What really bothers me about this election...

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually it is if the issue is only about whether or not Romney's lies are acceptable. (It is entirely possible that lies by either candidate are unacceptable. That's why tu quoque is a fallacy. To the question of whether or not Romney's lies are acceptable, Obama's lies are irrelevant.)

My point being more aimed at some of that criticism being based on unsupported facts in of itself, yet going unrecognized. The OP doesn't seem go to quite that route, but some of the posters responding to it clearly are. It's exemplary of how polarized the politics are right now.

Is there a pattern of Obama denying his own stated platform positions as there is with Romney?

The only real "denial" of stated platform positions that I have had problems with is that he campaigned on the idea that he was fresh and he was a new figure that would radically change politics here in the states. His policy decisions when he got into office don't reflect any of that, they're just typical to his party platform, and he's run into the same problems of being partisan like his predecessors. Obama's weaknesses are not the same ones that Romney has, so I really don't feel there's a good comparison that makes them "similar"

It all reminds me of wrestling in the mud with conspiracy theorists, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen. It means we won't even be able to discuss the legitimate gripes with Obama's policies, nor is there any incentive for him to shape up any longer. Now it's all about stagecraft.

What you talk about in terms of Romney's specificity, I can see where you're coming from even if I don't totally agree. But I totally don't agree with this bit. He's criticized Obama rightly on issues of the national debt and budgeting. I agree with what he says about the partisanship and Obama's inability to reach compromise.

Where his weaknesses lie is in exact specifics on how he can address those. While he's explained solutions like doing a 20% across the board tax cut there remains issues over how he can do that without raising the debt/deficit. Sounds to me more like an over blown campaign promise that would at best reach a compromise status if he had the chance to do it.

Repealing and replacing Obama care as another example, he doesn't mention what he'll replace it with, but more importantly I don't realistically think it's possible for him to do it the way he promises. I don't think he'd be able to get such a repeal through congress if it remains deadlocked the way it is now, and more likely I'd suspect he wouldn't make much progress on that one at all. That being said I honestly don't think of his position right now as setting the bar for overreaching...

The only thing that might come close is his position changes,, but even if that's more than the usual with him... somehow I don't feel like it's to any kind of "whole new level".

 

[R.Mackey]

What you talk about in terms of Romney's specificity, I can see where you're coming from even if I don't totally agree. But I totally don't agree with this bit. He's criticized Obama rightly on issues of the national debt and budgeting. I agree with what he says about the partisanship and Obama's inability to reach compromise.

Criticizing Obama is fair game. In fact, in large part I want a better candidate because it would make Obama more accountable. But criticizing him and then offering fairy stories on how you'd fix it... that's not really criticism at all.

The "bipartisanship" argument would hold more water if we hadn't seen such a concerted effort to spike it by the Republican party. Cloture, Tea Party destruction of anyone considered "moderate," Boehner's frank admission that knocking out Obama is his chief goal, the Ryan Budget, Norquist Pledge, etc... Romney has no answer for this, either.

Where his weaknesses lie is in exact specifics on how he can address those. While he's explained solutions like doing a 20% across the board tax cut there remains issues over how he can do that without raising the debt/deficit. Sounds to me more like an over blown campaign promise that would at best reach a compromise status if he had the chance to do it.

I don't know what Romney would do -- I can't because he won't stick to any position. If I were to guess, I'd guess that he will rush through his tax cut and deregulate investment banking again, point to any cyclical economic recovery as "proof" that it's working, and then utterly fail to address the deficit. Republicans since Reagan have a very poor record on deficit reduction no matter what they might claim.

Repealing and replacing Obama care as another example, he doesn't mention what he'll replace it with, but more importantly I don't realistically think it's possible for him to do it the way he promises. I don't think he'd be able to get such a repeal through congress if it remains deadlocked the way it is now, and more likely I'd suspect he wouldn't make much progress on that one at all. That being said I honestly don't think of his position right now as setting the bar for overreaching...

The only thing that might come close is his position changes,, but even if that's more than the usual with him... somehow I don't feel like it's to any kind of "whole new level".

I believe you see my point.

Again, I'm hardly claiming Obama is a knight in shining armor. I have concerns about his handling of spending as well. Right now spending is not a big deal, but someday the interest rates are going to change, and I don't know what he'll do when that day comes. It may not come until 2016.

But unlike Romney, I at least know where he's coming from. He has consistency and he's not promising anything that abuses any physical conservation laws. It's frankly disrespectful for Romney to propose nothing in kind, and it amazes me that he's getting away with it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They are trying to convince people that Obama is telling just as many lies. Republicans are desperate to make the case that the lies, deception and hyperbole is coming, in equal doses, from both sides.

Which, of course, makes no sense as a reason to boot Obama and elect Romney. If your current car is just as bad as the one someone else is trying to sell you, why would you switch? The only possible reasons would be entirely superficial.

Is Obama's lying thus old and welcome?

Given the context of his post, I imagine he'd go with "old and unwelcome".

 

[GeeMack]

But what's unusual about this is the underlying strategy. Rachel Maddow today collected a large number of walkbacks and opined that it was in fact deliberate -- that Romney's campaign had purposely decided that Romney, the candidate, would publicly make one statement, while Romney, the election machine, would then quietly substitute another, conflicting, generally more conservative correction. She speculated this is to desensitize voters to what Romney actually says, either to protect him from any and all countermeasures, or to pander to both the conservative base and the moderate middle simultaneously.

It appears Romney is working a strategy of trying to appeal to the stupidest 15%, the most bigoted 15%, the most fearful 15%, the most fundamentally religious 15%, the richest 15%, the most gullible 15%, and the most blindly loyal 15%. If the intersection of those groups makes more than 51% of the electorate, he can win. Of course it would be because of stupidity, racism, fear, superstition, homophobia, and all that gullibility, not in spite of it.

Whichever of those groups a Romney supporter is in, they're in deep. All but the rock bottom stupidest of them know he's a liar. They really should be the first ones calling him out on the abject dishonesty, but they won't. It's like when a ref makes a blatantly bad call but it's in your team's favor. Romney supporters are seeing the lies but keeping their mouths shut while hoping he wins. And Romney doesn't care as long as they don't have the courage, honesty, moral integrity, or even awareness to call him out on the lies. He relies on it. His position is, "I want to be the president." Nothing else seems to be important to him.

 

[funk de fino]

I have seen some disgusting charlatans in my time, but the GOP hopefuls are up there with the worst. The USA is a great nation, why do you let these morons get away with their current nonsense?

 

[SezMe]

The "bipartisanship" argument would hold more water if we hadn't seen such a concerted effort to spike it by the Republican party. Cloture, Tea Party destruction of anyone considered "moderate," Boehner's McConnell's frank admission that knocking out Obama is his chief goal, the Ryan Budget, Norquist Pledge, etc... Romney has no answer for this, either.

Minor correction there. But I was struck by the comment as well. It's pretty hard to tetter-totter when only one person is on the playground.

 

[R.Mackey]

oops. Thanks.

Sometimes I feel I'm too hard on Boehner, so to speak.

 

[RandFan]

oops. Thanks.

Sometimes I feel I'm too hard on Boehner, so to speak.

's okay, sometimes Boehner is hard on you.

 

[R.Mackey]

My wife -- fluent German speaker -- is fond of explaining to people that Boehner's preferred pronunciation (rhymes with "gainer") isn't supported by ancestral dialect. In proper German the spelling is Böhner, and it sounds about like what you'd expect.

She is also something of a militant athiest (whereas I am a tolerant athiest), and she views government meddling in women's health issues to be worthy of torches and pitchforks. Not so interested in politics, but I think I can guess who she won't be supporting this time around.

 

[Olowkow]

I remember a time when being caught in a lie meant a severe setback or political death for a candidate. "Read my lips!"

This Ryan lie about not accepting stimulus money which was again pointed out by Biden merely produces a further stretch of the truth by Ryan. Maddow had a picture of Ryan with the label "Atlas Begged". I found that pretty funny.

Being wrong is one thing, but clearly lying during a debate should produce much more criticism than what I'm seeing. I wonder if this is something that the republicans have purposely embarked on as a technique for dulling the voters' sensitivities for lies. That is, the Fox echo chamber can simply scream "waaaaa", all they can do is call their opposition liars. It really feels like the whole political rhetoric is somehow out of joint.

 

[Corsair 115]

He has!!!!!!!!!!

What, does that come as a surprise to you? Politifact.com has an entire page keeping track of the President's truthfulness, or lack of same. It even grades the statements on a scale. It's got a page on Mitt Romney as well. Comparing the two is interesting. The current standings are shown below (Obama has had 432 statements reviewed; Romney, 184).

True: Obama, 22%; Romney, 16%
Mostly true: Obama, 23%; Romney, 14%
Half true: Obama, 26%; Romney, 28%
Mostly false: Obama, 12%; Romney, 17%
False: Obama, 14%; Romney, 17%
Pants on fire: Obama, 2%; Romney, 9%

 

[Aridas]

What, does that come as a surprise to you? Politifact.com has an entire page keeping track of the President's truthfulness, or lack of same. It even grades the statements on a scale. It's got a page on Mitt Romney as well. Comparing the two is interesting. The current standings are shown below (Obama has had 432 statements reviewed; Romney, 184).

True: Obama, 22%; Romney, 16%
Mostly true: Obama, 23%; Romney, 14%
Half true: Obama, 26%; Romney, 28%
Mostly false: Obama, 12%; Romney, 17%
False: Obama, 14%; Romney, 17%
Pants on fire: Obama, 2%; Romney, 9%

Or, in other words, despite the GOP claims of bringing more honesty to the discussion and their love of attempting to equivocate and demonize Democrats, the Democratic candidate is demonstrably more honest, not that I'd brag about either being "good."

 

[IchabodPlain]

*shrugs*

It's a new definition of lie posters are throwing around, as if it's accepted fact. The John Stewart piece does this right off the bat. The "20% tax cut" has, from the start, been mis-characterized. Even, in the video, The Daily Show quotes Romney saying "I want to cut tax rates by 20%." Cut back to Stewart, and it's "Romney wants to cut taxes by 20%." The word rate is continually left out, even though Romney specifically uses that, as did his original proposal in February. Making the cuts revenue-neutral has also been part of that same proposal, but is always left out.

Context being key, it's really no wonder that Romney let Republicans (and those in the media who didn't ask) not zero in on this during the primary. He's a moderate, ask any remotely serious Republican. This proposal reflects that, and has from the start - it hits the top 20% of income earners harder than the bottom 20% (i.e. he's taxing the rich). Almost never have I heard an argument against the idea itself - only that Romney's insincere, or it couldn't pass (and I started a thread on it). Could he be more specific? Absolutely, and he ought to be drilled on this everyday by both the Obama campaign and the media at large. But when you start your OP with distortions from a comedian, it doesn't set the stage for a compelling case.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. cutting tax rates by 20% is sorta cutting taxes by 20%.

 

[Aridas]

.. cutting tax rates by 20% is sorta cutting taxes by 20%.

Pretty much. I doubt there's as much confusion about that as might have been implied. For people who actually pay attention to tax rates, at least. Either way, for people like me, it's irrelevant, except in the context of reducing government income in a seemingly fiscally irresponsible way. Frankly, if we care about the debt, a revenue neutral plan dependent on significant economic growth and highly unlikely changes in government spending isn't going to cut it, anyways. Even less so if it actually potentially favors the rich far more than the previous set up, when the wealth distribution is already extremely uneven.

Take these graphs, for example, from this site.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

.. cutting tax rates by 20% is sorta cutting taxes by 20%.

To the extent that he has detailed, Romney's mentioned he would accomplish this through cutting deductions and loopholes in the tax code so that the tax base is broadened and revenue loss due to the tax rate cuts is offset. This part of his "plan" being discussed isn't speculative, whether he can do the cuts and have the math work is what's in question since he also wants to increase the defense budget as well along with other matters which could become an issue for implementing the plan "as is"

 

[gnome]

I am concerned with Obama lying as well as Romney lying.

What I'm curious about is... my favorite fact-check sites are immediately accused of being left-wing shills even when they routinely call out deceptions by the left as well.

Maybe they are--but why are only left-wing shill sites interested in the integrity of the discourse to the point of even considering both sides? Show me the right-wing "politifact", show me the right wing "snopes".

 

[varwoche]

The only real "denial" of stated platform positions that I have had problems with is that he campaigned on the idea that he was fresh and he was a new figure that would radically change politics here in the states. His policy decisions when he got into office don't reflect any of that, they're just typical to his party platform, and he's run into the same problems of being partisan like his predecessors.

This isn't fair criticism.

First, I doubt you're referring to Obama's "change the tone in Washington" but just in case -- that was a ridiculous, fuzzy platitude that a savvy voter should have put little or no stock in, and it's equally ridiculous to hold him to this sort of thing as if it's a policy position.

But as to policy, Obama didn't even attempt single payer. "Obamacare" very much reflects GOP policy -- until GOP policy morphed into "the opposite of what Obama says". This of course was hugely abetted by the ascendency of the bat **** crazy wing of the party.

I agree with what he says about the partisanship and Obama's inability to reach compromise.

How can you so blithely overlook the sea change that occured in the political landscape? The GOP, dominated by bat **** crazy idealogues who hate Obama so much they'd rather drive the economy off a cliff than give one goddamn inch.

And let's not forget that Romney has catered to these nuts at every turn. He won't accept a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases? What a sorry joke.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

*shrugs*

It's a new definition of lie posters are throwing around, as if it's accepted fact. The John Stewart piece does this right off the bat. The "20% tax cut" has, from the start, been mis-characterized. Even, in the video, The Daily Show quotes Romney saying "I want to cut tax rates by 20%." Cut back to Stewart, and it's "Romney wants to cut taxes by 20%." The word rate is continually left out, even though Romney specifically uses that, as did his original proposal in February.

You really think the word "rates" makes a difference?

I think when we hear that he would cut taxes by 20% we all understand that he's proposing to cut tax rates by 20%. What else would it mean, as a proposal? You think it means he would cut tax rates by whatever figure it would require such that it cuts revenues collected by 20%? No one talks that way.

No one said he's claiming to cut revenues by 20%, though by cutting tax rates by 20%, the burden is on him to explain how that doesn't result in a loss of revenue--something he has failed to do.

ETA: Arm waving about cutting unspecified deductions and closing unspecified loopholes is a failure to explain how his 20% tax cut won't result in a huge loss of revenue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How can you so blithely overlook the sea change that occured in the political landscape? The GOP, dominated by bat **** crazy idealogues who hate Obama so much they'd rather drive the economy off a cliff than give one goddamn inch.

And let's not forget that Romney has catered to these nuts at every turn. He won't accept a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases? What a sorry joke.

Exactly.

I haven't heard of Democrats taking any pledge not to compromise wrt to any aspect of the budget. In 2011, 238 out of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans took the Norquist pledge promising not to compromise by supporting any tax increase (and many of them even define the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts as a "tax increase").

This is no longer a fringe arm of the GOP. It's the party mainstream approach to "bipartisanship". They want none of it.

There's no way this is Obama's fault.