Jonathan Capehart: A response to 'Martin got what he deserved'
Matt Osborne: Jason Taylor is the Butthurt of Breitblogger Brooks Bayne
Steve Benen: The foolish embrace of self-defeating arguments
Jill Lawrence: Seven Things Republicans Were For, Before They Were Against Them
Kevin Freking: FACT CHECK: Romney Ignores Other Budget Players
Jeremy Pelzer: Daily News writer has no trouble arming up at stores that James Holmes patronized in Colorado
Zandar: London Mitt is Falling Down
Jonathan Freedland: Britain is an easy date. So how did Mitt Romney mess up so badly?
Saturday, July 28, 2012
The House of Representatives Must Act on Middle Class Tax Cut Extension
Thursday, July 26, 2012
"I've been listening to and involved in this argument since the beginning. You didn't built THAT. "THAT" was in reference to infrastructure, specifically roads and bridges in this particular case. I had a Twitterfight, if you will, on this subject over the course of an entire day with someone who refused to believe the facts when presented to them; shrugged off the fact checkers and journalists who correctly identified that this wasn't a gaffe, it was a quote taken out of context. Yes, sometimes we speak inartfully and sometimes we even talk about two things simultaneously which may cause confusion, especially when reading a transcript.
Enter Jon Stewart, who dissects the situation and as usual, sticks it to the propagandists. You know, because the truth has a liberal bias.
Now the Obama campaign has already put out an ad basically doing the same thing, but with what I believe is a muddled message because of the dual "will say anything" / "actually agrees with the President" juxtaposition. They should have kept it simple.
I would suggest to the Obama campaign that they immediately hire Stewart's editor, and pay him/her whatever they want to construct their commercials because that last 30 seconds is gold.
(Cross-posted at ABLC)
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Really. It got to that point.
It all started with Greg Sargent having a back and forth with The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin and her take on Mitt Romney's ad taking President Obama's "You didn't build that" quote out of context. Obviously, she didn't think it was out of context, and her "proof" is Romney's interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow. It wasn't President Obama's full speech. It wasn't nonpartisan fact checkers. It was Romney's explanation on an interview with conservative economist and TV host Larry Kudlow.
A Twitter user named @OrwellForce got in on the act with the following tweet: "Even his ad includes the 'It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working' part. Is that not context?" Well, I couldn't just sit there, could I? I couldn't just shake my head at another lemming and turn my attention to more important things. No, I decided to answer:
@BwayCarl: You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie.Game on. Here's a copy and paste of the most of the Twitter conversation (and by conversation, I mean making points and getting typical talking point replies and generally banging my head against a wall.)
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce @jrubinblogger You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger Like I asked, how are the "It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working" comments not context?
@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce That's not the line in question. Romney campaign is laser focused on "you didn't build that." out of context @jrubinblogger
@BwayCarl @OrwellForce & I posit that Obama was right because it seems all sm. bus who disagree conveniently forget Govt grants/loans. @jrubinblogger
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger So the context that reinforces Romney's point isn't real context according to you?
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Tell me, what is it that Romney is saying when he says, and his ads say "Obama says you didn't build it"? @jrubinblogger
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger He's quoting Obama...and he includes context.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce You can't even answer my question in a straightforward manner. Kinda proves my point. @jrubinblogger
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger You asked me what Romney is saying, and Romney is quoting Obama. But enjoy your imagined victory.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce No, I asked you what Mitt was saying abt Obama quote. He was saying Obama said u didn't build sm. biz. Not true @jrubinblogger
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce What Obama DID say was that sm. biz didn't build the infrastructure that makes it possible for them to thrive. @jrubinblogger
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl And I pointed to context that reinforces Romney's reading. But you don't like that context.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Not because I don't like it, Mitt's context is wrong. And so far, every opportunistic example he's tried has been wrong.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Mitt quoting Obama is wrong, Mitt quoting Obama more to provide context is wrong. You're not a serious person.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce You still didn't answer my Q: Mitt's interpretation of Obama quote is that Obama said sm biz didn't build their co. You agree?
@OrwellForce Orwell Force @BwayCarl Yes, it's a collectivist philosophy
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce So you agree with Mitt's false premise. Like I said before, what he DID say was that govt infrastructure helps sm biz thrive.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You must have the memory of an earth worm. We've been over this like 3 times now. You don't like context if it hurts your case.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce And you continue to believe it like the rest of the lemmings. It doesn't hurt my case because it isn't true. Good luck, though.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "Out of context" "The context isn't true" - I hope you like rooms without windows.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce And yet you still haven't proven context other than to say "cuz Romney says so" while multiple fact checkers have debunked it.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Hey, at least your [sic] honest about your belief in a government-centered society. I wish more liberals would come out and say it.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Police, firefighters, military, schools, highways, public transit, SS, Medicare, yeah, we're more govt-centered than you'd admit.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I provided context but then you didn't like the context anymore. "the context is out of context"
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You keep repeating yourself. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You're starting to creep me out.
@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce This is context. Learn the difference. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I've read the full speech. Fact check is pointless when there's a transcript. You think the context is out of context. Sure thing.
@BwayCarl: Here's another for @OrwellForce in the hopes that he'll learn the definition of the word, "context." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-unoriginal-obama-quote-taken-out-of-context/2012/07/20/gJQAdG7hyW_blog.html
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You are one creepy dude.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce A creepy dude who happens to be correct. Good luck.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl According to you, the definition of "context" is "nu uh!"I'll piece the rest of this together from my timeline and my memory, because it was about this point that the brave Orwell Force decided to protect his feed, thus preventing me access unless we mutually agreed to follow each other.
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "the context is out of context" good luck with that.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce I'm actually laughing out loud at your responses cuz you refuse to have a real conversation about it. #IKnowYouAre ButWhatAmI
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Well then I apologize for the sad state of your life.
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Ouch! Ooh, you hurt my feelings. How will I ever recover?
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Why are you still here?
@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Why do you insist on replying?
@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl good point
And just like that, a blossoming friendship was not to be. I scared Orwell Force away. Did I come on too strong? ...and that was my day on Twitter.
By the way, Jennifer Rubin never replied to my tweets. Is it because she's too busy and too important, or because she knew she was full of shit?
(Cross-posted at ABLC)
Monday, July 23, 2012
That's journalist Dan Balz on MSNBC this morning. The "that" he's talking about is the Simpson-Bowles commission created by President Obama to address policies and look for fiscal solutions to help long term financial sustainability."... the explanation you get from people in the White House, people around the President, [is] that there's no way he could have led on that because his proposals become instantly toxic."
The reason the Obama administration hasn't moved on or promoted Simpson-Bowles, despite the fact that it still sits on the White House website, is because Republican intransigence has made it virtually impossible for the President to take any stand, make any comment, decision or proposal on any policy issues without getting immediate and unanimous pushback from the opposition party.
The reason is obvious, as stated by Sen. Mitch McConnell.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”That includes blocking any nominations, blocking any votes on the floor through filibuster or placement of anonymous holds, and your general obstructionist shenanigans to make it seem like the Obama administration can't get anything done, even though contrary to popular belief, this administration has been one of the most prolific in decades.
Who else agrees with Dan Balz? Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. And here's his reasoning:
Correct, Mr. Simpson. 100% correct."Co-chairman Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said it was 'the saddest thing' to see 'no' votes from senators who had fought for the congressional commission for years. 'What was the purpose of that?' he asked at a bipartisan forum Sunday with several dozen governors. 'As far as I can discern, it was to stick it to the president.'"
This isn't to infer that the drastic cuts in the commission are the only way to go, but instead to point out that no matter what the President does, he will encounter fierce opposition from the Republican Party solely for the purpose of electoral defeat in 2012, regardless of the consequences it causes the country.
(Cross-posted on ABLC)