Braggadocious!

And, one more video:

BREAKING! Carly Fiorina has seen video proof of zombie outbreak!

Here it is!

 

 Just in case you were wondering, when Ms. Fiorina said at the debates last night:

"I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain,'" Fiorina said Wednesday night at the GOP presidential debate, during a discussion about a congressional vote on defunding Planned Parenthood.

1. No scene anything like the one she described were in any of the versions--edited or unedited--of the Planned Parenthood videos put out by Center for Medical Progress.

2. There was a scene of a baby in a mini documentary by Center for Medical Progress that was not filmed at any Planned Parenthood, that may have simply have been ten-year-old stock footage of a preemie that was used to *illustrate* someone's never proven claims about Planned Parenthood.

See here, here, here (and numerous other sites).

But by all means, let's shut down the entire government over a scene that was not in the videos she claimed it was in and that did not show what she claimed it did!

And, by the way, when she was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she illegally sold hundreds of millions of dollars of computer products to Iran, meanwhile every single investigation of Planned Parenthood about those videos has turned up nothing illegal.

Yes, But Is It TRUE?

I realize the conservative paper in town has to do something to try to put the best spin on last night's awful Romney debate performance, but this piece by Mike Wereschagin and Salena Zito shows the problem with the "he said/he said" school of "objective" journalism.

In not doing any real fact checking, Mike and Salena let Romney off the hook.  Perhaps that was the point.

The wrote:

“I think (Iran’s leaders) saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength,” Romney said. He revived his charge that Obama embarked on “an apology tour” around the world.

“Nothing Gov. Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing,” Obama said.

Yes, but is it true?  They don't say.

Did the President go on an "apology tour" or not?  Nothing is gained by going "he said/he said" - those who think he did will disagree with Obama and those who think he didn't will disagree with Romney.

In reality, there was no apology tour.

From CNN:

Romney's claim is false. The president has mentioned past U.S. mistakes and flaws during speeches about the larger issues of building bridges to other countries. But he has never apologized or gone on an "apology tour."

Washington Post:

The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.

Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties. The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.

In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes. Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state. Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama's handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.

But let's move on to something else they wrote:

The candidates sparred over defense spending, with Romney accusing Obama of presiding over a shrinking Navy and aging Air Force.

“Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time” since its founding, Romney said.

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama shot back. The modern military includes aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, he said. “The question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.”

Yes, but is it true?  They don't say.

Politifact has already debunked this one:

This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim. Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate. In recent years, the number of Navy and Air Force assets has sunk to levels not seen in decades, although the number of ships has risen slightly under Obama.

However, a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

But guess what I found for the sources of Romney's meaninglessness?  Politifact, again:

The Navy numbers

The Romney campaign didn’t get back to us, but we found their likely sourcing when we contacted the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

In January 2010, Heritage published a report titled, "The State of the U.S. Military." Citing data from the Naval History and Heritage Command, a part of the Defense Department, the report said that "the U.S. Navy’s fleet today contains the smallest number of ships since 1916. The total number of active ships in the Navy declined from 592 to 283 between 1989 and 2009." [Emphasis added.]

While it's not clear in the text, Politifact also cites that same Heritage Foundation report (you can read it here) in explaining Romney's Air Force claim.

And they add some context:

But what do those numbers mean? Not much, a variety of experts told us.

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

The context of the numbers makes Romney's claim ridiculous.

I think I see why Wereschagin and Zito would be reluctant to debunk these two myths.  They work at the Tribune-Review where their boss is Richard Mellon Scaife.  At one of their boss's other pet projects (the Trib being one, the Heritage Foundation another) these myths (the "apology tour" and "the shrunken military") have been around for years.

No one wants to be an EOD at the Trib, I suppose.

Horses and Bayonets

Highlights of Mitt Romney from tonight's debate

Video Highlight:

Broadcast News _ Sweating The News by hulu

Still photo:

Some of the best moments from last night's presidential debate

The Joke:


The Fact Check:


The Close:

"Binders full of women" comment not just creepy -- it's another lie!

Mitt Romney's remarks that he made a concerted effort to find qualified women for his cabinet as governor and how he went to women's groups for help and that's how he ended up with "binders full of women" is another big, fat lie. From The Phoenix:

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

Also, as yet, he has refused to say he's for equal pay for women. At this point, one would need to assume that he doesn't say it because he's not for it. (But, he is of course in favor of flex time because it allows the ladies to go home early to make dinner.)

"Binders Full Of Women"

The inevitable tumblr on Mitt's creepy "binders full of women" remark:

More here.

Who knew the public craved facts?

Don't call it a comeback! (OK, call it a comeback)

Obama tonight:

Don't Tweet Alone! Presidential Debate Watch Party!

So you know you're going to watch the second presidential debate...and you know you're going to get annoyed. Can Mitt Romney change a deeply held belief...in the course of a single sentence? It's a town hall format with questions by undecided voters. Undecided?!? Who the hell can be undecided at this point? (And, do their minders have to tie their shoelaces for them?)

Don't risk this happening to your TV:

Don't tweet alone!

Via Facebook:

Second Presidential Debate Watch Party

Please join City Councilman Bill Peduto and Democratic Nominee for State Representative, Ed Gainey, for a debate watch party for the second of three presidential debates. We will be taking over AVA Lounge in East Liberty for the night, so come join us and bring some friends.

Tuesday, October 16th
8:30 PM to 11:00 PM
AVA Lounge
126 S. Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Cash Bar

RSVP HERE!

Jack Kelly Sunday

Even while gloating, Jack Kelly overreaches and gets his facts wrong.

Just take a look at this Sunday's column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

There's a clear consensus that Obama had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad debate performance.  As I emailed an astute reader a few days ago, I was hoping that Obama's plan was some sort if Aikido defense - stepping back, letting your opponent commit to an attack and then, using his own momentum, simply helping him off his feet and onto the ground.

Or, better yet, I was hoping it was a debate version of the Blackburne (or Légal) Trap, in which White sacrifices his queen for a checkmate 3 moves later.

Alas, it was neither.  It was simply a bad performance.  Though my partial Doppelgänger, Chris Potter, on Lynn Cullen's web broadcast had a slightly different view - the problem Obama had was that Romney simply lied about his positions. How do you debate someone who simply denies their own agenda?

And that brings me to Jack's overreach:

The Mitt Romney in Denver was knowledgeable, energetic, passionate, principled. He was aggressive, without being rude or mean. He seemed like a nice guy. He was in command -- of the facts and on the stage.

The OPJ has already touched on Romney's mendacity.  But let's go further.  What do the fact-checkers have to say about Romney's "command of the facts"?

From FactCheck.org:

Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. It could make some binding recommendations about such things as what drugs or medical devices would be paid for by Medicare, but it has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care.

The board is a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health care. And, according to the law, the board can’t touch treatments or otherwise “ration” care, or restrict benefits.

What’s officially called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of appointed health care experts, medical professionals, and consumer representatives, would make binding recommendations to reduce the growth of spending. Congress could override them with a three-fifths majority in each house.

An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that the IPAB was limited to finding savings from “Medicare Advantage, the Part D prescription drug program, skilled nursing facility, home health, dialysis, ambulance and ambulatory surgical center services, and durable medical equipment.”

In case you couldn't hear it, this was a "dog whistle". Romney's talking death panels here.

Then there's this $716 billion fact that Jack got wrong:

Romney went on to say, “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare.” But the fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare. Instead, Medicare would spend it, but over a longer period of time than was expected before the health care law. The law extends the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.

Then there's factcheck summing up Romney's performance:

Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed.

Here's the fact-checking from the Washington Post:

“Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars”

— President Obama

“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut”

— Governor Romney

How can both facts be true? The $5 trillion figure comes from the fact that Romney has proposed to cut tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years But Romney also has said he will make his plan “revenue neutral” by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions, although he has not provided the details.

The Tax Policy Center has analyzed the specifics of Romney’s plan thus far released and concluded that the numbers aren’t there to make it revenue neutral.

In the debate, Romney countered that “six other studies” have found that not to be the case, but he’s wrong about that. Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney’s proposal — as sketchy as it is — would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions.

And if we take a look at those "six other studies" we find they're not what Romney presented them to be.  Factcheck, again:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims that his plan would balance the federal budget in eight to 10 years. But so far, he has not made public the details on how he would be able to do that, and one neutral budget expert calls it “an unrealistic goal.”

Also, Romney and running mate Paul Ryan exaggerate when they say “five different studies” prove that all of the stated goals of Romney’s revenue-neutral tax plan could be accomplished without raising taxes on middle-income taxpayers. Two of the five “studies” were blog items. And none of three other studies was nonpartisan: Two were written by Romney campaign advisers and a third was by a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush.

And they don't know where that sixth study came from.

And then there's this from politifact:

Romney said his health care proposals include protections for pre-existing conditions What he didn’t say at the debate -- but which his website states and advisers confirmed after the debate -- is that people would be protected from denial only if they have been continuously insured.

The health care law, though, offers protections whether people have current coverage or not, so it offers more robust protection. The law also includes a requirement that everyone have insurance or pay a tax penalty. Romney’s plan doesn’t have that requirement.

Romney did not mention the qualifier that people have to stay insured to get the protection. That’s a significant omission. We rate his statement Mostly False.

And yet conservative columnist Jack Kelly said that Mitt Romney was in command of the facts.

There have to be people at the P-G (sincere, hard working, intelligent people, no doubt) looking over Jack's shoulder to make sure he doesn't repeat his fact-free Van Jones writing style. Perhaps they're even asking him for deeper research to justify each sentence he writes.

But you have to know he still gets things very very wrong.

And you're still letting him.

Mitt Romney Stars in "Say Anything..."

Tax cuts for the 1%? If you want them, I'm for them, if you don't, I wasn't ever either. I'd kill Big Bird for you. 47%? No, baby, I love you 100%...1,000%. I'm Mitt Romney and I'll say anything...to get in that big White House.

Presidential Debate Overview

1. Romney kept his answers detail-free but full of lies. (He only got specific on his promise to off Big Bird.) From HuffPo:

Still, one issue continued to plague Romney: details. While he said he would end Obama programs, he was vague on how he would do so without eliminating a host of components he pledged to keep.  

"At some point, you have to ask, is he keeping all these plans to replace [programs] secret because they're too good?" Obama said. "Families are going benefit too much from them?"

But the “Lying for the Lord” was in full force. Here's David Gergen, former presidential advisor who served during the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, so hardly a liberal:

  PoliticusUSA on Romney's five biggest lies (in just the first half of the debate) here.

And, from TPM: Top Romney Adviser: States Will Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Under President Romney (so, yeah, he lied about that too).

2. For those wondering when Romney would swing to the center – shake that Etch A Sketch! – the answer was October 3, 2012:

Tonight’s debate saw the return of the Mitt Romney who ran for office in Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002. He was obsessive about portraying himself as a moderate, using every possible opening or ambiguity – and, when necessary, making them up – to shove his way to the center. Why he did not attempt to restore this pose earlier, I cannot say. Maybe he can only do it in debates. Or maybe conservatives had to reach a point of absolute desperation over his prospects before they would give him the ideological space. In any case, he dodged almost every point in the right wing canon in a way that seemed to catch Obama off-guard.

3. I still can't believe that Romney's 47% comment was absent from this debate. WTF? If Lehrer wouldn't bring it up, the President should have.

4. Also absent from this debate was any women's issues. We're used to seeing few to no women as candidates or moderators, but while we're in a War On Women, it would have been nice to have some mention made of the issues and not to have women only mentioned in random anecdotes. Romney did mention at least twice that doctors and people should decide on medical treatments and not the government – oh, the irony, it burns!

Also not mentioned: LGBT issues and the environment (except in a knock by Romney at green jobs). But of course, the deficit was covered ad nauseum because it's what's important to the Villagers.

5. While President Obama was far, far too passive, Romney played the bully. Apparently he thought he was the moderator and Lehrer didn't do much to disabuse him of this notion. If you watched any of this on CNN, you saw that women did not take kindly to uber privileged Romney running roughshod all over the debate. In fact, the male/female instant tracking graph running on CNN was a visual reminder of the vast gender gap throughout the evening.

6. And finally, speaking of CNN, their snap poll at the end of the debate – the one that showed Romney won the debate 69-25 – a diarist at Daily KOS finds something entirely astonishing:

According to the breakout, all the people surveyed are white, 50+, and from the South.

Additionally, it was top-heavy on men and those who were pro Mitt before the debate. So, totally fair and balanced, right?

Debate Questions We'd Like to Hear Tonight

Just in case that the moderator for tonight's presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, is reading this blog, here are some questions we'd love you to ask. (Trust me, it would be awesome if you did!)

For Mitt Romney:

1. Do you agree with your wife Ann, that your "mental well-being" would be your biggest challenge if you were elected President or is there something else even worse that we need to worry about?

2. Are you “the one Mighty and Strong”?

3. Many have criticized your commercials for containing untruths. Is this just a misunderstanding in that you're simply practicing your religion and "Lying for the Lord"?

4. So how big a douche is Paul Ryan, really and have you ever seen him shirtless?

5. Can you please make the same face that John McCain did at a presidential debate four years ago?

C'mon, c'mom. It'd be cool! Do it. Do it! DO IT! DO IT!!!

For Barack Obama:

1. Really? Joe Biden? What were you thinking? And how often do you just want the Secret Service to hold him down so you can tape over his mouth?

2. Did you do an actual happy dance when you saw Romney's 47% video?

3. What adjective best describes your immense dislike for your opponent? "Immense." That's a good one. You want to go with that?

4. But seriously, all kidding aside, what will the First Lady be planting in the White House garden this spring?

Found Objects

And if you think that's a fake, take a look at this.  It's from Reuters:

 

The text:

US Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ) reacts to almost heading the wrong way off the stage after shaking hands with Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) at the conclusion of the final presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, October 15, 2008.

That's all. I'll leave my comments to myself.

David Gergen Reacts

"It was almost an exercise in anger management for him to contain himself."  Yea, that's the guy I want a few inches from the nuke-you-lerr button.  Some guy who can barely contain himself at a presidential debate.

Huffington Post has more:

Later in CNN's broadcast, after Campbell Brown ran down CNN's poll results (an overall Obama win, a win for Obama among independents, Obama wins on questions about healthcare, and even taxes), Anderson Cooper asked Gergen what he would say to McCain about what the message should be going forward, in light of these results. Gergen replied, "Beats the hell out of me," adding later, "See if you can leave this with your honor in tact."

Might be difficult for McCain as he's already traded in whatever honor he had for a season of mudslinging and dishonest negative ads. 

A Conservative Reacts

Mark Steyn National Review Online:

McCain lacked the killer instinct. A man who cheerfully crashes planes and survives years of torture appeared nervous that clobbering his opponent might dent his image as Mister Bipartisan. You look at the way he sneered at Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama. His reluctance to whack the Democrat wound up, by default, elevating Obama. When a veteran Republican who's been on the national scene for a quarter-century and a Democrat whom nobody had heard of 20 minutes ago appear to be equal in stature, then by definition the Democrat wins.

I do have a bone to pick with Mr Steyn - I wouldn't have said that McCain "cheerfully" crashes planes. That sort of attack is just uncalled for.

Debates Wrap-up: Wynken, Blynken, and Nod

Senator Blinky:

Governor Winky:

TV Audience:

.

McCain puts health of women in air quotes

Cynical PIG:


From Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards:

"Tonight, John McCain showed he doesn't care about women's health when he described protecting "the health of the woman" as "extreme." John McCain doesn't seem to understand that women's health matters. He blatantly showed that he doesn't trust women to decide what is in the best interest of their own health. Barack Obama, on the other hand, stood up for women's health."

(h/t to Huffington Post.)
.