Leftist attacks: Substance? Humility? Accuracy?

[Big Red Rick]

So I'm not sure what's new. The last time I took a break and then popped back on, I found out that using the word "ignorant" to describe posts that were misinformed, inaccurate, or just ignorant was not acceptable. Are politics now banned from the Cafe as well? Not trying to step on any toes or break any rules, I'll take a shot and see what happens.

Over the past few cycles, we have seen some information spread about the positions of the left. They have demanded Romney release tax records, we've all heard that. Harry Reid insists that a unnamed source told him that Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years. Never Mind that the IRS pursues people who don't pay their taxes, even the wealthy like Wesley Snipes and Warren Buffett. HM thread - http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...s-For-10-Years

Along with this, the president has noted in several speeches 1, 2 that the republicans want to give the rich a $250,000-per-rich-family tax cut by increasing taxes on the middle class by about $2000 per household.

Then, an ad was aired by a leftist super-pac showing a guy talking who was let go from the steel mill at which he was employed. This mill was purchased by Bain Capital, and this gentleman was let go in 2001. He lost his health coverage benefit from his former employer because of Bain Capital's actions. He then goes on to say that a short time later, his wife became ill, but they didn't have any health coverage. They eventually went to the doctor and found she had stage four cancer. She died 22 days after that doctor visit. In the ad, the man blames Bain and Romney for restructuring him out of his job, his family losing coverage, and his wife not being diagnosed in time to catch cancer when it was treatable. The timeline of this poor man's story, however, is that Romney took a leave from Bain in 1999 to run the olympics, it appears Bain took this steel mill over and the man was let go in 2001. His wife was still employed and had her own health coverage. And, she didn't go to the doctor until 2006.

Lots to work with. Any of these are up for discussion, unless you want them on separate threads.

GO!




EDIT - added existing HM thread for Romney's 10 year tax thing...

[Huskers57]

The righties have attacks too...

[Big Red Rick]

The righties have attacks too...

I know. But this thread is not about that.

[huskrthill]

The righties have attacks too...

Compelling defense of the President. He should hire you.

One more in "saved/created" category!

[LutheranHusker]

I do much more reading of political threads than participating, but i do know at least that the Harry Reid/Romney tax thing has its own thread. I'll bump it up to the top.

[Squatchsker]

Harry Reid = Ass

Twisting of timelines for what is tantamount to emotional blackmail = Less than ethical.

All done. Now where are those Iran-Contra papers I was trying to read.

[MyBraska]

This is the looney season leading up to Nov. Can't wait until the stupid ads stop. Ihave a feeling that the Bain ads with such blatant misrepresentation as in the one you mentioned that "Mitt killed my wife" may backfire on Axlerod and the other of O's minions.

Unfortunately there are enough uninformed among the electorate to make these bumper sticker-type ads effective, which is why they spend so much money on them. I think it is Israel that bans ads in the month or two before the election. They're onto something there.

[Prairie Sage1]

I would think a little clarity on who is doing the attacking is in order. The "Left" and the "Right" are pretty broad paint brushes. And I have noticed a sensitivity on the part of those who identify themselves as Tea Party members to be lumped with fringe conservative elements. The "Left" in this case seems to be Democratic Party activists and campaign strategists. It is akin to saying that Karl Rove is the "Right." I think the use of the term the "Left" in this case is essentially trying to denigrate an entire section of the political spectrum based the the actions of a few trying to save their jobs via electoral politics.

[SeattleHusker]

A couple of thoughts:

(1) This thread will ultimately accomplish very little. Each side will vent about the lies the other side is spreading about their candidate and feel more aggrieved than his opponent.

(2) It's sad that both sides are being so disingenuous in their campaign ads and statements. It's like everyone will be voting against a candidate that doesn't really exist, except as a creation of negative campaign ads by groups supporting or affiliated with the side they support.

That said, I'd offer this thread, about the Romney campaign's efforts to wrongly portray the lawsuit the Obama campaign filed in Ohio as one designed to suppress the military vote:

http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...-military-vote

I'd also offer Romney's assertion that under Obama's plan for welfare, you wouldn't have to work or train for a job, they'd just send you a check (which earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bandons-tenet/

In fact, Politico gives Romney 12 "Pants on Fire" ratings since he announced his current presidential bid in June 2011, while giving Obama just 3 "Pants on Fire" ratings during the same time period:

Romney: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

I'm equally sure that if we start throwing in "Pants on Fire," "False" or "Mostly False" ratings, and include their equivalents from other sources doing the same sort of fact-checking, and expand it to include PACs and supporters of each candidate, we could spin the "who lies more" argument either direction.

My point isn't to do that, but to point out that both sides are engaging in the same tactics. Trying to engage in a finger-pointing, which side is doing it more game is ultimately pointless.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. I know my blood pressure rose on the way to work this morning when I heard Romney accusing Obama of doing away with the "work" part of the "welfare to work" rules (even though that is completely false). I get it. But both sides are doing it, my friend!

[RedPhoenix]

A couple of thoughts:

(1) This thread will ultimately accomplish very little. Each side will vent about the lies the other side is spreading about their candidate and feel more aggrieved than his opponent.

(2) It's sad that both sides are being so disingenuous in their campaign ads and statements. It's like everyone will be voting against a candidate that doesn't really exist, except as a creation of negative campaign ads by groups supporting or affiliated with the side they support.

That said, I'd offer this thread, about the Romney campaign's efforts to wrongly portray the lawsuit the Obama campaign filed in Ohio as one designed to suppress the military vote:

http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...-military-vote

I'd also offer Romney's assertion that under Obama's plan for welfare, you wouldn't have to work or train for a job, they'd just send you a check (which earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politico):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bandons-tenet/

In fact, Politico gives Romney 12 "Pants on Fire" ratings since he announced his current presidential bid in June 2011, while giving Obama just 3 "Pants on Fire" ratings during the same time period:

Romney: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

I'm equally sure that if we start throwing in "Pants on Fire," "False" or "Mostly False" ratings, and include their equivalents from other sources doing the same sort of fact-checking, and expand it to include PACs and supporters of each candidate, we could spin the "who lies more" argument either direction.

My point isn't to do that, but to point out that both sides are engaging in the same tactics. Trying to engage in a finger-pointing, which side is doing it more game is ultimately pointless.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. I know my blood pressure rose on the way to work this morning when I heard Romney accusing Obama of doing away with the "work" part of the "welfare to work" rules (even though that is completely false). I get it. But both sides are doing it, my friend!

Attack removed..HM

[SeattleHusker]

Please keep facts out of Ricks threads. They confuse him.

Sorry. I'm still kind of new here.

[huskrthill]

Sorry. I'm still kind of new here.

Post away, Seattle. You're doing a fine job here, even if you're wrong almost always.
I'd much rather see the guy attacking the poster instead of the post issue an apology. But I'm not holding my breath.

[SeattleHusker]

Post away, Seattle. You're doing a fine job here, even if you're wrong almost always.
I'd much rather see the guy attacking the poster instead of the post issue an apology. But I'm not holding my breath.

Wait . . . almost always?!? Either you're admitting I'm right occasionally or it means we agree on something! There is a middle ground!

Maybe we'll agree on football?

[Big Red Rick]

Post away, Seattle. You're doing a fine job here, even if you're wrong almost always.
I'd much rather see the guy attacking the poster instead of the post issue an apology. But I'm not holding my breath.

I'm guessing that won't happen. It seems personal attacks is RP's forte.

RP, thanks for reminding me why I avoided this place for a while. Comments like yours were not missed.

[Big Red Rick]

A couple of thoughts:

(1) This thread will ultimately accomplish very little. Each side will vent about the lies the other side is spreading about their candidate and feel more aggrieved than his opponent.

(2) It's sad that both sides are being so disingenuous in their campaign ads and statements. It's like everyone will be voting against a candidate that doesn't really exist, except as a creation of negative campaign ads by groups supporting or affiliated with the side they support.

That said, I'd offer this thread, about the Romney campaign's efforts to wrongly portray the lawsuit the Obama campaign filed in Ohio as one designed to suppress the military vote:

http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...-military-vote

I'd also offer Romney's assertion that under Obama's plan for welfare, you wouldn't have to work or train for a job, they'd just send you a check (which earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bandons-tenet/

In fact, Politico gives Romney 12 "Pants on Fire" ratings since he announced his current presidential bid in June 2011, while giving Obama just 3 "Pants on Fire" ratings during the same time period:

Romney: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

I'm equally sure that if we start throwing in "Pants on Fire," "False" or "Mostly False" ratings, and include their equivalents from other sources doing the same sort of fact-checking, and expand it to include PACs and supporters of each candidate, we could spin the "who lies more" argument either direction.

My point isn't to do that, but to point out that both sides are engaging in the same tactics. Trying to engage in a finger-pointing, which side is doing it more game is ultimately pointless.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. I know my blood pressure rose on the way to work this morning when I heard Romney accusing Obama of doing away with the "work" part of the "welfare to work" rules (even though that is completely false). I get it. But both sides are doing it, my friend!

Please keep facts out of Ricks threads. They confuse him.

Not to refer to the OP, but this has to do with inaccuracies from the left. Please stay on topic. If you want one of these for the right, start your own thread.

[RedPhoenix]

Not to refer to the OP, but this has to do with inaccuracies from the left. Please stay on topic. If you want one of these for the right, start your own thread.

I didn't bring up anything regarding the right. But if I did, I'd do it in this thread.

[huskernut]

A couple of thoughts:

(1) This thread will ultimately accomplish very little. Each side will vent about the lies the other side is spreading about their candidate and feel more aggrieved than his opponent.

(2) It's sad that both sides are being so disingenuous in their campaign ads and statements. It's like everyone will be voting against a candidate that doesn't really exist, except as a creation of negative campaign ads by groups supporting or affiliated with the side they support.

That said, I'd offer this thread, about the Romney campaign's efforts to wrongly portray the lawsuit the Obama campaign filed in Ohio as one designed to suppress the military vote:

http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...-military-vote

I'd also offer Romney's assertion that under Obama's plan for welfare, you wouldn't have to work or train for a job, they'd just send you a check (which earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bandons-tenet/

In fact, Politico gives Romney 12 "Pants on Fire" ratings since he announced his current presidential bid in June 2011, while giving Obama just 3 "Pants on Fire" ratings during the same time period:

Romney: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

I'm equally sure that if we start throwing in "Pants on Fire," "False" or "Mostly False" ratings, and include their equivalents from other sources doing the same sort of fact-checking, and expand it to include PACs and supporters of each candidate, we could spin the "who lies more" argument either direction.

My point isn't to do that, but to point out that both sides are engaging in the same tactics. Trying to engage in a finger-pointing, which side is doing it more game is ultimately pointless.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. I know my blood pressure rose on the way to work this morning when I heard Romney accusing Obama of doing away with the "work" part of the "welfare to work" rules (even though that is completely false). I get it. But both sides are doing it, my friend!

This post makes me sad, just like in the "didn't pay taxes" thread when you and Cactus argued and argued that the issue was more about why Romney doesn't release his returns, rather than the new low that Harry Reid reached and stuck with. It betrays a wildly swing moral compass, so overwhelmed by a strict partisan viewpoint, it can't acknowledge when its side does something that ISN'T business as usual in the political world.

[SeattleHusker]

This post makes me sad, just like in the "didn't pay taxes" thread when you and Cactus argued and argued that the issue was more about why Romney doesn't release his returns, rather than the new low that Harry Reid reached and stuck with. It betrays a wildly swing moral compass, so overwhelmed by a strict partisan viewpoint, it can't acknowledge when its side does something that ISN'T business as usual in the political world.

Hmmm. Perhaps my wildly swinging moral compass knocked me unconscious and gave me selective amnesia regarding a post or two I made previously, but I don't remember ever addressing what Reid said.

That being said, how is what Reid said a new low in comparison to Swiftboating or Willie Horton?

[Huskers57]

Horton?

Tim Horton is some damn good coffee from the great white north!

[huskernut]

Hmmm. Perhaps my wildly swinging moral compass knocked me unconscious and gave me selective amnesia regarding a post or two I made previously, but I don't remember ever addressing what Reid said.

That being said, how is what Reid said a new low in comparison to Swiftboating or Willie Horton?

You did in the very post of yours I quoted:

... My point isn't to do that, but to point out that both sides are engaging in the same tactics. Trying to engage in a finger-pointing, which side is doing it more game is ultimately pointless.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. I know my blood pressure rose on the way to work this morning when I heard Romney accusing Obama of doing away with the "work" part of the "welfare to work" rules (even though that is completely false). I get it. But both sides are doing it, my friend!

Because your post was a direct response to the OP, in which the first issue he highlighted was that of what Reid said:

...
They have demanded Romney release tax records, we've all heard that. Harry Reid insists that a unnamed source told him that Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years. Never Mind that the IRS pursues people who don't pay their taxes, even the wealthy like Wesley Snipes and Warren Buffett. HM thread - http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...s-For-10-Years

...

Or did you not read what you were responding to? I think you did, which if you own it, is exactly the point I was making. Why are you so eager to dump that all in as politics as usual, when it isn't? It is not unheard of, that's true, but it certainly is rare.