GOP Failure Watch Part III

Then they were all in Hillary's pocket. Duh.

 

It didn't help McCain that he picked (or had foisted upon him) a human gaffe for a running mate.

 

Because they are rightly viewed as being a semi-scripted reality show, much like a majority of the shows on the flagship station? Only thing missing is three judges to belittle the talking heads after their performances are completed.

 

That job belongs to Jon Stewart.

 

Oh, taste this delicious Souffle du Fail!


Who voted for that dress? I sure didn't.
And what's with the nutso sound effects? Are they living in an aviary?
Or has health care reform spawned mutant killer birds. Great... Gay Zombie Parakeets! Thanks, ObamaCare!

 

Jesus, I'm sorry to hear that stuff about the enforced gay marriage, fellas...

I just hope that line of thinking doesn't come over here. I'm not sure the little woman would like it if I had to divorce her and marry the fella across the road.

Mind you, as long as it was only platonic, maybe not so bad....he has that got big screen TV and Sky/Fox sports subscription so it's not all bad news

 

And you called Q*bert "clueless or ignorant". Wow.

Even Alanis says "damn".

 

Is that why the Romney campaign is trying to so hard to be no news?

 

LOL... What isn't fake about Rmoney's campaign?

 

Don't you mean 'Willard'? I've only just found out his first name... I can see why he calls himself Mitt now

 

Well, it explains why they're trying to create their own version of reality.

 

See, this is silly. I'd be shocked if Obama rallies didn't have some level of orchestration, while I'm sure there have been spontaneous moments for Romney on the trail (though probably none as photo-worthy as above).

 

And more importantly, if they don't put up signs they'd have to blur out the faces of the crowd in any footage they use.

I think he's getting talking points from my wife.

 

I'd bet that there are basically no Pro Rmoney spontaneous moments.. There are anti-Obama moments...

 

It's not a "conspiracy" -- it's a mutual -- 0r more one-sided really -- admiration society.

I don't call them the "lamestream" media ot other such stupid monikers. And yes, Fox is part of the media, as is the Washington Times; but by and large, the major media outlets are skewing their coverage in favor of Obama.

And you know what? Good for them. They own it. But I am not going to sit here and act like MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc., don't do exactly what Fox does for the GOP.

And yes, I am a genius. Thanks for noticing.

 

This is silly.

 

There are several variables that define the national, and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive:

- They can be right wing hacks
- They can be left wing hacks
- They can be incompetent
- They can be competent

By and large, our national media are incompetent, in that they do an abysmal job of actually covering the news; stories are short, over simplified; journalists don't understand the stories they're covering; there's precious little investigative reporting; "news" has become ratings, driven by sensationalized coverage, and not the duty to inform.

Fox and MSNBC are obviously partisan. And to the extent they are, they're by definition incompetent; good journalism can't be tilted toward one side or another and remain "good." There may be individuals at both networks who cover the news in a straight fashion and, therefore, don't deserve the label. And, IMHO, Fox is a far greater evil than MSNBC in the overall spectrum of shitty journalism. Still, MSNBC's bias is undeniable.

CNN, ABC, CBS? Most newspapers? I'd say they just fall into the incompetent category, plain and simple. They just suck at news coverage, period. As such, they may come across as being left or right wing in their sympathies. But mostly, I think they're unprofessional, stupid, and weak.

 

Oh, I agree. Romney has now been running for President for 6 years. Surely that's enough time to study the details and provide concrete examples?

 

And... Obama has been President for more than three. Certainly enough time.

Both sides are posturing to court their potential voters and in the end, nothing will happen. Why? Congressmen are rich. They all use legal means to avoid taxes and aren't about to close the loopholes. SS and healthcare are in the same boat. If the members of congress were required to use the same plans they force on us, we would have no issues.

 

That makes no sense. Obama hasn't been the one proposing balancing the budget after drastic cuts in taxes by eliminating tax deductions. You're desperately avoiding the issue, which I'll restate again:

The Romney and Ryan plans (or any combination of the two) provide for giving massive tax cuts, especially to those who're wealthy. Those plans also provide that they will actually decrease the deficits. This decrease will be done by eliminating deductions. Which deductions? Multiple commentators (including plenty of conservative ones) have suggested that this will be literally impossible, especially since the Republican party platform explicitly opposes the elimination of the charitable deduction, which is very large. So how do the numbers add up?
What Romney and Ryan are doing is stating that they will massively reduce revenue (by cutting taxes), on which they're very specific, and they will then raise even more revenue by cutting tax deductions, on which they're completely vague. So the promise to give away money to rich people is highly specific, but the promise to raise revenue is literally non-existent. If you are an investor, can you imagine someone coming to you and stating that they'll spend X amount of money in a very specific way but have literally no plan as to how they'll earn X amount of money other than to say "we'll do stuff". OK - what stuff? We can't even make a decision on whether or not this works before knowing what these cuts are, especially since many commentators have suggested that it's not even possible!
On top of that, even the defendants of the Romney/Ryan plan, like Feldstein have kind of made the numbers work, but only after making some interesting assumptions (such as eliminating the charitable deductions that the Republican platform says they won't), and only after allowing for some pretty large tax increases for those making over $100,000 per year. Now, if that's how Romney and Ryan plan to pay for taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, don't you think the country would want to know about it? Wouldn't you?

I note you're trying to duck the issue by claiming that Obama hasn't been specific on this point, which isn't a fair criticism - Obama hasn't been proposing these things! He has been specific on his own proposals, since he has submitted legislation to Congress, such as the Jobs Act. Now, if you want to disagree with the specific provisions of that legislation, go ahead. But at least it's tangible. The Romney/Ryan plan is currently nothing more than a "trust us, the numbers work" proposal. Since when have you trusted a politician who ran on a "trust me" platform while he's offering specific tax reductions to very wealthy people????

 

Obama hasn't been talking about balancing the budget at all.

The revenue numbers haven't been specific enough to formulate an opinion either way from Romney but as for the huge give away to the "very wealthy", the TPC has this to say;

I would like to see more specific numbers but honestly, I don't trust Obama to make the economy any better then he has in his first term. You are rightly skeptical of a vague plan by the Republican ticket, I am rightly skeptical that the person in charge for the last 3 1/2 years is capable or willing to do something to accelerate a very, very slow recovery.

 

Two things. The only way that government can accelerate a slow economy in anything close to real time is to spend money. Are you upset that we aren't spending more money?

Second, in those three and a half years, Obama did create a debt commission. He begged the senate to create it because it would have had more teeth and would have required actual congressional action and response. They didn't do it. He did. Now, NO ONE in Washington has endorsed the plan, including the President. BUT (and its a huge but) Obama and Boehner went so much farther down the road in proposing actual elements of Simpson/Bowles than anyone else in Washington that it isn't even close. They negotiated something that was real and could have signaled major progress in the way our government functions. Boehner could not sell it to Eric Cantor, and our one real, negotiated shot at some sort of major deal died on the vine.

Blame Obama if you want. But he and Boehner were sitting at the table and had a deal in their sites.