https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Category: Elections 2012

Fact checking Debate 3

I think they're a bit more finicky on Obama than Romney here, esp. on the Benghazi thing, but there were certainly plenty of distortions and repeated debunked charges and misquotes to go around on both sides.

Embedded Link

FactCheck.org : FactChecking the Hofstra Debate
Summary. The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn't match the facts. Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the…

Google+: View post on Google+

There are "acts of terror," and there are "acts of terror"

There are "acts of terror," and there are "acts of terror"

Okay, I call "shenanigans" on both sides over the whole Benghazi Acts of Terror thang.  

Obama did in fact refer to the attack as an "act of terror" the day after the Benghazi killings. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."  This was not just generic boilerplate posturing, but referred to these particular attacks. The denialism and negative spinning from the Right on this is just silly.

On the other hand, Obama's comments were not any sort of announcement that this was being blamed on terrorist activity. They applied just as well (and in context seem to apply) killings associated with protester / angry mob activity. For the Left to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

That said, the whole matter — aside from the actual tragedy of the killings — seems very much a tempest in a teapot to me, ginned up politically by Romney and his supporters to try to prove … well, something.  Even Romney couldn't manage to articulate his point on it.  

The question of when the Administration did know (and/or should have known) about the nature of the actual attack there (vs. protests and more mob-like activities elsewhere at the same time in both Libya and Egypt) is worth discussing, but nothing that's been actually alleged strikes me as specifically heinous or credible. There were questions raised and indications, publicly, that it might have been a specific terrorist act (vs generic mob "act of terror", I guess) very early on (decent timeline here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/ ) … but, having said that, the idea that if the Administration wasn't giving daily detailed briefings giving concrete and consistent conclusions during ongoing investigations then it must have been trying to "cover up" something is just goofy.  Indeed, most of the "suspicious" stuff being pointed at is because there were too many Administration folks being badgered for answers and giving inconsistent ones.

And then, of course, after it came up at the debate last night, now the Right — having criticized Obama for not already brought the Benghazi attackers to justice, are now saying that Obama's trying to do so now soley for political gain.

There may very well be some lessons to be learned in what happened in Benghazi. That the event has become so politicized will make learning those lessons much more difficult, and that the Dem and (especially) GOP election teams are both stretching the truth to score points with the electorate is, at best, unhelpful.

Reshared post from +Media Matters for America

During last night's debate, Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney's false claim that President Obama did not refer to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi as an act of terrorism.

But, the transcript of the President's remarks from the Rose Garden make clear that Crowley was correct. Despite the words appearing in the transcript, conservatives in the media are insisting the President never said it.

Get the full story on the emergence of the transcript truthers here: http://mm4a.org/QSHbZF

Google+: View post on Google+

Fossil Fuels and Federal Lands

While I'm not sure that increased fossil fuel extraction on federal lands is something we should be particularly happy about, it appears that (a) it has declined over the last decade, but is actually up under the Obama Administration, despite Romney's assertion.

Embedded Link

Has energy production increased or decreased on federal lands? | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network
Energy topics came up early on in tonight’s presidential debate. There was a lot of back and forth between President Obama and Governor Romney about domestic …

Google+: View post on Google+

Presidential Rules of Thumb

Why common wisdom / precedent about presidential candidates ("No Republican has ever won in a month without an 'R' in it!") are dubious natural  laws.

Embedded Link

xkcd: Electoral Precedent

Google+: View post on Google+

Binders of Women

Okay, that's not some kinky S&M reference, but a Romney anecdote at tonight's debate about how he demanded. demanded, that his advisors give him plenty of women candidates to appoint to key positions in his state government when he was elected governor.  And, getting no response, he reached out to women's groups …

'I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.

I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.'

That was in response to a debate question about pay inequality for women.

Except … the story seems to be not quite, um, binding.

Embedded Link

Mind The Binder

Google+: View post on Google+

A bit of Presidential Debate fact-checking

– Both candidates took advantage of the economic distortions of the Great Recession to make unwarranted points.  In an disastrous economic downturn, and the recovery from the abyss, lots of numbers change — fuel consumption, oil imports, employment, deficits, corporate profits etc.  Treating the last five years as "normal" in judging pretty much anything is at least a bit disingenuous.

– Yes, Obama referred to the Benghazi killings as terror on Day 1 (or 2, depending on how you count). "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/16/transcript-truthers-conservatives-deny-obama-ca/190677) Was he talking about a terrorist cell / Al-Qa'eda activity? Mmmmmm … my sense is not.

But should have have been making such an assertion immediately, or in a few days, or even a few weeks? No, if the only purpose was to be politically macho. Waiting for intelligence work to be concluded and conclusions drawn by the various analysts is the right thing to do, not a "cover-up". 

– Romney on coal power, back when he was a "very liberal" governor. Romney in 2003: "I Will Not Create Jobs That Kill People"

– Romney on the Lilly Ledbetter law: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/16/465470/romney-refuses-to-say-whether-he-would-have-voted-for-lilly-ledbetter-pay-equity-law/ … and he loves the SCOTUS justices who ruled in a way that provoked said law" http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/04/361587/romney-scotus-corporations-are-people/

– Romney on protectionism vs. China" http://www.tnr.com/blog/107685/when-romney-was-anti-anti-china-not-so-long-ago# .  Now, to be fair, I think that in a global economy (which we are in, like it or or not), commodity manufacturing will not be where the US can compete, no matter what candidate you listen to. But while both Romney and Obama understand that, Romney's the one saying "Hey, if we just stop China from cheating on IP and monetary value, the jobs will come back to the US." They will not, unless (a) tariffs are raised high enough to make higher US labor rates competitive, which I do not expect Romney to support, or (b) US labor rates drop down to China's Third World standards. Which solution do you think Romney's biggest supporters prefer?

– How is Romney different from Dubya?  Well, not in foreign policy: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/25/576331/romney-foreign-policy-advisers/

– Romney claimed that he was certainly not in favor of employers blocking insurance coverage of contraception. Except … http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435290/romney-says-he-would-oppose-blunt-bill-if-it-prevented-people-from-getting-contraception/

– Romney repeatedly asserted that the rich won't pay less than their current share of federal income tax … and that just becomes an impossible target to dispute, aside from its implausibility.

– Romney's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the "middle class" by $4K is just goofy. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-4000-tax-tale/

– Romney's magical illegal immigration policy, where Sci-Fi Fences and "Starship Troopers"-style service winnow out the Good Illegal Immigrants from the Bad Illegal Immigrants. http://thinkprogress.org/2012-gop-presidential-candidates-views-on-immigration-issues/ 

– Ooooh, evil and unnaturally (and uncompetitively) high corporate taxes … http://www.ctj.org/pdf/oecd201106.pdf

– Oil companies and unused public land oil leases: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/Final-Report.pdf

– Romney preferred the Detroit auto makers be driven to bankruptcy and pretty much completely demolished. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html Oddly enough, he also suggested "I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today." Which kind of sounds like the (Bush Administration-initiated) Solyndra investment, except for all the Right-wing condemnation of same.

– I already talked about the "12 million jobs" thang earlier today.

– It's easy to claim that Obama hasn't created any new jobs, unless you look at the arc of job creation in line with the Great Recession he inherited: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/jobschart2.png

Google+: View post on Google+

Tweets from 2012-10-16

  • I appear to have stayed up too late last night. Also, I appear to have left my Kindle at home. #notagoodstart #
  • Doing Write: So maybe, maybe not Link #nanowrimo #
  • 4 of 5 stars to The One Minute Manager Anniversary Ed by Kenneth H. Blanchard Link #
  • Pretty good “overdue work task” clearing day, including two biggies that have been on my List of Things I Really Gotta Get Done for a while. #
  • CNN pre-debate coverage takes vapid commentary to new heights. #debates #
  • So we’re speculating on the way either candidate can/will debate best now? Howzabout YOU guys run for president? #cnn #debates #
  • And we’ll be getting insta-reactions from a panel of 11 undecided voters. Yeah, that’ll be useful data. #cnn #debates #
  • RT @StephenAtHome: I predict tonight’s debate has a DRAMATIC impact on predictions for the next debate. #
  • Obama and Romney repeated waving, as if on cue. #debates #
  • Romney already pulls out the “anonymous scary anecdote” card. #debates #
  • Romney is out to keep Pell Grants up? Well, that’s news, if not for him, than to the GOP and his running mate. #debates #
  • Actually, hasn’t the middle class been crushed over the last *five* years? Ahem. #debates #
  • Obama starts to pull in Romney’s previous statements. About time. Though Jeremy doesn’t look like he’s studying auto mech. #debates #
  • Romney plays with unemployment numbers. Doesn’t seem to be answering the “getting folks working right now” question. #debates #
  • Obama nails Romney on the Detroit bankrupt and the 5-point plan. Definitely on the attack tonight. #debates #
  • Romney insists on forcing the final word. Again. #debates #
  • Obama notes that oil, natural gas, and coal production all up, despite claims otherwise. Not directly answering question, tho. #debates #
  • Romney: “Drill, Baby, Drill” on Federal Land. Though at least he can pronounce “nuclear”. #debates #
  • Romney plays more “terrifying personal anecdote” cards. #
  • Obama hits Romney on his past inconsistencies again. OTOH, not sure Obama running on more oil drilling and more coal plants works. #debates #
  • Okay, so now we’re playing “Not true” vs “Not true”. #debates #
  • Yes, because the Keystone XL pipeline will run right into America … and down to the Gulf to be refined, shipped out, Gov. Romney. #debates #
  • Romney tries to force in another answer. Again. #debates #
  • Romney faces “which deductions are you actually going to deduct from?” question. Waves hand, simply says will cap overall amount. #
  • Middle Income Taxpayers aren’t paying a lot of taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, Gov. Romney. But I know who do. #debates #
  • Obama tries to actually explain what tax brackets mean. Gutsy. #debates #
  • Romney repeats 5-point plan. Again. #debates #
  • Romney can certainly balance budgets — when his bonuses are at stake. Doesn’t answer the question of *how* he’ll balance them. #debates #
  • Romney on pay inequalities for women: anecdote about how he let his fem staff member leave work early, ’cause, y’know, women … #debates #
  • Obama nails Romney on pay inequality position. Then pivots to…contraceptive coverage and PPA. Interesting. #debates #
  • Obama frames women’s health issues as economic issues, too. Nice. And 1st time Romney doesn’t try to get last word in. #debates #
  • Next Q: Mr Romney, how are you different from George W. Bush? “Let me try to get another answer in to that last question.” #debates #
  • So now Romney is pro-contraception and contraception coverage? O RLY? #debates #
  • So biggest difference from George W. Bush is Romney is more *pro*-oil, more anti-China? #
  • And you’re different from George W. Bush because you’re more pro- … oh, you’ve pivoted to how you’re different from Obama. Nice. #debates #
  • RT @MargieKleerup: Ah presidential debate – a return to the golden age of talking back to the TV #Debates #
  • “Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.” At least, beyond Neo-Con saber-rattling. #debates #
  • Obama manages to give a nice precis of his Admin’s accomplishments. Nothing new, but good to get it out there. Romney looks pained. #debates #
  • And then Obama pivots to “me too” attack from Romney’s promises in GOP primaries. #debates #
  • Obama did give opening to Romney on things that didn’t get done. Of course, economy tanked *during* the 2008 election cycle. #debates #
  • So, Gov., how many of all those reforms could Obama have gotten through the GOP-blocked Senate and, then, the GOP majority House? #debates #
  • So, Governor, illegal immigrants are taking all the legal immigrants (the ones with diplomas) jobs? #debates #
  • Wait, did Romney just support the DREAM Act? Really? And then blame Obama for not passing one? Pat Buchanan headsplode. #debates #
  • Obama nails Romney on GOP primary immigration policy stands. Perfect. #debates #
  • Benghazi question comes up. Obama dodges the question, bobbles response, except for taking personal responsibility for “MY people.” #debates #
  • Romney, OTOH, tries to sound concerned, but kind of wanders around, then suddenly invokes Syria, Israel, Iran, and Syria. #debates #
  • Obama takes responsibility again, and calls Romney’s innuendo offensive. Whoa. #debates #
  • Guns & 2nd Amendment. Obama plays happy anecdote card, doesn’t really address question, until very end (no war weapons on streets). #debates #
  • RT @matociquala: NO JAVA I DO NOT WANT THE FUCKING ASK TOOLBAR NOBODY WANTS THE ASK TOOLBAR. #iwillneveruseaskbecauseofthisshit #
  • Romney is anti-automatic weapons, pro-moms&dads (but single parents OK, but not as good/rich), so it’s all about culture. #debates #
  • Romney plays Fast & Furious card “under this Administration” “for reasons I can’t imagine.” Ask Dubya. #debates #
  • Romney defends his state’s assault weapon ban. So would he support the same legislation nationally? #debates #
  • Romney keeps saying “Great question.” Kind of wears out it’s welcome. #
  • Romney responds to outsourcing by making “trickle-down govt” line. Because outsourcing only happens because of “government regs”. #debates #
  • RT @DeathStarPR: This #Debate would be better if the Town Hall was molten lava, the debate was a lightsaber duel and someone became a cy … #
  • Romney is going to have a very, very busy Day 1. #debates #
  • Wait, regulators’ main jobs are supposed to be encouraging small business? Really? #debates #
  • RT @BorowitzReport: For Republicans who loved the first debate, this must be like watching Ghostbusters 2. #debate #
  • Both Obama and Romney strained to show how they are anti-China, while not, y’know, actually offending China. #debates #
  • Romney says China only gets business by stealing IP, currency manip. Dirt-cheap labor costs don’t play a factor? #debates #
  • Only way to get those China jobs back is to drive US wages down to China’s. Oh, wait … #debates #
  • Romney: “Govt does not create jobs.” So why are you criticizing Obama for not doing so? #debates #
  • Romney. “I care about 100% of the American people.” Except whenever I’m talking to rich people off the record. #debates #
  • Romney — I’m God-fearing. Also, I insured everyone in the state (but don’t think we want that for the nation). And I love kids. #debates #
  • Mitt. Relax your shoulders. It doesn’t look leadery. #debates #
  • Obama finally plays the 47% card. #debates #
  • So, my immediate net-net: Obama took assertive role. Didn’t swamp Mitt, but gave better than he got, which is just what he needed. #debates #
  • RT @dresdencodak: Mitt Romney promises to guide the American people to another path into prosperity, past Cirith Ungol. Many stairs, and … #
  • RT @pedzz_bd: @Three_Star_Dave line 10 of the MittBot code is if asked question then confirm it is a question by stating it is a great q … #
  • RT @AdamSerwer: Fox is calling it a draw. I think we know what that means. #
  • RT @fredbenenson: Romney is totally confused about causality if he can say “government does not create jobs” yet claims his policies wil … #
  • RT @Popehat: I’m really disappointed that neither candidate had an opportunity to evade questions on civil liberties or the War on Drugs. #

Questions to be answered, political-debate-wise

So it became fairly clear early on that the questions in the debate were sequenced / arranged to have the person receiving the question be the pointed target of it.  So Romney got asked how he was different from Dubya, and Obama got asked about the Benghazi killings, etc. Seemed pretty even-handed to me. Plenty of opportunity for both candidates to recite their talking points, pivot to the attacks they wanted to make, etc.

But if you think maybe your guy didn't do so well, maybe you go on the attack and start conjuring conspiracies and unfairness and all of that …

Embedded Link

32 Seconds After The Debate Ended, Fox Started Blaming The Questions
Exactly 32 seconds after the debate ended, Fox anchor Megyn Kelly began spinning the debate as biased as a consequence of the questions asked by the undecided voters in the audience. Here’s what she s…

Google+: View post on Google+

CNN's Debate-o-meter

Aside from the insipid pre-debate chatter, I was highly dubious of CNN's "here's what our panel of observers think about what's being said right this moment" graphic at the bottom of the screen. Given that the panel was made up of 11 "undecided" people, it hardly felt like an accurate measure of much of anything. That it was divided between men and women felt even more manipulative.

That said, I confess guiltily that it was actually interesting to watch. In general, the 11 tended to dislike attacks by one candidate on another., and weren't thrilled with bully-the-moderator shenanigans. There were also some interesting moments when a candidate (usually, but not always, Romney) would be talking for several seconds and the line would remain completely flat.  

I don't take it as at all scientific, but I can see the fascination.

Google+: View post on Google+

Debate 3 – An Unbiased Judgment

MWAH-HA-HA … of course it's biased. I confess it freely.

Obama actually bothered to show up this time.  I don't know if in Debate 1 he was trying to be dispassionate and presidential, or was suffering from jet lag, or was fighting off the flu, or what, but he was disengaged and (nigh on) pathetic.

This night, he was out there swinging — hitting Romney on his record, hitting him on what he'd said during the primaries vs what he's saying now, calling out at least some of the lies.  He wasn't flawless — he bobbled the narrative facts on the Benghazi attacks (even while he did a hell of a play on the emotional part of things), and sometimes he stumbled over himself trying to get to his talking points, and I'm not sure how hard he wants to push the "I'm a big believer in oil and coal" schtick — but he was definitely in the game.

Romney didn't lie down and get steamrollered, by any means, but the turn-around on Obama's part seemed to catch him off-guard.  He got more and more anxious in hitting his "5 points" and repeating the same attacks, and his shoulders kept tensing up further and further (trust me, I know), and his expressions while not being the question answerer  varied between smarmy and dyspeptic.

Obama managed to talk for longer (by a few minutes) on the overall timer, but it sure felt like Romney was the one interrupting and trying to get the last word in and rushing the ref.  Candy Crowley got pushed around some, but she didn't just cave to Romney's "I want to respond before we can move on" tactics, either.

Net-net (and I confess my Democratic bias here), I think Obama won on points.  It wasn't a TKO, certainly, and some might call it a tie, but I think he hit Romney harder than he was hit in return, and at the very least he demonstrated that he could work effectively in the debate format.  After his poor showing in Denver he had to do just that, and I strongly suspect (to the extent that I trust, let alone can predict, polls) that any remaining Romney surge from Debate 1 will be stopped, and perhaps even rolled back some.

Which leaves things far too close for anyone's comfort, frankly, but that's overall not a surprise.

We watched CNN this evening (vs. CSPAN last time), largely because I wanted the split screen.  It was fine, during the debate, but the pre-debate nattering was vapid beyond all understanding (there was first a gaggle of female correspondents going on at length about how both wives were wearing, gasp, pink … and the a gaggle of male correspondents going on at length about the best debate tactics to use, as if).

I thought Crowley did a decent job of moderating.  She still let both candidates get too many words in edgewise, but short of cutting off their mics (not a bad idea) she did what she could. 

My faith in the electoral system and the power of reasoned rhetoric is by no means restored, but I am, a bit, glad I watched.

Google+: View post on Google+

When 3 + 7 + 2 ^= 12

Taking a look at the very strange math behind Romney's repeated promise to create 12 million new jobs in four years.  Short take: none of the info adds up, none of the sources seem to actually be discussing Romney's proposed policies, and none of them are talking about a 4-year timeframe.

But I'll betcha Mitt brings it up, again, at the debate tonight. And continues to in his commercials, too.

Embedded Link

Mitt Romney’s ‘new math’ for jobs plan doesn’t add up
FACT CHECKER | His 12-million- jobs promise got a lot of attention. But the numbers don’t add up.

Google+: View post on Google+

We Can Be Heroes

A good way, today, to leverage a donation to a larger amount for a worthy cause.

Reshared post from +DC Comics

Today only: Donate $1 to the We Can Be Heroes campaign and DC Entertainment will donate an additional $2. So for every $1 dollar you give $3 will go to help the real life heroes in the Horn of Africa. Like the Justice League Super Heroes, we can be stronger together- don’t wait another day to help, make an even bigger difference today. http://bit.ly/Ry5jjO

Google+: View post on Google+

Get the details on the Romney Tax Plan

Heh.

Embedded Link

For all the details on Mitt Romney's $5 trillion tax plan visit

Google+: View post on Google+

Ballooning support

An interesting way of looking at the polling data for the presidential race.  (I would say amusing, but I don't think anyone's in a mood to call the presidential race amusing right now.)

Embedded Link

Is Mitt Romney the President?
A daily look at the US 2012 election polls. Built by The Guardian and powered by polling data from Real Clear Politics.

Google+: View post on Google+

Yes, uninsured people do die, because ERs are not chronic care centers

It's worth quoting the key part of the phsycian's letter at length (emphasis mine):

'It’s true that EMTALA [the 1986 law requiring that emergency rooms treat you regardless of insurance status] requires a medical screening exam and stabilization of any emergency medical conditions. It does not, however, mandate admission to the hospital for treatment of conditions that are not currently emergent (e.g. cancer, kidney disease, and other more chronic conditions except related to certain complications). For example, if someone were to present to one of our emergency departments with some mild bloating and be found to have an abdominal mass, they may very well be discharged home for outpatient follow-up and treatment. If that person doesn’t have insurance, they will likely have difficulty obtaining that care.'

Unless, of course, they are Mitt Romney.

The Emergency Room mandate (and let's not forget that there are plenty of folks who think even that's an unwarranted imposition on Free Enterprise) is the barest, most minimal cover for obtaining medical treatment in a crisis.  It's like a police department that will only do something while the criminal's still there but if the crime is already committed, or not currently recurring, will simply shrug and suggest you get some private security or a private investigator or bounty hunter to take care of the matter on your own nickel. We would (and, when it happens, do) consider that outrageous, but the GOP's talking point that the same approach is a panacea for medical care is just as outrageous.

Embedded Link

Ways the Uninsured Die
Grim notes from a physician.

Google+: View post on Google+

First Debate Wrap-Up

First off, apology for being Over-Tweetful.

Bottom line: a win for Romney.  Romney essentially jettisoned (or denied) everything he’s said viz the economy, the budget, tax policy, etc., and instead promsing puppies and roses and unicorns and lower taxes (but not for the rich!). Which left him free to attack Obama for everything that’s happened in the last six years. Obama seemed to be unprepared for this tactic, which left him essentially on the defensive and disorganized the entire debate.

Romney managed to do this with an open, smiling (if sometimes smarmy) countenance as if everything he was saying was perfectly consistent with everything he’s been running on for the past five years.  He won’t cut education! He won’t reduce the tax burden on the rich!  He believes in financial industry regulation! He’ll keep all the good things that people like about about Obamacare, but not the bad things.

Meanwhile, he managed to blame Obama for all the effects of the Great Recession, dragged in Death Panels and Medicare Cuts, and gosh wouldn’t it be nice if we let the states (and private industry) magically solve all the problems that the federal government covers (except national defense, because Obama’s out to cut the Defense Department’s budget, rather than it being part of the bi-partisan sequestration agreement in Congress).

In so many ways it was such a shotgun of blatantly bizarro attacks and defense, Obama seemed unable to address it adequately, let alone put a comprehensive attack back.

True Believers on either side won’t be swayed. The question is how the Undecided will take it (or the post-debate pundit response) will react.

And, of course, how the next debate will go.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Apples-to-Oranges Statistics

One can certainly discuss and debate comparisons of unemployment rates between January 2009 (when Obama took office) and today.  One can discuss at what point Obama's policies can be deemed to have actually been able to any effect, or how rates were actually trending at those two points, or what goes into those rates and how different policies and actions and political squabbles have contributed to same.

What you can't do — unless you're a liar, an idiot, or Fox News — is compare two completely different numbers as "proof" of anything. Either you compare the Official Unemployment Rate (7.8% vs 8.1%), or you compare a composite rate of unemployed, discouraged unemployed, and underemployed (14.5% vs. 14.7%). You can't pick one from Column A and one from Column B … unless Obama supporters get to say that unemployment has dropped from 14.5% to 8.1%.

Suggesting that Fox producers an  talking heads had no idea what it was saying, or realized that the numbers were completely different in nature, doesn't seem credible.

As Laura Ingraham said, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" Exactly.

Reshared post from +Media Matters for America

Their graphics just get worse and worse. Fox used a dishonest comparison to suggest the unemployment rate has nearly doubled since Obama took office.

Get the Full Story: http://bit.ly/RDRhRG 

The 7.8% figure was the official unemployment 
rate from January 2009. The current official unemployment rate is 8.1%, not 14.7%. Their 14.7% takes into account those who are actively looking for work, people who are unemployed and discouraged from looking for a new job, part-time workers who prefer full-time employment, and more.

Comparing the official unemployment rate to conservatives' 'real' unemployment rate is simply a matter of Fox irresponsibly plucking numbers from wherever they can. Again.

Google+: View post on Google+

Fox News: America's Religious Police

I mean, that's all I can think of, if they think one of their key jobs is criticizing (dubiously) whether the president is invoking God and religion and prayer enough.

Reshared post from +Media Matters for America

Fox News remembers 9/11 by attacking President Obama for not mentioning God in his presidential proclamation.

Fox Co-Host Gretchen Carlson noted that Obama has "called for a moment of silence, but has not called for the word God."

Fox News' Steve Doocy added: "On this most somber of days, get this. Does the President of the United States call on people to pray for those lives lost? No."

For starters, Fox News' claim is blatantly false…a lie, if you will: Obama's proclamation actually calls on "God's grace."

And, to add a bit of hypocrisy to this latest Fox News lie: George W. Bush didn't include the word "God" in his 2006, 2007 and 2008 presidential proclamations on 9/11. But, you didn't hear Fox attacking him for 'ignoring God.'

Embedded Link

Fox Omits The Facts To Politicize 9-11 Moment Of Silence

Google+: View post on Google+

Apparently 15% of Ohio GOPers think Romney killed Osama Bin Laden

Really.

The article does a bit of psychological both-sides-guilty handwaving — but there's a difference between vague experiential mis-remembering (was unemployment / taxation / inflation higher or lower?) and getting Significant Historical Events flabbergastingly wrong.

Embedded Link

Does Mitt Romney Deserve Credit for Bin Laden's Death?
Some Ohio Republicans say he does.

Google+: View post on Google+

Romney backs the pre-existing conditions on Pre-Existing Conditions

The law long supported people not being denied new group insurance because of pre-existing conditions as long as, within a limited time frame, they had previously been insured by group coverage — going between jobs, for example, or moving, or changing coverage plans from an employer.

Which is all just jolly, Mitt, but it leaves out people who are unemployed for months, or who are moving from group coverage to individual coverage because of employment changes (or the other way around).  Anyone who exists outside the "normal" bounds of constantly-employed corporate America.

Given that insurance coverage is the gatekeeper to actually getting decent medical care, especially for the sort of problems that "pre-existing conditions" call into play, Romney's desire to return to the status quo ante fails as a way to make people feel good about his compassion on health care.

Reshared post from +Talking Points Memo

Romney backtracks:

Embedded Link

Romney: Sorry, No Preexisting Conditions Guarantee Unless You’re Already Insured
In a Sunday interview, Mitt Romney spoke out for a popular provision in the Affordable Care Act that guarantees coverage for people with preexisting conditions. But his campaign later clarified that h…

Google+: View post on Google+