Most of the print press is picking up on the lies big time.  However, the TV punditry personalities are still enthralled with the Romney Sheen-style “WINNING!”. Romney’s successful debate strategy was manically and aggressively lying. WINNING!!!

Romney was forceful and articulate and dodged his association with almost all the most unpopular aspects of his platform. But his success at doing so was built upon two demonstrable untruths.

The most important was taxes. Romney asserted, “I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans.” Let me explain how this is untrue even by his own campaign’s accounting.

Obama badly flubbed this topic by allowing Romney to change the baseline of the discussion. Romney is promising to extend all the Bush tax cuts and refuses to accept even slightly higher revenue as part of a deficit deal. On top of that, he is proposing a huge, regressive income tax rate cut that would reduce revenue by an additional $5 trillion, but promises to make up for it by closing tax deductions. Obama directed his fire almost entirely at the additional tax cut, leaving mostly untouched, until the end, Romney’s pledge to never bargain away any of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama’s case was sound. The Tax Policy Center has shown that the stated parameters of Romney’s plan don’t add up — even under favorable assumptions, there are not enough tax deductions for the rich to close to pay for the rate cuts. Romney has disputed this and cited a series of studies that, in various ways, change the parameters of the Tax Policy Center study. Some of these studies find that it could be theoretically possible that Romney could cut rates and, by closing loopholes, do so without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class — if you lower the bar on who is middle class from $250,000 to $100,000, or count the repeal of Obamacare to help pay for the tax cuts, or use really wildly optimistic growth assumptions.

None of these studies back up Romney’s claim that he won’t reduce taxes on the rich. They confirm that he will reduce taxes on the rich. They merely suggest that he could make up the revenue some other way than taxing the middle class or increasing the deficit — that the economic growth will help the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, or that some of the lost revenue can be made up for by cutting off subsidies for the uninsured. Romney flat-out misstated his position.

My first reaction to the opening Romney statement was “WHOA, Nellie”.  He basically made statements on policy that were 180 degree turns from everything he’s previously said.  No wonder the President look flummoxed.  You basically prepare for a man whose entire platform is based on tax cuts for the rich and calling 47% of the population moochers and the guy says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  Then, he says he thinks regulation is okay?  AND, he’s back to saying that his plans actually keep the popular parts of “ObamaCare” when they don’t?  Lying is WINNING!

I called my dad–who could serve as an archetype of the Republican Small Businessman–immediately after the debate and nothing about the debate impressed him.   He said it wasn’t a debate at all.  He was nonplussed.  My immediate reaction was to be appalled by the degree of Romney rudeness and aggressiveness   I don’t consider ordering a moderator around and calling him out for not keeping to the exact second of the time rule to be anything but extremely rude and bullying.  I don’t like that kind of disrespectful behavior.  I don’t consider aggressive lying and hyperactive speed talking to be “WINNING!”  It certainly hasn’t taken Charlie Sheen any where but to cable reruns.  But of course, both Jim and Big Bird seem to be “likeable enough” for Romney.  Just not worthy of a few tax dollars.

Here’s “The Four Most Misleading Moment’s in Romney’s Debate Performance” from Jonathan Cohn at TNR.  These are my thoughts exactly.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.

My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.

My question to every one is how does any one prepare for a debate with some one who lies and recreates himself and his positions continually?  It’s like a trying to catch a greased pig who is also shot up with methamphetamine and testosterone to amp up the squeals. Which Romney do you prepare for?  The Romney who continually says he’s going to lower the tax rates for the rich or the one who says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  The Romney who wants to repeal everything in Obamacare or the Romney who insists that preconditions are covered by his health care policy which is basically pre-Obama care which means it’s NOT covered. The Romney who hates regulation or the Romney who finds things he likes in Dodd-Frank?  Romney’s statements make Charlie Sheen look decidedly un-Bi-Polar by comparison.

The only hint of Romney that actually came out in the debate was the one who insisted that he supported Medicare Vouchers but only by reassuring his older voters that the sucky plan wouldn’t impact them. Not so coincidentally, Obama’s counterargument was the best one on this topic.   Obama held a rally in Denver this morning.  He made the arguments at this rally that he should’ve made last night.  Unfortunately, that’s a little late for the TV pundits who should take notes from their print colleagues and start fact checking Romney’s “WINNING!” performance.

It didn’t impress me and it didn’t impress my father. It turned both of us off.  Are we alone on this?   I saw the bully and the liar in the Romney performance.  Didn’t you? But then, I think both of us were looking for substance and not a reality show meltdown where Obama out-Charlie Sheen’d Romney.  I wasn’t looking for “Fire-breathing Fists” or “Tiger Blood”.  Were you? It seems that Tweetie wants tingly legs and Tiger blood.  That’s not what a debate should be about.  So, shut up about already and get on with dismantling the lies and inconsistencies.

42 Comments on ““Winning” in the Sheen/Romney mode: Does truth matter?”

  1. dakinikat says:
    October 4, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

    Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

    • mablue2 says:
      October 4, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      Duh! Winning!!!

      • dakinikat says:
        October 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm

        Frankly, I am beginning to think the tv media wants this to be a closer race so they can be relevant longer. The print press doesn’t seem to care about that and is responding differently. The WSJ is comparing him to Reagan. I still think the Charlie Sheen comparison is more apt.

      • mablue2 says:
        October 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm

        THe comparison is absolutely apt! I was watching the debate on nbcnews.com livestream and the twits of some of these NBC anchors such as Dancin’ Dave and the Chuckster were running on the side. The stuff they were writing was really sickening: “Romney is now in control of the dabate” and some other drivel of the sort.

        I kept asking myself if none of thiese morons were irritated by the fact that Romney just renounced the entire platform he’s been running on and that he has been just blurring all the lines.

        It was infuriating. Arrrgrrrrr!&%$§§

      • bostonboomer says:
        October 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        The media definitely wants the race to be closer. If I had $10,000, I’d be willing to bet that this isn’t going to help Romney in Ohio or New Hampshire, or Michigan, or Wisconsin.

  2. Mona (aka Wonk the Vote) says:
    October 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    More like Wanker-ing 😉
    Great post!

  3. dakinikat says:
    October 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks

    In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney “traded barbs” and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

    Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

  4. Tim says:
    October 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    So basically, what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter what you say, but how you say it? Isn’t that just the 21st century?

  5. RalphB says:
    October 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Zandar/balloon-juice: The Stern Visage Of Judgment

    Frowny Bee is generally disappointed in the liberal blogothingy debate analysis stuff today.

    I generally approve this message for hair on fire liberals.

  6. pdgrey says:
    October 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    well, the debate didn’t impress me. I thought Romney sounded like he was taking speed laced with Jon Levitz. I am a Democrat. I did not get the President I wanted in 2008. Yes, I’m still angry with the Democratic Party. The truth is being angry with the Democrats as been my life’s work. They never fight like FDR or LBJ. But no, I will not cut off all my limbs to make that point. I can see a bigger picture. Who in their right mind (47%, women, seniors, veterans, disabled, poor, middle class) could do this is beyond me.
    We all know the deal, Obama was never the liberal the right has made him out to be. The dirty secret is the right and the media has been working hard for many years on moving the left away from these ideals. To our horror the Democrats followed. When it gets down to trying to destroy the things (Social Security, Medicare) that make Democrats the people’s party, should be a wake up call for them. Last night I saw someone so boxed in with “being centerness” , he couldn’t defend our major platform.
    Rant over
    Now I have gone through the stages of depression from last night in a time warp speed.
    1, Confusion
    2. Shock
    3. Anxiety
    4. Nervous humor
    5. Sadness
    6. Fuck it, after remembering first debates in history, Reagen when he forgot where he was (he lost that debate), and a list of others that won their first debate and we don’t call them Mr. President.
    So, I say, dust you’re ass off make every effort to keep calling Romney what he, is a phoney, liar, who will take care of only people like himself. I will add, I know politicians lie, but I have never heard anything like what I heard last night. Talk about etch a sketch, with the lies, it was more like tilting the earth and making it spin backwards.

  7. dakinikat says:
    October 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Big BIrd Strikes back: http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2012/statement-presidential-debate/

    We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves.

    The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

    A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.

    As a stated supporter of education, Governor Romney should be a champion of public broadcasting, yet he is willing to wipe out services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including underserved audiences, such as children who cannot attend preschool and citizens living in rural areas.

    For more than 40 years, Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission – harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse.

    Over the course of a year, 91% of all U.S. television households tune in to their local PBS station. In fact, our service is watched by 81% of all children between the ages of 2-8.

    There’s more zingers on there too.

  8. RalphB says:
    October 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    The Onion: Obama Openly Asks Nation Why On Earth He Would Want To Serve For Another Term

    PITTSBURGH—Citing three years of exhausting partisan politics, constant gridlock in Congress, and an overall feeling that the entire nation has “completely lost it,” President Barack Obama openly asked a campaign-rally crowd Tuesday why he’d want to serve another term as president of “this godforsaken country.”

    “My fellow Americans, I come to you today to ask, why?” Obama said to 1,200 people gathered inside a gymnasium at Taylor Allderdice High School. “Why can’t our congressional leaders work together to create jobs? Why can’t Wall Street ever be held accountable? And most important, why on God’s green earth would I voluntarily subject myself to this nonsense for another four years?”

    “I’m dead serious,” the president continued, saying that any reasonable person would have walked away the moment the Senate minority leader announced his main priority—above creating jobs and improving American health care—was to make Obama a one-term president. “I’m asking if anybody out there can come up with even one reason why I’d want to endure this unmitigated shit show for another minute, let alone through 2016. What’s in it for me, ex­actly? Can anyone answer that? Anyone at all?”

    After a long silence during which crowd members mostly just shuffled their feet and stared at the ground, Obama said, “Yeah, that’s what I thought.”

    • RalphB says:
      October 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      more Onion: Mitt Romney Adopts New ‘Ronnie Ferocious’ Persona For Debates

      DENVER—Saying that he wasn’t going to take any shit tonight and that the debate podiums “looked just as fucking lame as all the dressed-up suits in this godforsaken hellhole of a room,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared tonight at the University of Denver’s Magness Arena as Ronnie Ferocious, the aggressive, no-rules punk-rock persona he has reportedly adopted for his three debates against President Barack Obama.

      Wearing a sleeveless cutoff suit jacket, tight leather pants, and a blue tie knotted around his head of spiky, red-white-and-blue-streaked hair, Romney swaggered on stage, took his position beside Obama, and ordered debate moderator Jim Lehrer to “fucking do this already.”

      “You know what? I’ll ask the first question,” the former Massachusetts governor said before putting out his cigarette on his forearm and flicking the butt at Lehrer. “What kind of little shit show do we have here this evening, folks? That’s my question. Because from where I’m standing, seems like a big ol’ shit show. And Lehrer, shut your fat mouth when Ronnie Ferocious is talking, or I’ll pound your goddamn face in.”

      “As for you, Mr. President, you can wipe that smug grin off your face or I can do it for you,” he added before sticking out his diamond-pierced tongue and wagging it at everyone in the auditorium. “I don’t need any of that ‘Forward’ shit from you tonight.”

  9. pdgrey says:
    October 4, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    This is why I just need to link and maybe not ramble. Cannonfire found the one thing that pissed me off so bad last night and was trying to say.

    As Jeff Greenfield notes:

    Most surprising, the whole evening felt as if Obama thought he was back in 2008, needing only to demonstrate a sense of cool, calm collectedness to persuade the voters that they could do what they desperately wanted to do: change course.

    There was barely a moment when Obama offered any sense that he was prepared to challenge Romney on his weakest point: who does the Republican presidential nominee speak for? How much (or little) does he understand where the country is, how it got here?

    Even on the most basic political points, Obama seemed clueless. When you argue as a Democrat that you and your Republican opponent share wide areas of agreement on Social Security—especially when recipients make up a chunk of Romney’s “47 percent” of indolent spongers—you have thrown in a fistful of high cards.

    Cannonfire:
    That last point bugged the hell out of me. Mitt Romney is the guy who picked Paul Ryan, the apostle of Ayn Rand and therefore the sworn enemy of Social Security. The obvious move was to force Romney to distance himself from his own veep. That’s what Obama would have done if he had brought the killer instinct to this match.

    Yea, it bugged the hell out of me ,too. And that is the reason for my rant above. He just said it better

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-did-barack-obama-bring-lollipop-to.html

  10. janicen says:
    October 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    I was at the gym trying to sweat out some post debate ennui when I noticed the Jerry Springer show on one of the televisions. I didn’t listen to the sound, didn’t have to, there were two women wearing tight mini dresses squaring off. Jerry would say a few words and then the two would launch into tirades at each other until eventually coming to faux blows. I have to assume they are faux blows because neither really connected even though they had opportunities, despite the security guy’s attempts to keep them separated. The tableau reminded me of last nights debate. What the hell, if the candidates are just going to stand there and make shit up like Romney did, then let’s have the candidates engage in a Springer-like slap fest and be done with it.

  11. dakinikat says:
    October 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    The First Debate: Mitt Romney’s Five Biggest Lies
    The truth behind that $5 trillion tax cut, pre-existing conditions and more

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28McCoOjH

  12. Pat Johnson says:
    October 4, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Just for the record, I have finally managed to “come down off the ceiling” and am no longer channeling Matthews or Schultz.

    This one for BB: What do you think about Bobby V being fired? Good, bad, indifferent?

    My own personal feeling is that he was also handed a big mess to overcome along with injuries that kept the best players out of the game for long periods of time.

    It wasn’t Bobby who threw home run pitches in the top of the first inning, or left 2-3 men on base in every game. But having said that I also think that letting him go was probably the best thing for both sides not to mention the fans who sat through this season expecting much, much more.

←
→