|
User loginNavigationAbout TennViewsUpcoming events50 State Blog Project• Alabama |
Factchecking the TNGOP: Is it possible to fact check fiction?
Every week the Tennessee Republican Party puts out a work of creative fiction to "inform" the party faithful on all the great things the GOP is doing for them. This week's edition talks about the Presidential primaries, noting differences between the parties and highlighting "what's at stake." Normally these propaganda pieces are good for a chuckle and then they hit the recycle bin. But this one is so full of misdirection, misinformation, and at least one outright lie that I thought I should bring it to your attention in case you weren't aware of what Tennessee Republicans are being spoon fed by their party apparatchik. This is what we are up against... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE TNGOP: The debate over issues that have focused on national security, health care and the economy and faith and family issues have served to strengthen our Party. All of these issues represent the priorities of the people of the Republican Party. FACT: According to a recent WSMV poll, health care is dead last and barely on the radar of Republican voters. Iraq as a proxy for national security is a weak fourth. See for yourself: What is the single most important issue among Republicans in deciding which candidate to support? It would also seem that the GOP presumptive nominee's positions on family values and the economy are at extreme odds with the party. His health care proposals borrow extensively from the Democratic candidate's plans. The GOP didn't support their strongest candidate on the economy, so he had to drop out. I'm not seeing a strengthened Republican party. I'm seeing a train wreck. TNGOP: In the Democrat primary, both candidates, Senator Clinton and Barack Obama, reflect almost identical issues. However, the division has grown along racial and gender lines. FACT: The GOP and the GOP controlled mainstream media have manufactured the so-called racial and gender divide. If there is a divide, it is along generational lines, with formerly apathetic, now outraged young voters energized by years of catastrophic GOP policies that threaten their future, and older voters who fear Republicans will dismantle programs such as Medicare and Social Security that have helped seniors stay out of poverty and live out their lives with dignity. Both are united in one goal: a Democrat in the White House. TNGOP: In unifying behind a single candidate, history shows that debate over issues is much healthier than personal politics aligned among demographics such as gender and race. FACT: The GOP is hardly unified behind their single candidate. He is the target of vicious attacks by conservative radio talk show hosts and pundits who tell the Republican faithful what to think. The leader of their own party, the President of the United States, won't even endorse him. The main "issue" during their debates was "who is more like Reagan." The GOP is no longer a political party. It's a cult of personality, with a declining membership consisting of a single demographic: white men. WHAT'S AT STAKE? TNGOP The next President will appoint at least one Justice to the Supreme Court. FACT: This is the single nugget of truth in this entire packet of misinformation. It's puzzling, though, why they would want to bring this up. The current Republican president, who would not have a job if not for the Supreme Court, nominated his secretary who was in no way qualified. The nomination was met with sharp criticism and outright ridicule by his own party and had to be withdrawn in disgrace. Her replacement, a radical right winger, sets the court up as a corporate protection racket and assures rubber stamp approval of further government attacks on our civil liberties. His other appointment, while not quite the extremist, will preside over the court for an entire generation. So, yes, it's important. It's important that we undo the damage done to the court and to the process by Republicans. It's important to have a Democrat in the White House to restore balance to the Supreme Court. TNGOP: The next President will lead the War on Terror against radical Islamic terrorists. FACT: The current Republican president's "war on terror" has been an abysmal, catastrophic failure that has created new breeding grounds for terrorists, aligned world opinion against the United States and our foreign policy, cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and countless civilians, and plunged America into debt that several generations will be paying off. Meanwhile the perpetrator of the Sept. 11th attacks has not been brought to justice, and in fact government reports suggest our enemies are stronger than ever. If I were a Republican, that's not exactly the record I would want to run on. TNGOP: The next President will determine the policies impacting our economy by either raising taxes while increasing government spending or cutting taxes and shrinking federal spending. FACT: The Tennessee GOP forgot the third option: cutting taxes and raising spending. This is the policy of the current Republican administration and the previously Republican controlled Congress. Any fifth grader can do the math and tell you it doesn't add up. When Bush took office, he inherited from the previous Democrat a $230 billion budget surplus and a projected ten year surplus of $5 trillion. When Bush heads back to the ranch in Kennebunkport, he will leave behind $5.5 trillion in debt and a deficit of $400 billion, plunging America into a recession and an unprecedented erosion of middle class economic well being. So voters should indeed ask themselves, who has a better record on fiscal policy? TNGOP: The next President will either address health care accessibility by working to have citizens own their health care policy and decisions or have the government turn into the provider of services and determine who delivers your care while garnishing your wages. FACT: This is just a flat out lie and there's no other polite way to say it. Neither Democrat running for president has proposed or even advocated government provided health care or any other form of "socialized medicine." This is a GOP manufactured lie intended to scare voters. Both Democratic candidates advocate traditional insurance programs similar to what the president and Congress currently enjoy. The only difference is, insurance companies would be required to cover everyone instead of dumping the poor and "uninsurable" on state Medicaid programs and taxpayers. And even if America came to our senses and adopted a single-payer health insurance system (as opposed to "socialized medicine"), it would not dictate who delivers your health care. Medicare is a perfect example of just such a system. Can the Tennessee GOP name a single instance of the government dictating to a Medicare patient where they must go to get health care? Can they give the names and addresses of the government run Medicare hospitals and government employed Medicare doctors? I didn't think so. The simple fact is, Republicans hate Medicare (and SCHIP) because it proves that a single payer, government run insurance program a) works, and b) is more cost effective. When Bush took office, there were 38 million uninsured. There are now 48 million uninsured and the number is growing. Republicans have done nothing to address the problem, except make it worse. Bush even vetoed legislation that would have provided health insurance to millions of uninsured children. Meanwhile, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies continue to rack up record profits. Why Republicans want to run on this record is a mystery. The choice is clear if we really want to start solving the health care crisis in America: A Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress. TNGOP: The next President will deal with the issue of illegal immigrants by enforcing the border and current laws or issue illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses, as both Democrats have agreed to do. FACT: The current Republican president has not dealt with the issue, and has in fact looked the other way while record numbers of undocumented workers flood across our borders to be exploited by American employers. Yet the GOP has somehow managed to create a wedge issue out of this while offering no solutions. In fact, their presumptive nominee is completely out of step with the GOP base on immigration. Meanwhile, right wing extremists offer up ridiculous proposals such as "Berlin Wall" type fences, and would deny education and health care to the children of undocumented workers while allowing their employers to continue exploiting them. Everyone agrees that we need a rational and humane immigration policy, and that it is impractical if not impossible to "round up the illegals" and deport them. The only disagreement is what the policy should be and how we get there. Based on the Republican record of the last seven years, it should be clear that a new approach is needed, and that the first step is a Democrat in the White House. TNGOP: The next President will be required to honestly work to keep Social Security from going bankrupt through policies that keep the program intact and available or by cutting the eligibility or raising taxes. FACT: This is a classic misdirection play based partially on made up scare tactics and partially on the dismal failure of Republican policies. Social Security is not "bankrupt" and is projected to be fiscally sound for several decades. There would be no concern at all if the current Republican president and the Republican controlled Congress had not blown through the previous Democratic president's budget surpluses and raided the Social Security "lockbox" to pay for a war of choice based on lies, leaving behind a stack of IOUs for Baby Boomers and future generations. By cutting taxes, increasing spending and raiding the Treasury, Republicans have created this "crisis" by their own hand, and now they new beat us over the head with it as if it were our fault. Unfortunately, there may have to be a tax increase to fix it. But fortunately it's a simple fix: eliminating the income cap on Social Security payroll deductions so that a corporate executive making $500,000 per year chips in the same percentage as a working family making $50,000 per year. Thankfully, we have strong Democratic candidates running for president who aren't afraid to tell America the truth. Unlike Republicans, who want Americans who already have a zero or negative savings rate for the first time since the Depression to divert their Social Security to private investments for the benefit of their pals on Wall Street. How's your 401K doing right now, America? In conclusion, the TNGOP says: "The list is not exhaustive. The issues, however, will show the very bright lines and the tremendous gulf that separates the philosophies and values between the Republican and the Democrat Presidential Nominee." On this we agree. There are distinct differences between the Republican and the Democrats running for president. One need only look at the Republican record to see the simple truth: America needs a Democrat in the White House. ( categories: )
|
SearchVolunteer Blogs• 10,000 Monkeys• 55-40 Memphis • Andy Axel • Aunt B • BlogNetNews • BlountViews • Carole Borges • Crone Speaks • Cup of Joe Powell • Don Williams • Donkey's Mouth • Enclave • Fletch • Go 4 Truth • KnoxViews • Lean Left • Left of the Dial • Left Wing Cracker • Liberadio • Loose TN Canon • Newscoma • Pesky Fly • Progressive Nashville • Resonance • RoaneViews • Russ McBee • Sean Braisted • Sharon Cobb • Silence Isn't Golden • Southern Beale • TN Clean Water • TN Guerilla Women • Vibinc • West TN Liberal • WhitesCreek Journal • Women's Health Media Blogs• AC Kleinheider• Knoxville Talks • Michael Silence • Nashville is Talking • Tennessean Politics • Volunteer Voters Power Blogs• Agonist• Air America • Al Gore • Alterdestiny • American Street • Appalachian Voices • Atrios • Buzzflash • Carpetbagger Report • Common Cause • Common Dreams • Common Sense • Crooks and Liars • Cursor • Daily Kos • Democratic Strategist • Democratic Veteran • Digby's Hullabaloo • Eccentricity • Facing South • Huffington Post • Lefty Blogs • Liberal Oasis • Media Matters • MyDD • Pam's House Blend • Political Wire • Seeing the Forest • Senate Guru • Skippy • Suburban Geurrilla • Swing State Project • Talk Left • Talking Points Memo • TAPPED • TBogg • Think Progress • Truthdig Democratic Party• Blount Dems• Davidson Dems • DCCC • Democratic Party • DSCC • Ham Dems • House Dem Caucus • Knox Dems • Senate Dem Caucus • Sumner Dems • TN Dems State Government• State of TN• TN Attorney General • TN Code Annotated • TN Comptroller • TN General Assembly • TN House Directory • TN Senate Directory • TN Supreme Court U.S. Government• U.S. House• U.S. Senate • U.S. Supreme Court • U.S. Thomas LoC • USA.gov U.S. Congress• Rep. Bart Gordon• Rep. David Davis • Rep. Jim Cooper • Rep. John Duncan • Rep. John Tanner • Rep. Lincoln Davis • Rep. M. Blackburn • Rep. Steve Cohen • Rep. Zach Wamp • Sen. Bob Corker • Sen. Lamar Alexander Newspapers• Chattanooga Pulse• Commercial Appeal • Knoxville Voice • Memphis Flyer • Nashville Scene • News Sentinel • Tennessean • Times Free Press |
You tell'em. If only we could provide this sort of response in MSM to all of the GOP sheep.
Great analysis. I'm afraid this may be too many words for Hobbs, though.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
If the TNGOP couldn't lie, they wouldn't have anything to say. While they were puking up this garbage, they also spewed out a disgusting attempt to use Tuesday's tornados as an attack on Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans in the Tennessee legislature were launching their opposition to opening Pre-K classrooms to middle-class kids. What a great bunch of guys these Tennessee Republicans are.
That sounds exactly like what I hear every day on right wing radio! I suspect collusion here.
Really outstanding, Randy. Keep it up. I just may forward this to a few people later this evening...
______________________________________
“Don't wait. The time will never be just right.” - Napoleon Hill
Excellent breakdown, R.
"Good thing we've still got politics -- finest form of free entertainment ever invented." – Molly Ivins
"U.S. Rep. Davis reflects on first year in office, discusses immigration, war on terror"
The Mountain Press
By: DEREK HODGES November 27, 2007
Link...
...
Immigration
Like many lawmakers in Washington, [U.S. Rep. David] Davis has made comprehensive immigration reform a cornerstone of his first year in office. The issue has become a hot-button nationwide and will likely play a major role in the 2008 elections.
Davis said he favors providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country rather than deporting them.
"Most people in East Tennessee will welcome people with open arms if they come here legally," Davis said. "Illegal is illegal, though. I don't think the answer is deporting 12 million people, though."
First, a link to the most recent WSMV poll, which features numbers slightly different than your unlinked poll. You make your point by narrowly defining National Security as only the War on Terror, but try to find a single Republican who doesn't consider our porous borders to be an issue of National Security. Taking the two issues together means that 28% of Republicans see National Security concerns as our highest issue, tied for first with the economy. By my reckoning, that means the TNGOP is 3 for 4 in listing the issues of highest concern.
You're not off to such a good start. Let's check your next "fact."
The GOP and the GOP controlled mainstream media have manufactured the so-called racial and gender divide.
Exit polling data from the California Primary show Obama pulled 78% of the black vote and only 45% of the white vote. If that's not a racial divide, I don't know what is. The sex gap is narrower, but not by much; Clinton pulled 59% of the female vote, while garnering only 45% of the male vote, while Obama pulled 48% of the males and 36% of the females. By the way, the exit polls showed Clinton winning 53% to 42% which is extremely close to the actual margin of victory, just in case you thought the polling data might have been skewed by the GOP controlled MSM.
That's strike two. Let's check the next "fact."
TNGOP: In unifying behind a single candidate, history shows that debate over issues is much healthier than personal politics aligned among demographics such as gender and race.
FACT: The GOP is hardly unified behind their single candidate.
Read the TNGOP statement again. Notice that it does not claim that the GOP is united behind a single candidate. What it does say is that when working toward unifying behind a single candidate, it is much better to talk about issues, rather than race and gender. Surely a good progressive like yourself could hardly disagree with that statement.
The leader of their own party, the President of the United States, won't even endorse him.
Sitting presidents rarely endorse a candidate during the primary season. Reagan waited until after all other opponents withdrew to endorse Bush. The first Bush waited until the National Convention to endorse Bob Dole. And as near as I can tell, Bill Clinton never officially endorsed Al Gore.
You're three for three, R. Neal, and three strikes means you're out. I could continue to refute the rest of your "analysis", but my point has been made for anybody with an open mind and the will to use it.
I guess it takes an "open mind" to conflate two issues to come up with one to make the math work (liars, after all, will figure), to cherry-pick results a single primary as evidence of a war within the Democratic Party (more lying, more figuring), and to explicate a vague, fatuous statement with a smug, fatuous statement- then to proclaim victory! Whee!
See, Randy, I told you. This was too many words for Hobbs.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Would you care to describe how a virtually open border is not a National Security Issue? Or were you supportive of the President's attempt to allow a UAE company to run several of our ports?
Working from the California data, please show how there is no racial or gender bias within democratic voters. If I cherry picked the data, as you suggest, follow the link I provided, and place it in its proper context. Or, if my analysis of the California data is correct, find a state without significant differences in gender and race voting patterns. Back up your argument with fact, as I did. Heck, we might all learn something.
And what is vague or fatuous about suggesting that deciding which candidate you want to support should be based on a discussion of the issues, rather than a vivisection of each candidate's ethnicity and gender?
And I am not Hobbs. Incidentally, by speculating on my identity, you are in violation of the TOS for this site. "...don't speculate about people's "real" identity."
But I won't tell if you don't.
The "speculation on identity" is for folks who register and post under a consistant username.
Most honest folk want others to understand which person is speaking in a dark room, so to speak. That way a train of though can be developed. If there are more than one anons, more than one train of thought can be intermingled and the message becomes irrational. I'm sure that's the problem here, since it would be rare to find some "one" person that disingenuous.
If you sign in and register, we will always know which person is speaking, even though we don't know the identity. I think the username "jerk" is still available.
By threading your replies, as you did above, you can make it quite clear which train of thought is being developed, despite the lack of an identifiable user name.
Additionally, your implication that anonymity is a cover for dishonesty is disingenuous at best. Anonymity is an excellent way to move the emphasis from who is talking to what they are saying. It shouldn't matter who I am; all that should matter is whether my argument is logically sound and based on fact. If you read my original comment, you'll see that I made no personal attacks. I did charge Mr. Neal with indulging in misdirection, and I gave three solid examples of that misdirection. At no time did I engage in name calling, even by implication. By contrast, let's look at you and Mr. Axel. Between the two of you, you have either implied or said straight out that I'm smug, dishonest, a liar, a jerk, and a drooling coward.
All this because I didn't provide a user name? Is this what passes for reasoned open debate of issues in TennViews? Since my anonymity is such a major stumbling block for you, allow me to remove it.
My name is Rich Hailey.
Now, would you care to discuss the argument at hand, or do you want to call me some more names?
Now see...There you go again.
I never implied anon was dishonest. I did say there were disingenuous posts, such as your claim that anonymity is a stumbling block for me. I said no such thing and you are attempting to make it appear that I did. That fits my def of disingenuous to a T.
I said that we needed some way to keep track of what poster said what. Your inability to make simple rational associations may have led you to give your name in public, but don't blame it on me.
I stand by my recommendation as to a username, based on your posts to this point. Now if you'd like to start over and work on being honest and rational, I would love to joust with you on our differences of opinion.
Otherwise, it would still help if you'd pick a username so I can know who to ignore.
Your previous statement beginning, "Most honest people..." clearly implies that anonymity, as opposed to pseudonymity, is often a cover for dishonesty. You reaffirm that implication with your penultimate sentence in this comment, ..."Now if you'd like to start over and work on being honest and rational..." The obvious implication is that my behavior to this point has been dishonest and irrational.
I'll let the readers of this thread decide if your characterization is accurate or not.
I agree that you never said that anonymity was a stumbling block for you, and I never said or implied that you said it. What I did say was that, based on your initial comment on this thread, which completely ignored the content and focussed solely on the subject of my anonymity, you found it easier, or more worthwhile, to argue about my identity rather than about the points I raised. That remains an accurate statement.
And I don't blame you for my giving out my name. That was my choice, made in an attempt to refocus the discussion on the issue at hand, rather than my identity. Obviously, that attempt failed as we are still just talking about who I am.
And frankly, I find that to be a very boring discussion.
Thanks for reminding me of my own rules, WhitesCreek - the ones about dishing out comments to cowards who can't go to the trouble to register before drooling on the interface. As in, "don't."
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
They still can't bring themselves to actually argue the points that were made. I guess that means that it is not possible to do so. So all they do is call names and hurl pathetic insults. Typical around these parts ...
Signed,
Not Rich
Can I be Anonymous #4? Or, are we working on #3? Hard to keep track
Partly. Election season usually brings out some of the most skull-thumpingly pedantic trolls on weblogs like this.
Where were you promised "reasoned open debate?"
Oh. This Rich Hailey?
As for "turn tail and run", when a man tells you that you are no longer welcome in his house, (and telling a man you once invited in that he is no longer welcome on the front porch, but can still use the side door as long as nobody sees him certainly falls under the heading "You're not welcome") then the polite thing to do is leave.
Um... is there a third choice?
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Post new comment