I guess. I'd argue that his time would be better spent on immigration and energy policy. These issues are more important to voters.
If I may, I'd also like to suggest The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com) and National Review (www.nationalreview.com) What you should stay away from are the bomb throwers on either side. Instead try to find those reasoned folks who simply operate on a set of right-of-center principles. On radio, I would recommend someone like Dennis Praeger instead of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Anything by Victor Davis Hanson is likely to be very good. Jonah Goldberg is quite entertaining and not all together unreasonable. One of my favorite sites is instapundit.com. If you're looking for the response to the Huffington Post, try The Daily Caller (www.dailycaller.com), although I have found it to have the same kind of cheap shots HuffPo aims toward the other side. For a blog, Jennifer Rubin's Right Turn at the Washington Post I find to be persuasive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn). Good luck. It should be an interesting project.
Well, you're wrong about Obama - he lied about Gitmo, he lied about unemployment staying lower than 10% with his stimulus package, he lied about putting prisoners on trial in NYC, he lied about not raising taxes on the middle class, he lied about getting us out of Iraq by 2009, he lied about cutting the deficit in half by 2011. Do I need to go on? Lots of video clips of Obama making these promises not kept - good for 15 second commercials. Maddow should call them both out, no? Or at least she should say "Romney lied, Obama didn't because barfo said so." As for the youtube video and Libya... I suggest you read this article by Bill Gertz (he covered defense and intelligence issues for the Washington Times for 30 years): http://freebeacon.com/revolt-of-the-spooks/ My take would be that when you go around doing the end zone dance, spiking Bin Laden's head like a football ("Bin Laden's dead, GM is not!") and the only "good" thing you can run on as achievements from your first term is foreign policy, then your foreign policy better look good through the election. I don't fault the administration for blowing it, in terms of providing security for the embassies. But it sure looks bad ("Ambassador's dead, so's the Chevy Volt!"). So cover it up by saying there was no warning, it was a spur of the moment thing during a peaceful looking protest. But hey, we were talking about lying - isn't this a pretty serious thing to lie about?
Ok, whatever you say. I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally misstating a fact, and failing to do something you said you would. Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are different, and "lie" is more commonly applied to the first, "broken promise" to the second. Go on as long as you like, it doesn't matter since I never claimed Obama never lied. Absolutely she should call them both out. In a discussion of the debate, both candidates should be called on whatever they lied about. But, in a discussion of the debate, it doesn't make much sense to bring up issues that weren't discussed during the debate, like you are trying to do. barfo
Like shooting fish in a barrel. Sure looks like he lied. His lips were moving. "I have repeatedly said I will close Guantanamo. I will follow through on that." [video=youtube;UQXZoM__vU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0[/video]
I think posters have tried to explain the difference. Saying Gitmo is closed is a lie. Saying he will shut down gitmo as part of a presidential campaign is a promise unfulfilled. If the shooting fish in a barrel means it is easy to make your point, I don't think you are being that successful at it.
He was asked in this video if closing gitmo was something he would do EARLY in his presidency using executive orders. Not only did he say he would close it, he says he repeatedly said he would close it. As if he meant it.
Yes I understand that. A lot (if not all) presidential canidates who get elected say they are going to do things during their campaign that they don't end up doing . . . and they all sound like they meant it. If that is your definition of a lie, then it is fair to say all presidents have lied. Probably all politicains have lied. I think it's better to seperate unfulfilled promises vs. a flat out lie (saying something that at that time is in fact not true). I don't know if anyone lied during the debates, but I would like to know if someone said something that is clearly not true at the time it was said. With promises, I just assume both will promise anything to get elected.
Frankly, I'm giving President Obama a pass on Gitmo. I think he made promises as a candidate and he intended to close it. After being sworn in or getting his first unvarnished security briefing, I would guess he was given information showing that releasing these people or putting them through the criminal justice system would be dangerous to the US. You occasionally hear about the President's first security briefing, and it's generally referred to as "This is How Fucked Up The World Really Is" Briefing. Frankly, I admire the trait of people changing their positions upon receiving new information. Dogmatism is useful as a guidepost, but not always in practice. I also doubt he can come clean about what he may or may not have learned since becoming President. If Gitmo staying open keeps us safer, then I applaud him for changing his mind.
I’ll add the Weekly Standard. I’m already reading the National Review. Unfortunately Dennis Prager’s show isn’t carried on the local talk radio station. I haven’t heard much of Limbaugh since his show is mid-day. He and Hannity are fairly predictable. At least Hannity regularly has callers who don’t agree with him on the show but I think some of them have to be ringers. His voice is annoying, too. Rush’s ability to spin the news is amazing and he is a very good speaker, strong delivery and great use of pauses. His ego is the size of the moon though and he’s NEVER wrong. When he is wrong, it’s because you misunderstood him. Another thing that bothers me is the advertising on commercial talk radio. It seems like they play 5 minutes of commercials for every 10 minutes of programming. I heard the same anti-Obamma commercial 3 times on the way home. The advertisements are terrible, too. Most of them fall in two categories: get rich schemes or political ads.
I listened to the debates on the radio last night. I'd have to say it was tie. On the way into work this morning the morning show folks almost exclusively talked about Biden's laughing and smiling. I didn't even really notice it while listening to the debates. I checked the news sites this morning and it was in all the headlines: And It's Joe Biden for the ... Laugh - PJ Media It was Ryan versus the Joker grin. - National Review SMILE, SMILE, SMILE - Drudge Report Reviews: Laughing Joe Biden Was Condescending, Disrespectful, Arrogant - Town Hall Red State broke the trend though: "Martha Raddatz Was Horrible". I didn't think she was a bad moderator at all. Did I miss a major aspect of the debate by listening to it on the radio?
Honestly, I think you might have. I think Biden was who we thought he was, it gave a bunch of people a chance to see Ryan for maybe the first time, but the overarching theme of the debate seemed to be Biden's open condescension of Ryan that came out in the smiles, eye-rolling, hand gestures, etc. while Ryan was talking. And that's what almost everyone is talking about today, with the various spins attached.
I think was can be agreed on by both sides is that it was deeply disrespectful. Some may say it was out and out childish. Or some may say it was a great way to try and make fun of Ryan's criticism of the Obama administration so as to deflect it. I would say that was probably the best reason for his act. I have seen many attorneys use the same schtick at trials when they have a weak case. Try and ridicule the other side at every turn and see if the jury will buy into it. Most juries don’t, but a few do. Sort of a “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time…” type thing. It’s a known debate tactic for the weaker position.
Not only did you miss Biden's rudeness, it would also depend on which TV network you watched. I noticed that Fox News presented the debate in this format: While MSNBC presented the debate in this format: So Fox allowed you to see Biden smirking, smiling, laughing, and otherwise being rude as Ryan spoke, while MSNBC hid that for the most part.
The headline on CNN: "Stats, Grins, and Malarkey." (Not a conservative source) MSNBC (not the headline, but close to top of the page): Binden's smirks, Ryan's thirst: Web weighs in on VP debate.
What a shame. This debate could have been about Ryan's budget and all the considerations that go with it. Instead, the media's take away was Biden smiled too much.
I blame it on Radditz. If you want detail, have fewer segments. Nine segments in 90 minutes? And why would she cut people off simply to move on to another subject? She did the American people no favors. There is nothing I would have loved more than to have a substantive debate based on real numbers and ideas. We were shortchanged.
