Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[closg00]

The link didn't work^^ , but thanks for posting.

[hands11]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/1 ... isis-VIDEO

[hands11]

Candy Crowley was correct in the debate.

Ms. Crowley's crime in the eyes of the right is that she for one brief moment did what every journalism department at every university in America teaches their students to do: Keep the record straight and do not allow politicians to use you as a prop for self-serving lies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a- ... 80255.html

The real reason why the right has become so unhinged over Candy Crowley's journalistic moment was best summed up 28 years ago by the campaign of Vice President George H. W. Bush following his historic debate with New York Representative Geraldine Ferraro, the first ever woman on a major party's ticket. When members of the press did their jobs and later fact-checked many of the statements that Bush made during the debate and found them incorrect, misleading, or outright lies, Bush's press secretary responded:

You can say anything you want in a debate, and 80 million people hear it. If reporters then document that a candidate spoke untruthfully, so what? Maybe 200 people read it, or 2,000 or 20,000. (Quoted in The Eighties, p. 55)


I am all for real time fact checking in the debates. Candy should get props. And I don't want just a moderator doing it. I want a team behind the moderator who are policy experts, that have computers, notes and life line to call if they need to. It does a disservice to this country to allow politicians to knowingly or unknowingly tell lies with a straight face as if they are the truth. I would like to see this type of thing implemented in more areas but at the min, do it in the Presidential debates when so many people are watching. The electorate is ignorant enough about a wide range of topics. The last thing the need is to get more bad information. I don't mind some political spin but propaganda machines can not be allowed to stand. Currently, that is the R party. They don't like town hall meetings because they give Americans citizens to much access. A propaganda machine needs to control everything and that is what the Rs try to do. They have their own news. There own facts. And they play political games like strategically knowing they can lie in a debate watched by 60M people because they have beaten down the press to the level of being puppets. And when one people finally opens their mouth one time, the swords come out as a sign to others.. don't do that or we will come after you.

In an editorial on Wednesday titled "Candy's not dandy," The New York Post -- owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., parent company of Fox News Channel -- repeated accusations against Crowley first leveled by Romney surrogate John Sununu on CNN's Early Start on Wednesday morning.

Candy Crowley was right in what she said. And it was actually balanced. She said Obama did mention terrorism which was Mitts claim and then she went on the say Mitt was also right that it took two weeks for a unified formal position.

The R propaganda machine is vast. A guy at my office told me this she admitted she was wrong right after the debates and said I needed to look it up. She didn't do that. I even saw her interviewed and she said stands by what she said.

The R are masters at confusing people. They are a German style propaganda machine and that is very dangerous. When they win, the debate was good. The polls are good. When they are losing. The polls are wrong, the moderator lied, reporters are bad and you can't trust the media. How can anyone trust the R machine. They is a huge leap between spinning things and what they do. Their propaganda tactics are downright immoral and a treat to our democracy. This style of politics can not be rewarded with power. Last time we did that, we ended up invading Iraq and bankrupting our country.

And with all the spin, we get away from the basic truth of the situation by keeping people busy bickering over small stupid crap.

The real facts are.

Starve the beast was a designed plan started with Reagan.
Republicans wanted a mountain of debt so we would get to 100% debt to GDP so they could kill SS and MC.
This was a plan, not an accident.
The goal is also to break the unions so business runs American instead of our gov representing the people and the people have power and a voice.

Their puppet masters are international business people with no loyalty to America. Their goal is only to maximize their personal profit in any way the see fit. They have no interest in the country other then to milk it.

They want to take the individuals power as exercised through our Federal government that is the peoples multinational corporation and instead they want to own that power.

And to do that, they need to convince people that the Government is inept, bad, wasteful, and hurting them. That he government is no theirs. All the while, the worst of what the government does is when they are controlling it to much. You want more of that, vote R.

[dandridge 10]

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't like either Romney or Obama, but I think Crowley was dead wrong in fact checking during the debate. She was not acting as a journalist; she was acting as moderator. Her job during the debate was to preside over the debate not to correct the candidates if they said something false or misleading. While it would be terrific if there was a reliable, impartial process for doing instant fact checking during debates to ensure candidates don't lie or mislead the public, there currently is not one in place. Until that happens, no moderator should be engaged in instant fact checking.

There are two problems with what Crowley did. First, she could have been wrong. She was basing her statement on her memory, not one a transcript in front of her. A moderator can't afford to be wrong in these instances because calling out a candidate could have an adverse impact on his/her performance. Second, out of everything both candidates said during the debate, she picked one moment to fact check. EVERY DEBATE INVOLVES BOTH PARTIES STRETCHING THE TRUTH OR USING A FACT AND TWIST IT IN A MISLEADING WAY TO BENEFIT THEIR SIDE. After every debate, there are fact checkers that correct BOTH SIDES for MISLEADING STATEMENTS. The fact that Crowley took it upon herself to instant fact check one statement from one candidate and not do the same thing to the other candidate has an appearance of impartiality and bias.

HANDS, the only reason why you think Crowley was correct here is because it benefitted your party. If the roles were reversed and Crowley instant fact checked Obama on something and made him look silly, you and the rest of your party would be crying murder about the same thing as the Republicans.

[dandridge 10]

And, Hands, enough of this Republicans are "liars", "masters of confusing people", "propaganda machines," etc. I have been a lawyer in this city for 17 years and have been involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisles. Both parties are liars, masters of confusing people and propaganda machines. Its all part of politics.

It just amazes me how hypocritical people are when defending their own party. A had a family member that was campaigning for Obama in the last election. She sent an email to everyone on her contact list bashing Bush for running a negative ad campaign and then proceeded to identify a laundry list of negative things about Bush. There was not a single thing in her email that said what Obama would do for the country. How was that anything different than what Bush was doing?

Hands, you accuse the Republican party of lying and misleading the public. You are right. But, you better also look at the Democrat party too, because they are doing the same crap. And, if you believe that they are not, then you are as ignorant and blinded as the rest of the electorate in this country.

[nate33]

There are two problems with what Crowley did. First, she could have been wrong. She was basing her statement on her memory, not one a transcript in front of her. A moderator can't afford to be wrong in these instances because calling out a candidate could have an adverse impact on his/her performance. Second, out of everything both candidates said during the debate, she picked one moment to fact check. EVERY DEBATE INVOLVES BOTH PARTIES STRETCHING THE TRUTH OR USING A FACT AND TWIST IT IN A MISLEADING WAY TO BENEFIT THEIR SIDE. After every debate, there are fact checkers that correct BOTH SIDES for MISLEADING STATEMENTS. The fact that Crowley took it upon herself to instant fact check one statement from one candidate and not do the same thing to the other candidate has an appearance of impartiality and bias.

[Induveca]

And, Hands, enough of this Republicans are "liars", "masters of confusing people", "propaganda machines," etc. I have been a lawyer in this city for 17 years and have been involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisles. Both parties are liars, masters of confusing people and propaganda machines. Its all part of politics.

It just amazes me how hypocritical people are when defending their own party. A had a family member that was campaigning for Obama in the last election. She sent an email to everyone on her contact list bashing Bush for running a negative ad campaign and then proceeded to identify a laundry list of negative things about Bush. There was not a single thing in her email that said what Obama would do for the country. How was that anything different than what Bush was doing?

Hands, you accuse the Republican party of lying and misleading the public. You are right. But, you better also look at the Democrat party too, because they are doing the same crap. And, if you believe that they are not, then you are as ignorant and blinded as the rest of the electorate in this country.

[Zonkerbl]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

[fishercob]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

HA! It all goes back to the Bush Administrations grammatically insane "War or Terror." Someone belongs in jail for the omission of that all important "ism."

[dandridge 10]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

Romney was not smart to focus on the semantics anyway. He should have focused on why there wasn't enough protection for the Ambassador to begin with and why Obama choose to take such a strong position on the video, when the government is supposed to endorse and protect Free Speech and it appeared to be apologetic to the very people he was claiming killed his Ambassador.

[nate33]

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened.

Exactly. There was a deliberate, coordinate effort by the Obama Administration and the State Department to downplay the assassination as a spontaneous protest that got out of hand when they knew full well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. Obama lied, not Romney.

[fishercob]

nate, I think you are probably right that State and the Admin spun and downplayed what happened and weren't forthright about it. As an American, I also can't say I particularly care. I don't know who was hurt by that.

That four American diplomats were assassinated by Islamist thugs sucks. But I think it just is what it is. I don't think it's any sort of indication of this administration being too this or too that. I don't think one can credibly say that this is the sort of thing that would or would not have happened with someone else in the White House or is a direct result of our foreign policy. Bad guys have wanted to kill Americans for years, and unfortunately that won't change.

I think the ROmney campaign would be extremely unwise to try to make this a big issue in Monday's debate. Even if they make a great case that Obama himself knew the truth and blatantly lied about it, it won't move the needle with the electorate. There are issues that people care about so much more that are so much more immediate to their day to day lives.

I think Bill Kristol gives Romney great advice here, but I don't expect him to take it.

[nate33]

I dunno, fishercob. I think trust is a big issue in the campaign, it always is. Voters expect politicians to "spin" a story to their greatest advantage. That's a given. But they are unforgiving about politicians who flat out make up stories to save their skin.

[Induveca]

Just having that Crowley woman as a moderator was a horrible idea. It's akin to having BIll O'Reilly as a moderator. All of us having lived/living in DC know the biases for each network quite well.

[dandridge 10]

I dunno, fishercob. I think trust is a big issue in the campaign, it always is. Voters expect politicians to "spin" a story to their greatest advantage. That's a given. But they are unforgiving about politicians who flat out make up stories to save their skin.

I don't know, I think I agree with Fishercob. The public didn't seem unforgiving when Clinton lied about having sex with Monica. I think most people expect politicians to lie. Besides, there is no way that Romney is going to prove that Obama lied. I think the exchange with Obama (with Candy's help) made Romney look petty and if he continues to attack Obama on it, I think Romney is going to put off more people. I think Romney can still make points by not directly attacking Obama or calling him a liar. Simply state that if he is elected, he will make sure that all of our officials overseas have the proper protection. Moreover, if there is ever an attack against the U.S. on his watch, he will immediately get to the bottom of the facts, take immediate appropriate action and communicate clearly with the public, and hold those responsible without ever giving the appearance that there is ever an excuse for an attack on U.S. citizens or officials. I think most people will get the message.

[montestewart]

I dunno, fishercob. I think trust is a big issue in the campaign, it always is. Voters expect politicians to "spin" a story to their greatest advantage. That's a given. But they are unforgiving about politicians who flat out make up stories to save their skin.

True undecided voters probably could be heavily influenced by such, especially if they perceived one candidate doing something like that where another candidate would not. It seems partisan voters have a hard time really evaluating such shortcomings in their own favorite. When Nixon was going down, the hardcore conservatives in my family acted like it was a lot of nonsense over nothing, and I'm thinking, "Come on, he had a crew that was doing B&Es." When they were going after Clinton, the hardcore liberals in my family (the extended family is roughly split, 50-50) called it a partisan witch hunt, and I'm thinking, "Yeah, maybe a witch hunt, but he's the leader of the free world, with the eyes of the world on him constantly, and he can't even keep his d**k in his pants." I never really got what people saw in Ronald Reagan that made so many regard him as so great, and I never really got what people saw in Barack Obama that made so many regard him as so great. Maybe I'm just missing the boat.

[hands11]

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't like either Romney or Obama, but I think Crowley was dead wrong in fact checking during the debate. She was not acting as a journalist; she was acting as moderator. Her job during the debate was to preside over the debate not to correct the candidates if they said something false or misleading. While it would be terrific if there was a reliable, impartial process for doing instant fact checking during debates to ensure candidates don't lie or mislead the public, there currently is not one in place. Until that happens, no moderator should be engaged in instant fact checking.

There are two problems with what Crowley did. First, she could have been wrong. She was basing her statement on her memory, not one a transcript in front of her. A moderator can't afford to be wrong in these instances because calling out a candidate could have an adverse impact on his/her performance. Second, out of everything both candidates said during the debate, she picked one moment to fact check. EVERY DEBATE INVOLVES BOTH PARTIES STRETCHING THE TRUTH OR USING A FACT AND TWIST IT IN A MISLEADING WAY TO BENEFIT THEIR SIDE. After every debate, there are fact checkers that correct BOTH SIDES for MISLEADING STATEMENTS. The fact that Crowley took it upon herself to instant fact check one statement from one candidate and not do the same thing to the other candidate has an appearance of impartiality and bias.

HANDS, the only reason why you think Crowley was correct here is because it benefitted your party. If the roles were reversed and Crowley instant fact checked Obama on something and made him look silly, you and the rest of your party would be crying murder about the same thing as the Republicans.

Look, you can tell me what I think or you can ask. That is not why I think she was correct. I clearly stated over and over that I want fact checking by a team of moderators and policy experts. I want both sides held accountable. And "if" they had a team of people there to fact check, neither side would lie so easily because there would be the fear of getting busted. That would be a good thing. And I want more of a summit then a debate/ Jeopardy show anyway.

What we can't let continue to happen is let either side as a strategy, lie in front of 60M people only to later have their campaigns correct the errors a day later when no one is listening.

Mitt has made it a policy to do this. And he did it in spades the first debate. Doing it like he did and Bush admitted he did can not stand. Its to influential to the lower information people out there who are tuning into these debate to learn something. The fact that a reporter is sitting there saying nothing leads them to believe that what is being said is true. If not, the reporter would open their mouth.

Just to show I despise it from both sides and I can see when the Dems do it, I hate when they say, employers can deny a women birth control. That is not true. The proposal is to deny them the ability to get it covered via the health insurance options provided by the employer at the employers discretion. They would have to pay for it out of their own pockets. That is the plan and I think that plan is wrong. Specially when viagra is covered. So you will cover the boner pill to get her pregnant but not the birth control so she and her partner can control if she gets pregnant. Either do both or neither.

As for Candy. Personally I don't even care for her. I have watched her show before. As for her over stepping her role. If you want a straight up moderator, get one to moderate. She is a reporter. I would expect her to act as such. Its her reputation that got her the gig and her to lose if she messes up. As for it looking like one things or another. Its not uncommon for one of the parties to complain that the moderator favored one side or the other. That happens even when they ask curtain questions, or how they ask them.

Reporter has played the role of puppet for to long. They have turned into entertainers. I want a country were there are reputable reporters again. Ones that have a depth of facts and topics. Ones that hold the candidates accountable to answer the questions asked, not the ones who let people like Sarah answer whatever question they want and to get away with actually tell the moderator they are going to do that. That mod should have told Sarah, no.. your going to answer the question asked or we are cutting your mic. And I think both sides should be held to that standard.

They are there to answer to us. How we best do that is open to debate. I want facts. I want policies. They are interviewing for the President of the United States of America. Not trying out for some reality show.

The circus show has to end. It is dumming down America and that is destroying this country.

Have a way for these people to get in front of America. Pick a topic. And fill the panels on both sides with experts. On the interviewer side, get people that know the facts, can access them and do it live. If that means a red light comes on when a candidate lies and the officials have to deliberate in the back ground and correct the error 2 minutes later, so be it.

There has to be a better way when the crap we have seen the last 20 years.

[hands11]

And, Hands, enough of this Republicans are "liars", "masters of confusing people", "propaganda machines," etc. I have been a lawyer in this city for 17 years and have been involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisles. Both parties are liars, masters of confusing people and propaganda machines. Its all part of politics.

It just amazes me how hypocritical people are when defending their own party. A had a family member that was campaigning for Obama in the last election. She sent an email to everyone on her contact list bashing Bush for running a negative ad campaign and then proceeded to identify a laundry list of negative things about Bush. There was not a single thing in her email that said what Obama would do for the country. How was that anything different than what Bush was doing?

Hands, you accuse the Republican party of lying and misleading the public. You are right. But, you better also look at the Democrat party too, because they are doing the same crap. And, if you believe that they are not, then you are as ignorant and blinded as the rest of the electorate in this country.

They do not both do it to the same level.

Go search anything I have posted and find me one time that I ever said that Dems don't do it at all. You won't find it because I never said anything like that.

But sorry, This equivalence stuff is BS. The Rs do it much more, more systematic, and at a much grander scale. They had a Fox machine rolling for years before the Dems got MSNBC as a counterbalance.

It reminds me of a funny Chris Rock skit.

Who lies more. Men or Women.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfFGgzhfhY[/youtube]

Republican tell the bigger lies. By far. They have a way more systemic propaganda machine.

Dems lie. Your employer is going to stop you from getting birth control.
Rep lie. There is going to be a mushroom cloud if we don't invade Iraq.

Add to that.

The government is not the problem. The people that elect the wrong people are.
This is not Obamas debt. No amount of years will make it his debt.
Cutting taxes under all conditions is not the solution to growing an economy.
Deficits do matter. Go talk to Dick Cheney and tell him.
No, we didn't need in invade Iraq
Getting Osama Bin Laden did matter. Tell Bush
No the two wars would not cost 200 Billion and their oil would not pay for them.
No the GWB tax cuts would no get paid for by increase economic growth.
Trickle down is no a viable economic approach.
Redistribution on wealth happens every day in every way. Tax cuts. Social programs. Its not the issue. The only real debate is how it is redistributed.

They aren't even close to equal. Actually I would say Rs actually lie more and tell the bigger lies.

Jokes like John Stewart tells about bull mountain wouldn't be funny if it wasn't so true.

Now if you can't see this, you are the clueless ones and the sheep.

[hands11]

And, Hands, enough of this Republicans are "liars", "masters of confusing people", "propaganda machines," etc. I have been a lawyer in this city for 17 years and have been involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisles. Both parties are liars, masters of confusing people and propaganda machines. Its all part of politics.

It just amazes me how hypocritical people are when defending their own party. A had a family member that was campaigning for Obama in the last election. She sent an email to everyone on her contact list bashing Bush for running a negative ad campaign and then proceeded to identify a laundry list of negative things about Bush. There was not a single thing in her email that said what Obama would do for the country. How was that anything different than what Bush was doing?

Hands, you accuse the Republican party of lying and misleading the public. You are right. But, you better also look at the Democrat party too, because they are doing the same crap. And, if you believe that they are not, then you are as ignorant and blinded as the rest of the electorate in this country.

That much you have right. The people that listen to them as the sheep.

[montestewart]

It is dubbing down America