"The assault weapons ban enacted under President Clinton was deficient and has expired. Mr. Obama talked about the need for “common sense” gun control after the movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colo., and he hinted during the campaign that he might support a new assault weapons ban, presumably if someone else introduced it. Republicans will never do that, because they are mired in an ideology that opposes any gun control."-- New York Times editorial, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: First, this is a distortion (or at least an exaggeration). Republicans do not oppose all gun control whatsoever. In fact, they support many gun control laws, just not as many as Democrats and the editors of The New York Times do. Second, The New York Times editorial page is indulging in "ideologues" rhetoric. Lastly, The New York Times editorial page correctly points out that President Barack Obama earlier indulged in "common sense" rhetoric.
***
"And by the way, what we shouldn’t do -- I just got to say this -- what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. We shouldn’t be doing that. These so-called “right to work” laws, they don't have to do with economics; they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money. … We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. … So we’ve got to get past this whole situation where we manufacture crises because of politics. That actually leads to less certainty, more conflict, and we can't all focus on coming together to grow."-- President Barack Obama, December 10, 2012, speaking at the Daimler Detroit Diesel Plant in Redford, MI.
Comment: Obama is indulging in "politicizing" rhetoric. How is it "just politics" to support so-called "right to work" laws? Are there no legitimate non-"political" reasons for supporting such laws? It's not at all plausible to support them on the basis that they increase employment, or because they give people the freedom to hold an occupation without having to join a union? Maybe Obama disagrees with these arguments, but are they bad arguments to the point that the position itself can only be supported by people who are engaging in a crass version of politics? Of course not, that's a caricature. Also, it's a platitude for Obama to say that we want a race "to the top" and not the bottom. Of course we all want that, what we disagree about is which policies will yield that result. Finally, Obama indulges in "unify the country" rhetoric by calling for us to come together. How are we supposed to do that? In particular, how are we supposed to unify when so many people -- Obama included -- are engaging in name-calling?
***
"[F]olks, here's the thing that is a hard, cold reality to me. I've been doing this 25 years. I think back to previous years, in fact, eras of this program. And we did our feminist updates, and what were the feminist updates? We chronicled and laughed at what was being done in universities. We laughed at some of the radical, cockeyed ideas that radical feminists and feminazis were doing. … While all this is being built, and while it's happening, we're pointing out the intellectual holes in the data. We're pointing out the faults in the so-called logic of the argument. In the meantime it was taking hold with a whole bunch of young people starting with Ted Turner's Captain Planet cartoon series on Saturday morning, to who knows what else was happening. … It's really been fascinating in one regard. It's disappointing in another, scary in another. But they bought and believe as fervently as anything you believe the stuff that we were laughing at, deservedly so. … But now these people all come out, these young tech bloggers, even some in the sports media, doesn't matter where you go, this young, hip, pop culture demographic, not only do they believe all the stuff we were laughing at, they have a moral superiority about their countenance. What they believe is morally superior to say what I believe, what they believe and what they live and how they live is morally superior. So they kind of look down their noses at people. They do not and will not consider opposing arguments because the people who make them have been discredited with character assassination and so forth. … Let's put it this way. When you've got a majority of people this country who can be made to believe that Mitt Romney hates dogs with a commercial of a dog in a cage on the roof of a station wagon with ostensibly the Romney family inside on the family vacation, then I would suggest we've got a problem. Take whatever other insult or mischaracterization or character assault on conservatives that you can believe and there is a moral superiority to the people who believe this stuff. It's not that they believe it, it is that there is an arrogant condescension about them. They're close-minded. There's no other possible way to explain things that are happening other than what they believe."-- Radio pundit Rush Limbaugh, November 30, 2012.
Comment: This is a caricature of some sort. Perhaps it's the "only my opponent" caricature. Is it really the case that liberals and progressives -- but not conservatives -- believe that their ideas are morally superior? And only liberals and progressives are condescending, arrogant, insulting and close-minded about it? And conservatives don't resort to character assassination?
***
"Schools are fucking ruined, and schools are ruined not because they’re out of money, but because we’re flooded with Mexicans, and they’re not into studying. They don’t come from that culture, and we’re not asking them to change. That’s the thing. We have a culture that is not focused on the schoolwork. It’s a different culture. It’s, by the way, why their culture is failing, and their country, ironically, it’s why they’re here. They’re here because they ain’t into studying. And somebody needs to tell them to get into studying. The family has to get into studying. The families have to be -- the family is all you’re ever going to use, or all you’re ever going to need, when it comes to this topic. There’s just not enough money for the school system. There’s not enough principals. You’ve heard this speech a million times. Families need to take cultures. Basically what we need to is go, ‘Look, here’s our culture. Our culture values family, studying and hard work and education.’ That’s our culture. Now you’re presumably coming from a country that does not focus on that as much in your culture."-- Comedian Adam Carolla, November 28, 2012, on a podcast for The Adam Carolla Show.
Comment: What is Carolla's evidence for these remarks about Mexicans? That they don't value schoolwork or studying, hard work or education? What proof does he have that this is true of Mexican culture as a whole? People can have any number of reasons for leaving their home country, education isn't necessarily one of them. And, while it's undoubtedly true that there are people who don't apply themselves to school and education as much as they could (or should), does it follow that the entire culture they belong to is dismissive of education? This seems like hasty generalization at best, and an awfully derisive caricature -- even racist -- at worst.
***
"These Tea Bag bastards -- who by the way, I just wish they would all just go away -- or, like in Passover, I just wish there was an angel of the Lord that would pass over -- instead of killing the first born in all the households of Egypt just wipe out all the Tea Baggers. Just, you know, the terrible swift sword, just [mimics sound of sword] -- lop their heads off!"-- Radio pundit Mike Malloy, November 26, 2012.
Comment: Malloy's slurs amount to name-calling, and his Biblical allusion is violent rhetoric.
***
"[A] vocal minority on the hard-left continues to argue to the leaders of their party -- from the President on down -- that Democrats in Washington should do absolutely nothing about short-term or long-term spending problems. This is the Thelma and Louise crowd, the ones who dream about higher taxes and the bigger government it will pay for, regardless of the impact on jobs or the economy or America’s standing in the world. These are the ones who recklessly ignore the fact that we can’t keep running trillion dollar deficits every year and throw a tantrum if somebody suggests that maybe the taxpayers shouldn’t keep subsidizing every last program Washington ever dreamed up. Their reckless and ideological approach threatens our future. And anyone who’s serious about solving the problems we face should ignore it, starting with the President. … It’s time for the President to present a plan that rises above these reckless and radical voices on the hard-Left, that goes beyond the talking points of the campaign trail, and that has a realistic chance of passing the Congress. The time for campaigning is over. It’s time for the President to lead."-- Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), November 26, 2012, from the floor of the Senate.
Comment: First, who is saying this? McConnell doesn't name who holds the "Thelma and Louise" position he describes. The danger -- which brings us to the second point -- is that McConnell is creating a straw man, a caricature of his opponents. They really don't care at all about the impact on the U.S. economy? Third, McConnell is engaging in "ideological" rhetoric, as well as "radical" rhetoric, as well as "talking points" rhetoric.
***
Referring to TV pundit Melissa Harris-Perry, Doyle says the "bitchy broad factor" is on show at MSNBC. He says of the "self-absorbed ninny" Harris-Perry, "She's just a steaming turd on the side of the road of life … Something you get on the bottom of your shoe and you can't scrape off".-- Radio pundit Jerry Doyle, November 21, 2012. Doyle was responding to Harris-Perry's commentary on Thanksgiving.
Comment: This is just name-calling. If Doyle disagrees with Harris-Perry's views about Thanksgiving, then he should explain why. But he can do that without resorting to the language of disgust.
***
OBAMA: You know, when I came into office, we were still bogged down in Iraq, and Afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on Afghanistan. And we did deliver a surge of troops. That was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in Iraq.-- President Barack Obama, October 22, 2012, during the third presidential debate in Boca Raton, FL, between Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: It's not clear what Obama means by "bogged down" in Iraq. By December 2008 and January 2009 (the latter month is when Obama was inaugurated into office), Iraqi civilian deaths, US and Iraqi military deaths were among the lowest they had been since the invasion in 2003. Moreover, President George W. Bush by then had signed a status of forces agreement (SOFA) which set a 2011 withdrawal date for US forces from Iraq. In 2011, the Obama administration attempted to extend the presence of US forces in Iraq beyond the SOFA, but could not reach an agreement on a new SOFA, so US forces withdrew as planned. Arguably, Obama is distorting the situation to make his contributing to winding down the Iraq War greater than it really was.
***
OBAMA: The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that during the course of this campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake because when I've sent young men and women into harm's way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.-- President Barack Obama, October 22, 2012, during the third presidential debate in Boca Raton, FL, between Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: Obama is misrepresenting Romney's position on military action. Perhaps Romney is willing to resort to military action sooner than Obama is, but Obama represents Romney as believing that military action should be the first resort. Where has Romney said that?
***
OBAMA: I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. You know, when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it’s come surging back.-- President Barack Obama, October 16, 2012, during the second presidential debate in Hempstead, NY, between Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: This is a distortion. Romney never said he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt. He said he didn't think GM and Chrysler should get bailouts. GM and Chrysler are not the totality of the US auto industry -- referred to as "Detroit" by Obama -- there is Ford along with foreign manufacturers that have factories in the US and employ US auto workers (like Chrysler, which is now owned by Italy's Fiat). More, without bailouts, GM and Chrysler would not necessarily have gone out of business. Many companies go through the legal process of bankruptcy and continue to do business. Also, Obama is perhaps questioning the patriotism of people who opposed the auto bailouts by saying he "bet on American workers", as if refusing to bail out an American company means you don't support American workers or believe that they can succeed.
***
BIDEN: "You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems every vice presidential debate I hear this kind of stuff about panels."-- Vice President Joe Biden, October 11, 2012, during the vice presidential debate in Danville, KY, between Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Comment: First, Ryan didn't say anything about "death panels", he simply said that the Medicare board (that is, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, AKA IPAB) would "lead to denied care". So Biden is distorting Ryan's remarks. Second, Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) engaged in a vice presidential debate with Biden on October 2, 2008, months before she made her "death panels" comment on August 7, 2009.
***
As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, "Tell him: You can do it." Obama grinned. "That's the only advice I need," he said. "I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I'm a killer." "Thought about lowering the voting age?" Bates joked. "You know, kids have good instincts," Obama offered. "They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bullshitter, I can tell.'"-- President Barack Obama, October 11, 2012, during interview with Douglas Brinkley for Rolling Stone Magazine.
Comment: If Obama believes Romney has engaged in distortions, misrepresentations, and exaggerations, then he should just say so and defend that claim. There's no need for him to refer to Romney with profanity, implying that Romney cares nothing about the truth. Plus, given that Obama has also engaged in distortions, misrepresentations, and exaggerations, would Obama apply the same profanity to himself? Probably not. Finally, do kids really have good instincts? Isn't much of the point of kids' education teaching them things that they don't know instinctively, things that they need to know if they're going to thrive and prosper (or at least avoid drinking cleaning fluids?)?
***
"When I won in 2008, 47% of the American people voted for John McCain, they didn't vote for me. And what I said on election night was, "Even though you didn't vote for me, I hear your voices and I'm going to work as hard as I can to be your president." And one of the things that I've learned as president is you represent the entire country. And when I meet Republicans, as I'm traveling around the country, they are hard-working family people who care deeply about this country. And my expectation is that, if you want to be president, then you've got to work for everybody not just for some."-- President Barack Obama on the "Late Show with David Letterman" on September 18, 2012. Obama was criticizing former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) -- the GOP presidential candidate -- for Romney's comments earlier this year about the 47% of the population who won't vote for him.
Comment: Obama is distorting Romney's remarks. Romney didn't say that his job as President wouldn't involve representing the 47% who didn't vote for him. He clearly said that his job as a candidate for president was not to try to get the votes of people who (Romney believes) are committed to voting for Obama. Instead, he said it was his job to try instead to garner the votes of "the five to ten percent in the center that are independents". Maybe Romney is wrong about who won't vote for him and how much he effort he should expend trying to get different people's vote, but he didn't say what Obama describes him as saying. Obama doesn't like it when his words are taken out of context -- e.g., the "you didn't build that" quote -- he shouldn't do the same to his opponents.
***
"[President Barack Obama] treats private enterprise as little more than a revenue source for government. He views government as the redistributor and allocator of opportunity."-- GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), September 14, 2012, addressing the Values Voter Summit.
Comment: Isn't this a straw man? A caricature?
***
TEXT: “What Did Clinton Say About Obama In 2008?”-- Ad put out by former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-MA) presidential campaign, September 6, 2012.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
Comment: This ad, which is discussed in full in its own post, makes it sound like Clinton is criticizing President Barack Obama's economic policies. But Clinton's remarks in 2008 are clearly talking about Obama's position on the invasion of Iraq.
***
"[A]ll they [i.e., Republicans] have to offer is the same prescription they've had for the last thirty years: "Have a surplus? Try a tax cut." "Deficit too high? Try another." "Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning!""-- President Barack Obama, September 6, 2012, addressing the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: Suppose someone said that all Democrats have to offer is the same policies they've offered for the last 30 years: "more spending, more regulations, call us in the morning"? Would that be a caricature? If so, isn't Obama's description of Republicans also a caricature?
***
"I don't believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy, or help us compete with the scientists and engineers coming out of China. After all that we've been through, I don't believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. We've been there, we've tried that, and we're not going back. We're moving forward."-- President Barack Obama, September 6, 2012, addressing the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is a caricature of what Republicans believe. They believe that some spending on education is wasteful (for instance, that subsidizing college education helps drive up tuition), and they believe that some financial regulations do more harm than good. This is also "failed policies" rhetoric.
***
"Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can't do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can't afford health insurance, hope that you don't get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that's just the price of progress. If you can't afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent's advice and "borrow money from your parents.""-- President Barack Obama, September 6, 2012, addressing the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is also a caricature. Republicans don't believe that government should do "almost nothing", that you should just hope you don't get sick if you don't have health insurance, that air pollution is just something you should put up with, or that if you need money you should borrow it from your parents. It's a caricature of the same sort as if someone were to say that Democrats don't believe people should pay anything for their own food, clothes, housing, or health care, that Democrats say it doesn't matter how many jobs are lost due to environmental regulations, or that Democrats say you should only rely on government for help and never on yourself or your family.
***
"Let me tell you about how Barack saved more than 1 million American jobs. In our first days in office, General Motors and Chrysler were on the verge of liquidation. If the President didn’t act immediately, there wouldn’t be an industry left to save."-- Vice President Joe Biden, September 6, 2012, addressing the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is at least an exaggeration, if not a distortion. It's far from clear that the U.S. auto industry would have disappeared if GM and Chrysler hadn't been bailed out: (1) Companies that go through bankruptcy don't necessarily go out of business, so GM and Chrysler might still have survived without a bailout; (2) Even if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business, there would still be Ford; (3) Besides Ford, there are many other car companies that have factories in the U.S., such as Toyota, Subaru, and Honda. These companies employ auto workers in the U.S., even if they aren't U.S. companies (much like Chrysler, which isn't a U.S. company anymore, either; post-bailout, it is now owned by Italy's Fiat).
***
"Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. This Republican narrative, this alternative universe says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we’re all completely self-made. … We Democrats, we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it, with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. You see, we believe that "We’re all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "You’re on your own.""-- President Bill Clinton, September 5, 2012, during his address at the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: Clinton is right that -- at their convention in Tampa, FL -- Republicans frequently caricatured Democrats as being opposed to free enterprise and individual initiative and wanting to make people dependent on government. But it's also a caricature for Clinton to say that Republicans believe that people are entirely self-made, that they never received any help to get them where they are. Rather, Democrats and Republicans both believe that individual effort and outside assistance play a role in our success, but the disagree with how much of a role they each play, and how much of a role government does and should play. It's a caricature to say that the Republican philosophy is "you're on your own", just as it would be a caricature to say that the Democratic philosophy is "you don't have to work or pay taxes, government will pay your bills for you". Responding to name-calling with more name-calling isn't a good way to uphold civility.
***
"We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don't accept is the idea that some folks won't even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that's exactly what they're promising us."-- Mayor Julian Castro (D-San Antonio), September 4, 2012, during his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is a derisive distortion. Republicans aren't perfectly comfortable with the idea that some folks don't get a chance to prosper. That a caricature just as much as saying that Democrats are perfectly comfortable with the idea of some people becoming an underclass dependent on the government. The real issue here is that Republicans and Democrats disagree about what constitutes getting an adequate chance to prosper, and how much of a role government ought to play in providing that opportunity.
***
"Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it."-- Mayor Julian Castro (D-San Antonio), September 4, 2012, during his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is another derisive distortion. Republicans aren't advocating that we sever all the threads that connect us, any more than Democrats are advocating that we eliminate all individual initiative and liberty.
***
"This decision has made America less free. We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo -- the I.R.S."-- Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME), July 7, 2012.
Comment: This is distortion and exaggeration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare") is nothing like the Gestapo.
***
"What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days, when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward?"-- Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), March 8, 2012.
Comment: Palin is baselessly accusing Obama of having sinister intentions.
***
"This war on women, that people keep mentioning, it really is true. And Rush Limbaugh just happens to be the face of their party [i.e., Republicans], but look at their policies. Look at, you know, it is really state-sponsored rape, these trans-vaginal probes that are the law in some states. In Texas, for instance. … Look at the definition of rape. It is vaginal penetration without a woman's consent. Right? I mean, and the fact that, in Virginia, they went, "Oh, well, now you can just do the over-the-stomach ultrasound" -- that is still an unwanted medical procedure that you're forcing on someone."-- Radio pundit Stephanie Miller, March 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment