Posted by Tina
Can you believe this Newsweek cover?
I never in my wildest dreams…ever…thought I would see such a thing!
Niall Ferguson, author of the featured Newsweek article, asks and answers the question of the moment in The Daily Beast:
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.
His reasoning:
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful. (continues)
This comprehensive article creates the reality of the last three and a half years…the promises broken…the expectations unmet…the hopes dashed…the change…all too painful.
I hope you will read it.
So what do you think? Does the President deserve this cover story…is it time for him to go?
This News Week story while accurate is at the same time total bullshit. They want to sell magazines and they will actually tell the truth from time to time to do it. I do not need News Week to tell me what I have known from day one. Obama is a worthless pile of crap and epic failure on multiple levels. News Week and the rest of the MSM got in bed with the Liberal Left and now they find themselves truly screwed.
We are to believe the liberal hacks at News Week have woken up and seen what a huge mistake Obama is? ROFLMAO sure.
Recommended reading and/or DVD viewing:
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World
by Niall Ferguson
also
The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy
by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw
Matthew O’Brien of The Atlantic has fact-checked Ferguson’s article, and finds it coming up pretty short:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
For instance, Ferguson implies that Obama was wrong when he said that the PPACA would not add to the deficit:
“The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period.”
But O’Brien points out that according to the very same CBO estimates Ferguson cites, the ACA still reduces the deficit, since the increases in revenue far exceed the costs:
“Maybe Ferguson doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “deficit”? The only other explanation is that he is deliberately misleading his readers. The CBO is quite clear about Obamacare’s budgetary implications. It reduces the deficit. Here’s what the CBO said exactly:
‘[T]he effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period.’
In other words, the law is more than paid for. As Paul Krugman pointed out, it does spend $1.042 trillion covering people, but it pays for this coverage by finding savings in Medicare and levying a surtax on investment income for high-earners. That Ferguson looked up the CBO’s estimate of the bill’s cost and didn’t notice that those costs are paid for is peculiar indeed. Even more peculiar is that he is apparently doubling down on this falsehood. And yes, it is a very deliberate falsehood.”
Nial Ferguson responds to critics:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/niall-ferguson-answers-newsweek-story-critics-r6PukZQXSFmExpIkO7b~IA.html
Mr. Ferguson spends his life responding to critics. I was skimming over this total bitch-fight he had with the London Book Review early in the year. It was too deep to get into at work. He was, as near as I could tell, being slammed for letting his angst as a dispossessed imperialist (aka thwarted white boy) (he’s a Brit, you know) color his interpretation of recent history.
It would seem to be more of that “dim and dimmer” I was telling you about but, as a matter of actual knowledge, credentials and experience, Mr. Ferguson sits several rungs above the Brothers Wiedemen and Ms. Spitzer on the media trapeze.
Niall Ferguson Defends Newsweek Cover: Correct This, Bloggers
Aug 21, 2012
First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify. Thats what Niall Ferguson says liberal bloggers did after reading his Newsweek story on Obamas record. Here, he offers a point-by-point defense of his argument.
The other day, a British friend asked me if there was anything about the United States I disliked. I was happily on vacation and couldnt think of anything. But now I remember. I really cant stand Americas liberal bloggers.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Liberal tactic: “First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify.” Thanks for making that abundantly clear Peggy.. right on. This is why liberals are so predictable.
Notice the attacks on the “credentials” of the reporter.
Notice the “high tone” in the so-called refutation of Mr. Ferguson’s article.
Notice the utter lack of rebuttal on the content of the article.
Yep…PREDICTABLE!
marksgot and
I know this isn’t really your thing … but so much of it is soooo good! See, this Salon commentator is commenting on a National Rewiew commentator’s somewhat ill-timed and unfortunately themed “ra-ra-Romney” piece. I cryed.
***
What theyre saying: Let Mitt be Mitt – National Review thinks women will fall for Romney’s inner plutocrat
By Alex Halperin
Even National Reviews editors, who politely asked Rep. Todd Akin to bow out of his race, probably wish they picked a different week for a cover story channeling the Republican Partys misogynistic id. Kevin D. Williamson makes the point that Mitt Romney should act more like a rich guy since Americans like rich guys and, get this, a number of Americans are women:
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obamas vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs.
The paragraph continues, no ellipses necessary:
Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We dont do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. Hes a boss.
Forget that Romney belongs to a party that takes every opportunity to assert autonomy over womens bodies. (And even Ann Coulter says Republicans oppose the issues many women care about.) Williamson thinks women will melt like popsicles if they focus on just how alpha a male Romney is. Whats the evidence? He had boys.
Five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Real men save Ronald Reagan, the GOPs exception to every rule beget more men. Williamson continues:
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
After that Williamson retreats from the daring gambit of playground humor and insulting womens intelligence into the more familiar GOP territory of idolizing the wealthy:
[Romney] should not be ashamed of being loaded; instead, he should have some fun with it. He will discover something that the Obama campaign has not quite figured out yet: Americans do not hate rich people. Americans love rich people. Americans will sit on their couches and watch billionaire Donald Trump fire people on television for fun.
The Republican Party does have policy objectives, but its case to the electorate isnt about better governance or any concern of ordinary people. Instead it is an appeal to the visceral and not inconsiderable thrill of being a jerk toward anyone less privileged than you are. Republican policies arent going to help you become more privileged yourself but there will always be richer, better looking jerks to vicariously cheer for.
Williamson says something similar in his piece:
Elections are not about public policy. They arent even about the economy. Elections are tribal, and tribes are Occupy types, cover your delicate ears ruthlessly hierarchical. Somebody has to be the top dog.
Should Romney let his jerk flag fly? Democrats certainly hope he does.
***
And then, when I got to the “cardigan & fallopian tubes”, I swear, I nearly peed.
Tina: “Notice the utter lack of rebuttal on the content of the article.”
What this makes me notice is that you probably haven’t even read the rebuttals. Did you read the article from the Atlantic I posted? That went through Ferguson’s claims, point by point, and showed how they were counterfactual, dishonest, and inconsistent. Many others have done this. You can disagree with their arguments, but don’t pretend they haven’t made any.
As for the “high tone” and questioning of Ferguson’s credentials, you’re just whining. There is nothing wrong with questioning someone’s credentials, nor is there anything wrong with taking a “high tone” with someone who is being intentionally dishonest. And yes, I think Ferguson was being intentionally dishonest, and the quote I highlighted from him is a good example of how. He doesn’t come right out and say that the CBO concluded Obamacare would increase the deficit; that would be a blatant lie. But that paragraph is certainly designed to give an uninformed and casual reader the impression that the CBO says it will raise the deficit, even though the CBO says the opposite. Ferguson knows that, and he must know he is being misleading.
I think the most stunning part of all of this is Newsweek’s casual admission that they have no fact-checkers. No wonder journalism is in such a sorry state.
Libby: “Mr. Ferguson spends his life responding to critics.”
Yes, that seems to be a habit of the chronically wrong. They take a lot of joy in being “unconventional” in their interpretations of a subject, as they attempt to show why most mainstream experts are Actually Totally Wrong and Liberally Biased, but then when their own work is criticized, they act as if their free speech rights have been violated.
See: Barton, David, whose recent book “The Jefferson Lies” has just been recalled by the publisher because of all of its blatant distortions of history. I’d like to think this will make conservatives begin to question why they’ve elevated David Barton to be the unofficial historian of the Republican Party, but I suspect they will merely take this as more evidence of the Liberal Conspiracy. That persecution complex ain’t gonna feed itself!
Also, Libby, that National Review article sounds hilarious, as does the Salon article critiquing it, but I wish you had provided a link.
We need a president that knows how to be a leader not a community organizer, understands how to help our economy to creat jobs and is not being laughed at in other countries.
You have to see this video produced in another country. Try not to cry like I did.
http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs%26
Obama was not ready to president. This video was on PS a few months ago, sad to see its still making us look bad..thanks ONLY to BO the amature!!!
I’ve heard a lot of conservatives claim that other countries are “laughing at” Obama, but I’ve never seen them present any actual evidence of this. In fact, the polls I have seen seem to show the opposite is true: Obama is quite popular in most foreign countries, and America’s approval rating has gone up during his presidency:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/
Sorry, Chris … google Kevin, google Halperin, you’ll get ’em.
Ain’t it glorious? They ought to be industriously digging their own graves, but after the re-election of Reagan, and the re-election of the Shrub … I can only bring myself to revel in the moment.
Chris: “As for the “high tone” and questioning of Ferguson’s credentials…”
Actually I was responding after reading Libby’s comment. I haven’t had time to read long articles today.
CBO scoring is noteworthy for giving lawmakers a idea of the workability of proposals that will affect the budget. They are not written in stone and they are not accurate indicators of what will actually happen in the future as the predictions for Medicare in 1965 tell us:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/
Notice that in most left media, and on this blog, if you mention Obama’s record they run as fast as they can away from it! The attack the messenger…they change the subject.
Media silence on his terrible economic record will continue to be the loudest sound in the debate. Given the way they bashed Bush into the ground on an economy that featured fast recovery from recession and 911, low unemployment, good debt to GDP ratios, and low taxes for all this is astounding. GWB’s record was good despite inheriting a recession, the economic shock of 911, a costly (not by WWII standards) war, and a number of very devastating natural disasters because his policies were focused on the overall economy.
Obama’s presidency is a complete failure (And still they wave flags of praise). His healthcare legislation is very unpopular. Doctors are particularly disappointed and worried about their futures and the future of medicine. We have record numbers on food stamps and living in poverty. Spending on targeted projects did nothing to spur on job growth and the economy overall and much of it has been a complete waste due to outsourced (green) work and a terrible record at GM and failing companies like Solyndra. It’s ugly…our media should be screaming and instead they nitpick a guy that dares to put the long list of failures into print.
Shall we talk CBO? How about the report they put out today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/do-facts-matter/2012/08/22/9778e48e-ec66-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html
“Hit the road Barack” is right on the money! It describes in detail why we need a different president.
Nial Ferguson’s article was in part a balance piece for the one Newsweek ran on Romney awhile back, where their cover proclaimed Romney a ‘Wimp’. However that is not my point on the current Newsweek Article about Obama ‘who needs to go’, and frankly you will not get a argument from me on that point. I will read the Newsweek article as I have time, but I need no reassurance the cover title is correct. What Ferguson might have said instead of ALL the modus operandi of Obama, was simply that Obama is inept and divisive. That sums of his lack of leadership, plain and simple!
“CBO scoring is noteworthy for giving lawmakers a idea of the workability of proposals that will affect the budget. They are not written in stone and they are not accurate indicators of what will actually happen in the future…”
That’s your argument, Tina, but note that it is entirely different from the argument made by Ferguson. He didn’t criticize the reliability of the CBO; he actually cited the CBO to make his point, and did so in a way that was totally dishonest, by implying that they concluded the opposite of what they actually found. If he had accurately represented the CBO and then criticized the organization’s reliability, he may have had a valid argument. But instead he decided to completely mislead his readers. Don’t you wonder what else he tried to mislead you about?
Even you cite the CBO in the very same comment, so I’m not sure what your point is. The CBO isn’t perfect, but it’s the best source we have at the moment. I’ll take their word over the word of a biased think tank like Heritage which, in my experience, deals almost entirely in a form of intellectualized spin designed to give a veneer of respectability to even the most banal of right-wing talking points.
Heritage is hardly a more accurate source of information. They’ve often flat-out lied, such as when they claimed that the PPACA had a negative impact on private sector job growth, when in fact job growth has actually been going up since health reform was passed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqpLpq9IL3w
Heritage also recently spread the lie that Obama “gut welfare reform,” when in reality he responded to the requests of many governors, including Republicans, to give states more flexibility in how they implement their welfare-to-work programs. Yes, conservatives are actually complaining about Obama giving the states more power. Astonishing.
More: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112190010
I do not know if Heritage is correct in their analysis of the disparity between CBO’s Medicare projections and the real costs. I would have to do more research on that subject, since I don’t trust Heritage to accurately report the truth.
“Notice that in most left media, and on this blog, if you mention Obama’s record they run as fast as they can away from it!”
On the contrary, I am happy to talk about Obama’s record, especially in comparison to his predecessor. We’ve had 22 consecutive months of job growth. Even this Republican blogger concedes that “President Obama has surpassed President Bush on private sector job creation:”
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/06/01/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-may-2012-jobs-data/
The recession began under Bush. Obama inherited a much worse recession than Bush did by every conceivable measure, and he is turning things around, slowly but surely.
Chris: The CBO isn’t perfect, but it’s the best source we have at the moment.
No it is not! There are plenty of economists and financial and accounting experts that can clearly describe the errors and omission in CBO reporting and in the spin that Obamas cheerleaders offer the American people:
Peter Whener,Commentary, April 10, 2012 (Prior to SC Ruling)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/10/new-medicare-study-and-obamacare/#more-790693
See also in Commentary from Alana Goodman:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/14/obamacare-gross-cost-doubles/#more-787182
June 16, 2012 Peter Ferrara, Forbes
(Emphasis above mine)
THIS BILL WAS WRITTEN TO DESTROY THE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE MARKET AND ULTIMATELY MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE ONLY (SINGLE PAYER) OPTION LEFT STANDING.
IT IS A SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DESTRUCTIVE MARXIST TAKEOVER OF ONE SIXTH OF THE ECONOMY.
IT IS ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
“We’ve had 22 consecutive months of job growth.”
You are soooooooo easy. NET job growth is down. We have lost way more than we have created. Fewer Americans are working today than in 2009 AND there are MORE people looking for work:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/07/the-ongoing-disgrace-that-is-obamanomics/2/
” Even this Republican blogger concedes that “President Obama has surpassed President Bush on private sector job creation:”
If that “Republican blogger” is really a Republican rather than an activist for Media Matters I would be surprised. As you well know statistics can be manipulated to reflect any position one would choose.
GWB didn’t have the best economic record in the world but he also never had an unemployment number over 6% (2003) and averaged in the 4% range which is close to what is considered normal unemployment as people transition in and out of the jobs market. Under Bush enough jobs were created to keep up with demand…THIS ISN’T HAPPENING NOW UNDER OBAMA.
Statistical and intentional spin isn’t any way to talk to the American people about the trouble we are in. The Democrat Party is in full spin mode. The contrast between the way they speak about Obama’s terrible record as opposed to the way they covered Bush mediocre record should be enough to convince you that you are being lied to but it doesn’t. I don’t know what that says about you, Chris, perhaps its just that you are loyal, young, inexperienced and naive. Perhaps you are growing to be a true believer in the Marxist model. For your sake I pray its the former. It is your future in the balance.
One more on JOB statistics and left media Obama operative spin. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter claimed yesterday that Obama’s “recovery” had created 4.5 million private sector jobs. Breitbart puts that trash in perspective:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/cutter-im-just-going-to-make-st-up-k
Do the math…it should make you really, really angry!
Tina, I don’t have time to read all of the articles you posted here, but I do want to point out that I have responded to the Chuck Balhous study before, and in it he makes a number of false claims. For instance, there was no “double-counting” in Obamacare, and the Commentary writer is telling a falsehood when he says that “even the CBO admits” there was double-counting. There was no double-counting.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/27/paul-ryan/rep-paul-ryan-claims-health-care-law-accelerating-/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.html
“If that “Republican blogger” is really a Republican rather than an activist for Media Matters I would be surprised.”
Good Lord. I don’t know how I expect to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks every piece of evidence against her arguments is just more evidence of the Liberal Conspiracy.
Chris I posted the video where Kathleen Sabelius admits double accounting in the medicare cuts. Was she lying to Congress… or telling the truth?
That’s okay…there is no way to have a “rational” conversation with someone who suspects hidden, unacknowledged racism when he can’t get the metaphor.
This one is short:
Alana Goodman:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/14/obamacare-gross-cost-doubles/#more-787182
It is encouraging to see another MSM reporter attempt to hold one of the top Obama mouth-pieces accountable for her misleading statements.
=============
CNNs Anderson Cooper takes on Debbie Wasserman Schultz
By KATIE GLUECK | 8/24/12
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and CNNs Anderson Cooper engaged in a heated exchange Thursday night when Cooper charged that the Florida congresswoman misquoted the Los Angeles Times in a letter that the anchor also said misrepresented Mitt Romneys stance on the Republican Partys abortion platform plank.
The segment, which has gone viral in the conservative blogosphere, features Cooper, on his CNN show Anderson Cooper 360, pointing to a fundraising email Wasserman Schultz signed. He said that a quote she used from the Los Angeles Times in the appeal was taken completely out of context.
The DNC chairwoman calls out Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for saying they dont entirely agree with that plank, Cooper said. And heres how she backs it upBut guess what? The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, written at the direction of Romneys campaign.
But Cooper said the quote was ripped, in fact, out of a sentence, saying that the real piece read, Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romneys campaign.
Do you at least acknowledge that the quote that you gave from The L.A. Times is completely incorrect? Cooper asked, after a back-and-forth over Romneys record on allowing for abortions in certain instances, like rape.
No, I dont acknowledge that. I know that is what youre saying, Wasserman Schultz shot back. When he started to read the quote, she interrupted, Anderson, what Im saying is, it doesnt matter.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80088.html#ixzz24U9czG45
Tina: “Chris I posted the video where Kathleen Sabelius admits double accounting in the medicare cuts. Was she lying to Congress… or telling the truth?”
That’s not what she said, though it’s been repeated ad nauseum in the conservative blogosphere. When asked whether the $500 billion in cuts was for preserving Medicare or funding the health care law, Sebelius replied, “Both.” And according to numerous fact-checkers (including some I have already linked to), she’s right. From the Washington Post’s Fact Checker:
“Aha! The double-counting of Medicare funds for the new health care has been admitted by the Obama administration. At least thats what Republicans claimed as the video clip above when viral on the Internet.
On the face of it, Sebelius answer seems rather strange. As one web headline put it, Sebelius Cracks! Admits the Obamacare Books Were Cooked
But on another level, Sebelius is telling the truth, though somewhat inartfully. There is really nothing quite as nefarious about the process as some critics suggest, though one could argue that the process is wrong. A lot of this has to do with the strange and complicated way that the U.S. federal budget is calculated, so lets take a trip through the numbers.
The Facts
When President Bill Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was one of the speakers. On Medicare, we came together and we saved the system for at least a decade, he declared. How could he make this claim? Through the same double-counting that Republican now decry.
The Fact Checker especially frowns on hypocrisy, and Republicans should acknowledge that they have gladly played this game before, including under President George W. Bush. Even a reformed gambling addict has to admit he once had a gambling problem.
But, on the other hand, a strong case can be made that there is no double-counting going on at all. Its simply a case of looking at the same money at different ways. In other words, it is not double counting, but counting different things.
You may have $1,000 on deposit at a bank. Those are certainly your assets, but the bank looks at that money differently: money to make more loans. Its the same $1,000 but it is counted differently on your books and the banks books.
A similar thing is going on here. The health care law reduced predicted expenditures for Medicare by nearly $500 billion, resulting in budgetary savings that the law uses to help pay for the health care changes. Thats the money in the bank; it means the U.S. government will not need to set aside as many Treasury securities to fund Medicare.
Meanwhile, because Medicare spending has been reduced, the solvency of Medicare has been extended. Thats the other side of the ledgerthe banks view, so to speak. The accounting for Medicare solvency is a different matter than the current spending in the budget, though it has implications for the long-term budget health…
…Sebelius is correct when she says the same savings is doing two things at once. Whether this is double-counting is in the eye of the beholder, but under the accounting rules that both parties have used for decades, this is considered an acceptable practice. As the debate on entitlements heats up, and new savings in Medicare are identified, the real question should be how those savings are applied, not whether the accounting is bogus.
Two Pinnochios to Republicans who keep flogging this issue without acknowledging their own past complicity.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.html
Economist Dean Baker makes pretty much the same point:
“Steve Rattner put his ignorance on public display again in a column in the NYT. He told readers that counting the savings projected in Medicare as a result of the cost controls in President Obamas health care reform as lowering the budget deficit amounts to double-counting. There is a simple word for Rattners claim: wrong.
The logic is simple. The Medicare program is counted as part of the overall budget. (If Rattner has other information on this point, he could do a great service by sharing it with NYT readers.) However, part of Medicare (Part A, which covers hospital insurance and most other medical bills of seniors) is also required to be funded by the designated Medicare tax. Any savings in this portion of the program will improve the finances of the Medicare trust fund and also reduce overall expenditures, thereby leading to lower budget deficits.
This really is not rocket science. We finance some categories of transportation spending from the Highway Trust Fund, which relies on revenue from the gas tax. If we reduced this transportation spending it both frees up money in the trust fund and also reduces the budget deficit. There is no double-counting here, it is just counting pure and simple.
It is bizarre that this accusation of double-counting keeps coming up. It is wrong and does not belong in a serious newspaper.”
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2012/04/14/counting-and-double-counting-in-medicare/
“That’s okay…there is no way to have a “rational” conversation with someone who suspects hidden, unacknowledged racism when he can’t get the metaphor.”
Tina, I get the metaphor you are trying to make when you call black welfare recipients “slaves of the Democratic plantation.” I just think it’s a terrible, offensive, and racist metaphor with no basis in reality. Welfare recipients are not comparable to slaves. You yourself claim that this is the “land of opportunity,” and that welfare recipients can choose to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, find good work and break the cycle of welfare. Slaves never had that option. It is not a “rational” metaphor, it is a purely emotional one, and I find it quite insensitive and mean-spirited.
Peggy, I think it’s awesome that Cooper called Schultz out for taking words out of context. I hate when the other side does this, and I hate when my side does it too. Cooper is doing what too many journalists don’t do anymore. He did his research and held her accountable.
Another good example of journalists doing their jobs comes from Wolf Blitzer, who held Romney campaign chairman John Sununu accountable for the “Obama guts work in welfare” lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3qa3LCR8lw&feature=player_embedded