● Biden Voting Record Lies: Biden claimed to vote against both the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War and he claimed to vote against the Bush Tax Cuts. He then blamed the deficit on those. First of all, he voted FOR all three. So that is a blatant lie. Secondly, the deficit charge is false as the deficit can be traced to domestic spending wanted by Obama for his cronies, i.e. stimulus, TARP, jobs bills, and the increased baselines caused by that spending. In the government, once a baseline for spending is established, it grows automatically. That’s why the deficits remain about a trillion dollars and will continue.
● Catholic Lies: Biden claimed, “no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise” will be forced to provide contraception or insurance for contraception. “That is a fact. That is a fact.” Actually, that’s a lie, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops debunked this after the debate. Under Obamacare, the Obama administration is forcing Catholic and other religious groups to provide contraception and abortion drugs through their insurance policies. Obamacare contains a “narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employees’.” But that does not apply to the organizations themselves. Basically, it’s things like priests. And the very hospitals Biden mentioned as exempt have been declared not-exempt by Obama’s HHS. That is why the Catholics and several other religious groups have all sued alleging a First Amendment religious freedom violation.
● AARP Lies: In the first debate, Obama claimed AARP supported his healthcare plans. AARP shot him down harshly, claiming they are non-partisan and saying that they don’t endorse. Despite this, Biden repeated the claim which AARP itself has debunked. Also, as an aside, it should be pointed out that AARP plans to make between $55 million and $166 million from selling private insurance when Obamacare kills Medicare Advantage, so they are hardly impartial as Biden claims.
● Millionaire Tax Distortion: Joe kept saying that the Bush Tax Cuts Obama wants to let expire are on “millionaires and billionaires.” They are in fact on anyone earning $250,000 a year. That includes small businesses. It is also not an asset tax, it is an income tax, so it gets productive people not “the idle rich” as liberals often claim.
● Medicare Lies: “What we did is we saved $716 billion and put it back – applied it to Medicare.” Wow. Totally false. Obama yanked $716 billion out of Medicare’s budget and called it savings. But no specific savings have been identified. This is simply a budget cut and Medicare has been told to find the savings. This is like saying “I’m going to spend $10,000 less on food next year” and then calling yourself frugal today for finding “food plan savings.” Also, the money was then used as an accounting gimmick to fund Obamacare by reducing the price of the government’s healthcare efforts overall. The money is gone. It is not a saving, it was not re-applied to Medicare as Biden claims. And when you cut $716 billion from a program that is already paying so little that doctors won’t take it anymore, you will destroy the program.
● Palin Prognostication Fantasy: Joe claimed that he and Sarah Palin argued over “death panels” in their 2008 VP debate. The “death panels” weren’t first mentioned until 2009, a year later.
● “Death Panel” Lies II: Joe categorically said that the 15 member “death panel” would in no way cut people’s care. He tried to call them a “best practices board.” However, their function is to impose cost controls, not raise practice standards. That means they will cut types and quantities of care.
● Benghazi Lies: Biden claimed the administration wasn’t told that the Embassy in Libya wanted more security. This was debunked at Congressional hearings the day before the debate. The State Department repeatedly turned down requests for more security. When asked to “clarify” Biden’s comments, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that Biden wasn’t speaking for the administration. So who was he speaking for?
● Ryan Record Lies: Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for.” First, the Ryan budget never became law. Secondly, Ryan’s budget never addressed embassy spending, it called for a 19% cut in non-defense discretionary spending. To get the $300 million figure, Biden assumes an across-the-board cut even though the cuts would in reality be targeted on other programs, like stimulus and green loan programs.
● Iranian Fantasies: Somehow, Biden claims that even though Iran is working on the fizzle material for a bomb (the most important part) they somehow “aren’t working on a bomb.” This is ridiculous. This is like saying you aren’t working on a car just because you haven’t started buying tires while you complete the engine. Secondly, there is no reliable intelligence to support this claim. Third, they can get the bomb itself from North Korea by AllahFedEx overnight. Fourth, they don’t even need a “bomb” if they make a dirty bomb. Biden is acting like you need an ICBM to deliver an atomic nightmare, he’s lying.
● Syrian Fantasies: When it came to Syria, “foreign policy” expert Biden first wrongly claimed that Syria is five times larger than Libya (Syria is actually ten times smaller), that the US has not tried to work through the UN (which is a total lie – Turkey even blasted the UN yesterday for moving too slowly), and he bizarrely claimed that the Obama Administration has been training Syrian rebels, something which is not only emphatically not true, but also highly provocative. If Romney had made such a stupid statement, Team Obama would be screaming bloody murder.
● Ryan’s Entitlement Reform Lies: Biden claimed that “not one Democrat” endorsed Ryan’s entitlement plan. The plan was create with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin. Both now claim they don’t support it, but they did at the time.
● Obama Record Lies: Biden scoffed at anything Ryan said about Obama’s record, from the unemployment rate to the size of the deficits. He never specifically called these lies, but he did so generally twice when he said that nothing Ryan had said was true. He also said “not a single thing he said is accurate” when Ryan pointed out that Obama failed to speak up for Iranian protestors in 2009 and that they called Syria’s Assad a “reformer,” both of which are true.
● Military Cut Lies: In one of the more bizarre moments, Biden claimed the Republicans (Paul Ryan specifically) want to cut $1 trillion from the military, while simultaneously claiming they want to spend $2 trillion more. Neither claim is true. The automatic spending cuts were the idea of Harry Reid and were adopted by Obama – the Republicans opposed those. Obama has refused every attempt to change those and has now been forced to go into damage control, illegally claiming he will compensate defense contractors if they wait until after the election to lay people off.
Finally, it is interesting to note that Joe interrupted Ryan 85 times during the 90 minute debate (and that doesn’t count the smirks). If you factor out the time the moderator spoke and the roughly ten minutes for opening and closing statements, you are looking at more than one interruption a minute. It’s no wonder his bad manners became the takeaway... and that the MSM would rather focus on that than his lies. But what do you expect from a man who regularly uses racist and sexist quips, who regularly exploits his wife’s death for political sympathy, and who not only lied about his own personal background but who plagiarized it from another politician, see Bidenisms.
74 comments:
Wow. I knew the guy lied a lot, but I didn't know his lies were so brazen. There must be something wrong with him.
I wonder if the lesson Obama will take from this is that he can be a jackass to Romney or if he can lie through his teeth? It must be nice being a Democrat and knowing that the MSM will never call you on anything.
I missed the debate, but considering that the Iranians have an abundance of oil and natural gas there is no non-military reason for them to invest in nuclear technology.
Plugs would be funny if he weren’t the VP of the USA…just wow!
I say again: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
This is what we saw of B-B-B-Biden, he pounded the table. It was B-B-B-Biden’s typical horsecrap, he’s been full of it his entire career, his bouts with plagiarism, Neal Kinnock, etc. are legendary.
DUQ, I think Biden is a pathological liar. I honestly do. I've met a couple of those in my life and his behavior fits it perfectly. He simply feels compelled to say something that he thinks sounds good whether or not it's true. That's what his debate performance was like.
In terms of being a Democrat, it must be a strange feeling knowing that you won't be held to account. On the other hand, it won't make they very sharp, will it?
Anthony, Iran has been quite open about their plans to get a bomb and to destroy Israel. The only way to think they aren't building a bomb is to ignore their own claims, to ignore every intelligence agency in the world, and to pretend that somehow Iran is enriching uranium for kicks.
Even the IAEA has concluded they are building a bomb and that organization is generally incapable of being that direct about anyone.
Stan, It is embarrassing that this man in the VP. Our country deserves a heck of a lot better. And you're right, when you have no facts or argument, pound the table and that was his strategy throughout.
In fact, some people think he overdid it s that Obama wouldn't seem as rude when he tries the same thing with Romney, but I'm not sure I believe that. This was just classic Biden.
Just b/c the history behind Ryan budget plan is a topic of interest for me, I thought I would add the reasons why Alice Rivlin's withdrawal of support from the plan is deeply cynical.
First, the defining characteristic of the Ryan plan as regards Medicare is the premium support system it proposes. This feature was developed jointly by both Rivlin and Ryan and in fact it is what brought them together in the first place.
Second, Rivlin continues to maintain an objection that the Ryan plan does not allow seniors the choice b/w premium support and traditional Medicare. This was true of earlier versions of the Ryan plan, but not the current one. Rivlin is simply choosing to remain ignorant lest she be left with her only remaining objection...
Last, she objects to the proposed rate of growth of subsidies in the Ryan plan. It's unclear whether she objects to the current proposed rate or some former proposition. In either case, it's clearly a wonkish objection over a facet that is extremely likely to change both before and after the plan is implemented should it ever do so.
It would appear that Rivlin's withdrawal of support from the Ryan plan is a partisan political maneuver rather than a reflection of any serious concern over the actual workings of the plan.
tryanmax, Thanks for adding that. I think both her withdrawal and Wyden's are deeply cynical. I think they have withdrawn because they want to play partisan politics, not because they disapprove of the plan. And what you are saying backs that up a good deal.
On the Ryan plan, I think the one criticism that Biden made which was troubling and which Ryan does need to address is the idea that if everyone's retirement had been in the stock market before 2008, our retirement system would be in collapse today.
That is a false criticism, but I think it needs to be addressed because people will believe the criticism because it sounds right.
Andrew, I know what you are saying to be true, but I'm no expert in such matters. What argument would you make?
I don't think that Mark Twain quote is accurate....
Yeah, I already knew about Moron's voting record on Afghanistan and Iraq, and about the millionaire tax lies, and that the bishops had come out and rejected his claim about the Church being totally free. So, naturally, I thought I had mined all the lies from Biden in that "debate." Obviously not.
A somewhat less relevant issue: After the debate, some people on Fox who knew him said Biden was a great guy in person, the kind of guy who would give you the shirt off his back, it was just in public that he was so...you know. I'm not sure I buy that. It's one thing to have a public persona that's different from your private persona; it's another to act like a nice guy in person and then go out and lie your head off to the camera. I don't think I'd enjoy his company under any circumstances, regardless of what they say. Unless Biden honestly believes what he's saying is true, which in his case can never be entirely discounted.
Sorry, I should have added those.
First, the Ryan plan does not allow anyone to invest anywhere they want. It's like a normal work-approved IRA where you get a selection of basically mutual funds that mix bonds and stocks, each of which is basically tied to overall market performance.
Secondly, retirement is about long term and that is key. If you bought in 2007 and sold in 2008, then you got screwed. But if you held it through 2009, then you got most of your loses back already. And if you hold it 20-50 years, as you would be required, you will be up more than you would with the government paying you 3% or whatever it is.
Third, the comparison is a lie. Right now there is no money in SSI. It's all an accounting gimmick that uses current tax revenues to pay claims. So the idea that people would somehow be broke in the stock market but their savings are safe today is utterly false. There are no savings today. Essentially, every penny the government collects is gone.
Fourth, if American retirements were in the stock market, I suspect that a lot of the abuses the government allows today (like micro trades) would not be allowed.
tryanmax, Let me add that the stock market for decades 1930-2000 was about investment. But in the past decade (beginning under Clinton) it became about manipulation and speculation, just as it was in the 1880s and the 1920 (the prior two huge crashes).
That needs to be fixed.
Somewhat related--I think it's worth noting, in light of our concerns about how Ryan looked during the debate, that his approach seems to have gone over well with senior citizens. The Atlantic has an article about his positive reception with seniors, who described him as a nice young man and Biden as "boorish." Only one data point, but given the numbers in which seniors vote, it could be significant.
T-Rav, Are you sure? I looked it up. I'm pretty sure I copied it right! ;)
Yep, there were many more lies. Another one I didn't include was his thing about being friends with Netanyahu for 39 years -- Netanyahu was an Army officer 39 years ago. He wasn't even in politics.
I heard the same thing from the people at Fox and it bothered me a good deal when they said it. For one thing, it struck me as absolutely wrong as well. Or said differently, it struck me as evidence of some mental illness on the part of Biden. This debate wasn't an outlier. I've seen Biden give similar performances his entire career. The guy defines sleaze. And if they are claiming that he's somehow this nice guy in private, then there is something truly wrong with the man.
T-Rav, I think Ryan could have done a lot better, but that's not to say that he didn't leave a positive impression. I would imagine that he played well with seniors and with women, both of whom are key demographics for this ticket.
The brazenness of these lies is what shocks me. He's got to know that people will catch him, so why does he do it?
Doc, That's the problem. Who is going to catch him? The MSM won't cover it. His followers don't want to know, or else they'll just dismiss it as Joe being Joe or part of the campaign. The only people who will catch it are conservatives and he knows that the center and left won't listen to them. It's like a free ticket.
The one that bothers me is the Medicare thing. They keep repeating this same lie over and over and I'm worried that people will buy it. Great analogy too about the food budget. That's exactly what they've done, they've just yanked out money and are now calling that "savings" even though they haven't identified where the cuts will happen.
Thanks Doc. That's exactly what it is -- they have simply cut the budget without specifying where the cuts would come from and are thus defining those as "savings" because so far nothing has had to be cut. In other words, they're pretending that they cut $716 billion and that nothing will ever be cut because cuts will magically morph into things just being cheaper. It's total fraud.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Twain said - he was quite the prognosticator!
rlaWTX, I am too. Interestingly, the quote never made sense to me until this week! ;)
I think Obama will behave like a jerk tomorrow night. I think he'll tell a few lies, but the bigger thing will be that he keeps blasting Romney for being rich.
DUQ, I think Obama will be very nasty and the only way to do that is either to be a total jerk like Biden or to keep trying to smear Romney. I think that's the route Obama will take. I don't think he's smirk and be like that, but he will say nasty things in his angry voice and he will interrupt and say "that's just not factually accurate" repeatedly.
Andrew and DUQ, I hope the Romney people were paying attention last week. They should be assuming Obama will come out swinging and be prepared to blast away at his lies. If he's going to hand us all this rope, let's make sure he hangs himself with it.
T-Rav, I hope so. I suspect they were. Romney's no fool and he needs to know that Obama will be more aggressive, and Biden gives a good indication of the kinds of things his handlers are saying. So hopefully Romney is prepared to deal with the interruptions, the lies, the attacks. He needs to be prepared to hear "47%" so much that he wants to throw up.
He needs a solid counter for that, as well as he needs to be prepared to not only defend Bain but to twist it back to creating jobs.
If Obama does what Biden did, and Romney is as talented as I think, then he should be able to destroy Obama because Obama doesn't have a clue how to do what he's going to try to do.
It frustrates me that Biden is a such a fool but the media pretends he's not, yet they take smart Republicans and try to make them sound like fools.
Nightcrawler, I think even the media admits that Biden is a fool--or foolish--but only in his mannerisms, not the substance of what he says. At best, they'll only say that he's as foolish as those crazy Republicans, and not more so.
T-Rav, The problem as I see it, is that they only admit it when they have to and then they do it as 'well, that's just Joe being Joe,' like it's funny or something. They never ever accuse him of being stupid or attack him as a fool or incapable. On the other hand, they constantly attack Republicans as being fools and stupid and whatever. It really bothers me.
The Syrian business by the wayu can't be counted as a gaffe in my opinion. Biden was chiding Ryan for criticizing Obama's Syrian foreign policy.
First he made the assumption Ryan meant to start a war (not what ryan said if I remember).
Then began to berate Ryan for wanting to start a war with Syria bgy stating that unlike Libya we can't afford a war with them (I did not know we declared war in Lybia - we sent planes no boots on the ground).
The reason that the war in Syria was not possible was it had five times the land mass and less population.
This was not somebody misremembering or mistaken. This was someone who unable to answer a point pulled "a bunch of stuff" his rear end and ran with it cause it sounded good and no one was going to have time to refute him because he would not let them talk.
Got give Slow Joe ponts in BS skills.
Nightcrawler, I agree. It's frustrating. Double standards are always frustrating.
T-Rav, That's true. They always portray it as stylistic thing or like Joe just has a bad memory or a strange sense of humor. They never hold him to it the way they do with conservatives.
nightcrawler, Agreed. It's really annoying that they will set out to destroy Republicans but will do their best to deflect anything aimed at the Democrats.
Indi, I don't think any of these were a gaffe. I think these were direct lies meant to obscure what they were talking about.
On Syria, I think Joe intentionally set out to make it sound like Ryan wants to start a war so he could deflect the fact that Obama has done nothing -- basically, destroy the critic. Then he needed to explain why it was ok to have a war in Libya, but not Syria. That's how Libya got involved. So he made up whatever he could to make it sound like the two countries are different when they really aren't. Then he needed to make it sound like Obama actually has done something, so he added the bit about training the rebels and working with Turkey.
I think his position basically was created as needed and evolved in response to Ryan's comments. And the truth of what he said never matter to him so long as it sounded plausible to an uninformed audience when he said it.
Fact checking Biden is like fact checking the liar's dictionary. Nice job though, but I went with the assumption that if his lips were moving, he was lying.
As an aside, has anybody seen the polls saying that the Democrats are going to win the Senate? Is that accurate?
Obama claimed AARP supported his healthcare plans. AARP shot him down harshly, claiming they are non-partisan
AARP DID support Obamacare. It cost them so many seniors leaving the organization that they are now claiming that they didn't. AARP is a far left organization and has been for some time. The lies in this case are from the AARP.
LINK
K, That's true, but that hasn't stopped AARP from claiming they didn't and don't and that they don't endorse Obama. They made that very clear after Obama said they did in the last debate and then Biden went ahead and said the exact same thing.
Ellen, It is indeed an impossible task, and it's easier to point out when (and if) Biden tells the truth than when he's lying.
Ellen, On the Senate, there are no reliable polls that can tell us anything. But right now, things don't look good for the GOP using the current polls. I just don't think you can trust those.
Andrew
Just as an aside....
If you only printed the things Biden said which were true you would only had to write a half page article.
Just saying ......
I wish Ryan were a little quicker in the Syria debate and said to Biden...
uh... Joe you say Syria is five times the size of Libya. Is that your final answer....
Would have been funny and left slow joe dumbfounded
Indi, If even! Beyond his name and the fact he's the VP, I'm not sure he said much else that was true.
Indi, That would have been funny. It probably would have been a problem because then the MSM would have talked about both of them being ill mannered, but it still would have been funny.
I just saw that Obama out raised Romney. Grr.
DUQ, At that level, it doesn't really matter. Plus, Obama has a long way to go to catch up.
Interestingly, 93% of Romney's money came from small donors who gave $250 or less.
Nice article. Despite being called on it, Obama/Biden are still using the tactic that if you say a lie often enough, some may think it is true.
I thought Rush made an interesting observation today. Because the Obama campaign is going back to Bain and the 47% comment, it may mean they have nothing else. No October surprise. This is all they have to go on and the only thing that has had any effect. I suspect that it's effect has already occured and now people grow weary of it; that is it may have been used too early.
The more I read about the VP debate, the more I like the fact that Ryan did not attack. I have found that it is impossible to rationalize with an irrational person. Now generally this has been with patients who have psych or personality disorders. But, if Biden acts like a nice guy to you in private but rips you apart in public, he has a personality disorder and cannot be trusted. It is usually best just to let them rant.
Koshcat, Thanks! I agree. :)
I think the fact they are falling back on this 47% thing and Bain thing are clear indications that they have nothing else. Otherwise, they would have used it after the debate to try to stop Romney's momentum.
I also agree that it's played out. I'm not sure it every worked actually, but whatever effect it had is clearly long gone by now. So when Obama tries to go back to it tomorrow night, it will seem stale and won't have nearly the effect they think it will.
It's like "the Ryan plan" which they thought would have a huge impact, but has been pretty much ignored.
On Biden, I would have liked to see Ryan debunk more of the attacks and maintain a consistent theme. But I agree that sparing with Biden would not have been a good idea. You can never win when you fight with a fool. You just end up looking foolish. And I think Ryan managed to avoid that.
As for the best practices board, i.e. Death Panel, their goal is to use comparative research and limit the choice of therapy to the least expensive one while maintaining efficacy.
My group contracts much of our administrative work to a larger company. I am a member of multiple committees in the company, one of them looking at this issue in Oncology specifically. For some things this is easy, but for most of medicine it is very difficult. For example, you may have two treatment regimens for a particular disease and one may use less expensive drugs. But sometimes that cost doesn't take into other ancillary costs. The cheaper regimen may have more side effects requiring other meds to control or more likely to hospitalize a patient than another regimen. One hospitalization can often completely offset the savings collected from multiple therapies.
I suspect they will start with simple and easy wins but it will get complicated and messy fast. I need to get on that committee so I can be a god!
Tell me if this makes sense....
According to a USA Today/Gallup, Romney is tied with Obama for the women's vote (48% to 48%) and he leads Obama among men by 12%. YET, his overall lead is only 4%.
Who is this third group where Romney is losing enough to take away 8% of his lead among men?
The underpants Gnomes!
Koshcat, I understand and like the idea of a true best practices board. But medicine is not like manufacturing and as you point out, there are different treatments that work to different degrees in different circumstances. I think that any committee sitting in DC trying to come up with a plan for how to treat everyone is doomed to failure. I think it will simply end up as a cost/benefit board where they will decide that certain treatments are just too expensive compared to the odd of success.
I also think they are likely to do what Britain has done and start putting limits on the types of procedures that can be offered based on age, health, etc.
I forgot about the underpants Gnomes! They do vote en mass. LOL!
The one thing CMS hasn't done, and I believe it is against the law for them to do it, is negotiate prices with pharmaceutical agents. NICE does this often by first saying that the benefit is too expensive using an arbitrary cost per year of life gained. Arbitrary because nobody knows what that should be. It used to be $50,000 because that is what one year of dialysis used to cost. Many settled on $100,000 but some of the newer cancer drugs that you have never heard of can cost upwards of $500,000 per year of life gained primarily because the drug cost is high and the benefit is small. If these drugs were $50, nobody would complain about trying to see if they worked. I am not talking about price controls, which the government already has on IV drugs but true negotiation. "We will not pay for your drug at $10,000/mo for 3 weeks of survival benefit. We would be willing to pay $1000." Personally, I would like to see the government out of it entirely or at minimum a defined benefit plan (premium support).
Andrew, it comes from using 2008 numbers again. That year was a low-water mark for male voter turnout. Women began outvoting men in presidential elections in 1984, where their turnout was 1% higher than men's. From that time to 2004, the gap increased each year to 5%. In 2008, that number jumped to 8%.
USA Today/Gallup could be justified in ignoring 2010 in this case b/c that gap almost always narrows to ~1-2% in non-presidential elections. However, assuming the jump will hold at 8% is rather brazen. A better estimate would be something on the trend-line around 6%.
Koshcat, It is against the law, and I think it's rather stupid that they can't negotiate drug prices. I've never understood that restriction.
In terms of the cancer drugs, I've heard about some of those prices and truly don't understand how something could be that expensive.
tryanmax, I see. So what you're saying is that the sample massively over-weights women to basically wipe out 2/3 of the "male gap." I can see how that would work, but I would think that would mean the sample is weigh more over-weighted toward women than 8%.
You're probably right, but I was never very good at statistics.
It's possible. It just strikes me that it would need to be heavily biased toward women to get there. But I'm not big on stats either.
Andrew and Tyranmax
Assuming women are 48% Romney and 48% Obama
and Men are 54% Romney and 42% OBama.
then if Men are 1/3 of Vaters and Women 2/3
(54% *0.33 = .1782 and 48% * 0.67 = .3216 or 49.98%
(42% * 0.67 = .1386 and 48% * 0.67 = .3216 or
46.02%
This difference of 3.96% would algebraicly calculate to 4% even using 1/3 and 2/3.
So based on this simple check of the numbers for the poll to be accurate one must assume that women will out vote men 2 to 1.
Hmmmmmm..........
Indi, Thanks! :)
My math skills are too rusty to do that, but I would have guessed it was something like a 2-1 ratio to reduce 12% to 4%. So call me cynical, but I'm thinking the poll is wrong.
As an aside, I checked out the latest PPP poll on Ohio and they actually claimed that 19% of voters had already voted even though mathematically it couldn't have been more than 3%. And they claimed Obama had something like a 72% lead on those ballots, even thought Republicans and Democrats were about even in requesting the ballots. The level of polling malpractice is insane these days.
What really gets my donkey, is the way the O campaign has just flouted the law when it comes to online donations. They have turned off all security protocols and verification. So ANYONE....from ANY country, can contribute to the campaign in any amount. Not only that, but unions can use "stimulus" money to give back to the O campaign with no trace back. So, we taxpayers are funding the O campaign probably.
Us and the Chinese/Russians/Name that regime could elect the next President of this country. Amazing....... Hello media...media? (chirp, chirp, chirp)
Andrew - been out all day, but I must hand it to you--seeing all the bullshit Joey laid out there the other night in a nice concise list like that is impressive. Well done. It kind of reminds me just how hypocritical Team Chicago is to be talking about anybody lying.
Andrew, they managed that by counting the number of absentee ballots requested, not the number received or returned (and even the requested number is almost certainly high). PPP is off its rocker. They just used a D+10 sample in polling North Carolina (and still found it going for Romney by 2).
Patriot, I know. They've made a total mockery of the law. It's the kind of thing that someone should be prosecuting or they should drop the law. Unfortunately, the media won't cover it and the Justice Department won't look into it.
Thanks Jed! I thought it was important, even though the debate is largely meaningless, because it's important that people see how blatant his lies were. Plus, I think Obama will repeat some of them tomorrow night.
T-Rav, They are stunningly biased. Who in their right mind would think that a D+10 could be justified in North Carolina? California yes, North Carolina no.
Interesting about the ballots. They painted it as "already voted" in their release. And even then they said Obama had something like a 72% lead, which just makes no sense.
Andrew
No Problem
That is what we bean counters are for
Indi, I'm more of a big bean-picture kind of guy. ;)
I'm confused. Wouldn't it take far less than women out voting men 2:1 to wipe out an 8% lead among men? Again, I was never good at stats.
Don't ask me, I just think here. I hand off the math work.
Andrew, it's absolutely not what it looks like. There is no way that many Ohioans have already voted. But while I'm on the subject, I want to reiterate that I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer have to hang everything on Ohio. If that state's going to keep being a @#$%&, then we need to look for paths to victory without it, and leave it to its own blue-leaning devices.
T-Rav, Yeah, I'm getting kind of sick of Ohio too. Frankly, I'm sick of the elections being this close. I miss the days of Reagan when we were winning states like California and New York as well as all the usual suspects.
>>Who is this third group where Romney is losing enough to take away 8% of his lead among men?>>
Painfully obvious Andrew missed Walton Goggins' appearance on Sons of Anarchy last week.
On a more serious note, thanks for this, AP! Could have used it 24 hours earlier to use as prep before heading into a lions' den on Carl Kozlowski's "Koz Effect" with two blinders-up lefties who declared Biden and his debate tactics the winner, and one center-left Obama supporter at least intellectually honest enough to admit Romney won his debate, but I can't always expect you to do my homework for me. Think I still held my own, though I'll let y'all decide once Carl has the podcast available.
Eric, Best of luck with the lefties. Sorry this took so long! LOL!
Post a Comment