Archives for posts with tag: Lehrer

In coverage of the first Presidential Debate of 2012, even though Mitt Romney told more lies than Barack Obama,  he was judged the winner because he was aggressive. Never mind the substance, never mind the falsehoods, flip-flops, the breaking of the debate rules; none of that matters to the media, who judged Romney the “Winner”.

By using such logic: John Dillinger made a number of successful bank withdrawals; Jeffrey Dahmer was a chef; Charles Manson was a philosopher; Jim Jones was a wonderful charismatic preacher; and Adolf Hitler was a genetic scientist.

Seriously, how did this country get to the point where honesty, integrity, and the rule of law do not apply to politics? Politicians lie, steal, and cheat, and far too many of us re-elect them anyway. And they rightly take that re-election as permission to act in manners that are even more corrupt. And the media plays right into the hands of these scumbuckets, by focusing on stories and people who add to their profit margins instead of promulgating accurate information.

Yes, Obama sucks at debate. As we have seen before, he brings a rubber chicken to a gun fight, and never seems to learn that “republicans” are not an honest, honorable, law-abiding party. So he gets pummeled in the eyes of the uniformed because he refuses to recognize how big a lot of sociopathic scuzballs his opponents are. But that does not mean that Romney should be judged the “winner” of a contest when he cheated outrageously during said event.

The media as a whole (and the debate moderator) are making the NFL Replacement referees look good. That is how bad the parties and the media have gotten.

Mr. B & C

Think for a minute: Imagine Mr. Blunt and Cranky saying to you, “I promise to be nicer”. How much do those words weigh, traveling through the air? If you answered “nothing”, you’d pretty much be right. So gold times zero equals….yep, zero. So, that’s how much a promise is worth.

In addition, what does “nicer” mean? Kind of vague, you might say, and again you’d be right. So, in addition to being worthless, that hypothetical promise means nothing. Plus, given his track record, do you really believe he’ll be less blunt and cranky? One would hope you don’t.

While reading the fact-check websites from last night’s debate, this writer is reminded of the old adage  quoted in the title of today’s post: Romney made many promises, and they pretty much exemplify both the weightlessness and vagueness that gave rise to the adage. He also is looking pretty crap on the fact-checking websites (more on that tomorrow), which makes his promises even less valuable.

Obama, on the other hand, proved (once again) that he is an inept debater when it comes to style, but told fewer whoppers and made far fewer promises. And of the promises made in 2008?  is a good list of them, and shows that he has actually done pretty well; indeed, some of the promises not kept were due to congressional squabbling and not because the Prexy did not push them.

Promises, promises. We all make them, and their only worth is in how they are kept. Romney has changed positions, lied, blown off fact-checkers and made promises that mathematics prove cannot possibly be kept. Obama has tried to keep his promises, and (so far) at least kept the majority of them.

Mr. B& C