Friday, June 15, 2012

A Tale Of Two Speeches

I liked President Obama's speech in Cleveland (my old stomping ground: I was in med school there when the Cuyahoga River caught fire). Probably it was too long for the typical political attention span, but it hit every note I've been writing about forever. He pointed out -- truthfully! -- the very significant differences between his and Rominee's economic plans. Namely, assuming anyone will pay attention, he laid out the undeniable: not only does the Ryan/Rominee budget not add up the way they claim, it will, in order to increase tax cuts for guys like Mitt, rob us of our ability to pay for what we need to survive.

He stated clearly -- also true -- the fact that Rs in Congress have been blocking legislation to help the economy. He pointed out the fact that R plans are exactly the same as those that got us in this mess in the first place.

But the most remarkable, the most telling thing is that just before Obama's speech, The Rominee was in Ohio as well, spewing his usual untruths, and unsubstantiated claims that the president has made things worse. I confess I couldn't stand to watch the whole thing; but he continues one of his central -- and most obviously false -- claims, that Obama hasn't signed a single trade agreement in his entire presidency. He specified Latin America, as he always does. This is despite the fact that Obama has done that very thing and there's simply no way Rominee doesn't know it. But he repeats it, over and over. What kind of man does that? What kind of voter looks the other way?

Let me be blunt, and personal: Seaspray, tell us what you think of your candidate telling blatant lies. Tell us what you think it says about how he views you as a voter; tell us what you think it says about him. I ask you, Seaspray, because you're the only reader willing occasionally to pipe up here from the other side, and I'd like to know your justifications because I assume they'd reflect those of many voters. I know the readers who used to try to defend their side with comments still come by; and I'd be happy to hear their responses, too. But it seems they've found it unpleasant to have to deal with factual responses to their parroting of Foxorovian dissembling.

Seriously: how can anyone justify voting for someone who won't stop lying; who supports a phony budget, one that not only doesn't add up, but that, if enacted, will -- they don't deny it: they're proud of it -- prevent us from spending on everything we need going forward. Unlike everything Romney says, this is factual. You can call yourself a conservative, and believe in conservative things. I get that; I share some of them. But how in gods' names can you (and by "you" I mean any true conservative, anyone with a conscience) vote for a guy who lies like Romney does? For president of the United States of America! For anyone, it ought to be a bridge too far.


Anonymous said...

Our choices are a candidate who is often less than honest that initially supports a budget that may cut spending too much and any type of tax increases despite governing a blue state as a moderate repub vs. a prez who is often less than honest, has yet to oversee the creation of a budget, presents laughable budgets that spend >24% of GDP, as his first major legislation passed a 2700 page healthcare bill that nobody has yet to read in total, and has ignored years of bankruptcy law to to put pensioners ahead of investors in the auto bailouts, etc etc

For some reason, i'm not too excited about this election. Either guy requires one to pinch his nose while pulling the lever.


Sid Schwab said...

"Less than honest." You mean blatantly lies about things that are clearly false, over and over. That's Romney. "Less than honest." Give an example of such blatant lying by Obama. I mean things demonstrably untrue, repeated daily.

The rest are talking points, all right. At least they're sort of policy issues, which is fair enough. The nice thing about disparaging the auto bailout is that you don't have to show what would have happened had it not been done.

As to the health care bill, to criticize its length, and to claim (again, can't be proved) that no one has read it, is to ignore the meat of it. The good it has and will do for those who, unlike you, don't have or can't get insurance. And to suggest a better idea. ("Market forces" doesn't qualify, because that's what we've had.)

And it also fails to address the fact that, like it or not, and unlike the Bush drug deal (I mean the legal one), it tries to pay for itself and, in fact, according to CBO, lowers the deficit.

So you have an inveterate and repeated liar about patently false things (really, PT: "less than honest"?????), whose proposals, such as they are, don't add up and which will, as part of the plan, devastate education, infrastructure, research, health care; vs one who's tried to deal with an only-once paralleled economic disaster with virtually no help from the other side, with whose policies you happen to disagree.

So you're willing to vote for the former, despite his obvious lack of character, his history of changing with the political winds, and his plans that make no mathematical sense and would reap enormous harm. That about it? Me, given such a choice, I'd not vote at all.

Really, if my party's candidate were as dishonest as Romney, I truly couldn't see myself voting for him. I have, in similar -- if less existentially important -- elections, where my party's guy was as awful as Romney (okay, yeah, it's impossible: I exaggerate for effect), I've gone on to the next category...

And what do you have against our country being able to pay for the things it needs to survive, to compete? And do you really think we need to increase military spending?

I do appreciate your comment, though, and I'm not being snarky. There are many things I don't like about Obama; but I don't see him as fundamentally dishonest, and I do think his priorities are consistent with a serious attempt at having a future.

Sid Schwab said...

P.S. PT: I guess I should have included you in the invitation to Seaspray. I didn't mean you when I referred to people who still read but no longer comment. And though we often get a little too heated, I do appreciate your comments. The ones, anyway, with substance.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if this qualifies as BHO being "less than honest", but it affects my decision of who to pull the lever for:


Anonymous said...

wasn't it mondale who said, "both reagan and i will raise taxes, but only i'll tell you that"? didn't mondale lose and reagan go on to raise taxes 11 times?

didn't one of those dubya's say something about reading my lips and no new taxes? didnt he raise them anyways?

i don't listen to what politicians say (*); i look at their past performance. have you done any posts regarding the rominees record?


* i do listen to BHO's arguments that its fair to raise taxes on those who already pay the majority of taxes. i can think of 10 different ways to convey that raising taxes on the wealthy is undesirable but necessary, and framing it as "fair" would not be one of them. i find that argument counterproductive to bringing the country together.

p.s. how bout the executive branch preventing the enforcement of deportations now?


Anonymous said...

Sorry, doc, you're asking for substantive answers from folks who haven't got any. All you're gonna get are the talking points, because that's all there is. There's no there there. We're in the twilight zone where reality doesn't matter to some folks, and are about to find out how many.

I remember the Cuyahoga catching fire when I was a kid. I think it may have been one reason the EPA was created, one of the federal agencies would like to eliminate. Maybe we'll have more rivers catching fire if the republicans get their way. Randy Newman has an excellent song about it, btw.


AlisonH said...

Sid, I honestly don't care for the Mormon-bashing I sometimes see here, but I will tell you this: I am Mormon, and I agree with you absolutely and totally here. Romney repeatedly had said anything to any audience at hand if he thinks it will get him elected, and I am horrified at his dissembling. He looks at his parents' losses and thinks he doesn't want to be a loser; he doesn't see that they won a higher race because they held fast to their core values. You would never, for just one instance, have found his dad deleting great numbers of state records at state expense to help him run a race by trying to cover his tracks on the medical-coverage law there.

Sid Schwab said...

Alison: I know my comments on religion are often offensive; all I can say in my defense is that I'm an equal opportunity offender, and that I've tried to make clear why: the increasing intrusion of religion into our body politic -- especially the need to eliminate science, of which, far as I know, Mormons aren't guilty, and the need to deny equal rights to homosexuals, of which they are -- is dangerous and damaging.

AlisonH said...

Thank you, Sid. And I need to clarify that I don't take offense at it--we each come from our own perspectives.

By the way, my daughter in grad school got put down by a prof, who told the whole class, Obviously you don't believe in evolution, you're Mormon, and she shot right back, Actually, Evolutionary Biology was my favorite class at BYU.

The official word in the Church on how the world was created was, God knows; ask the scientists.

Popular posts