Towards the end of last night's debate, Martha Raddatz asked the candidates, "If you are elected, what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could?" The very first word out of Paul Ryan's mouth was, "Honesty."
It was an unfortunate choice of characteristics. When the congressman realizes this or not, the "Lyin' Ryan" moniker was never intended to be ironic.
Of particular interest to me, though, was the congressman's take on the economy. Ryan noted the economic difficulties in Scranton, Pennsylvania -- where Vice President Biden was born -- and the fact that the unemployment rate has gone up there in recent years. "That's how it's going all around America," Ryan said.
Biden pounced, explaining, "You don't read the statistics. That's not how [the unemployment rate is] going. It's going down," but Ryan made his pitch anyway.
"Look, did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we're going in the wrong direction.... We're heading in the wrong direction."
Now, this would ordinarily be the time that I point out how backwards this is. Every relevant metric -- job creation, economic growth, the stock market, the manufacturing sector, even the deficit -- is vastly improved as compared to four years ago. If improving economic conditions, in Ryan's mind, are "the wrong direction," he probably ought to define "wrong." Just last week, the unemployment rate fell to a four-year low -- is Ryan going to argue that a falling jobless rate is bad news?
But event putting these details aside, another problem with Ryan's take is that even Mitt Romney has said the opposite.
The Republican presidential candidate has said, more than once, that "the economy is getting better." Indeed, remember this incredible clip?
If Ryan wants to argue that conditions haven't improved enough, fine. If he wants to argue that conditions have improved, but Obama shouldn't get credit, fine. If he wants to say conditions would be even better if we'd tried a different course, we can at least have the debate.
But to say a growing economy that's adding jobs is worse than a shrinking economy that's losing jobs is ridiculous. When Romney and his own running mate are making competing claims about the nation's number-one issue, you know there's a problem.
Leave a Comment:
Sadly Biden didn't go far enough to call out how much BS that guy is slinging.
The whole point of the Gish Gallop is to state so many falsehoods that the opposition literally cannot dispute all of them - there just isn't enough time. The only effective counter to this strategy is to pick, at the time, which falsehood demands the most attention. Even veteran debaters won't pick all the right battles. I was impressed with Biden's performance. The Gish Gallop is a very effective debate strategy in the realm of politics - if you want to convince a bunch of uninformed ignoramuses that you know what you're talking about, you'd be stupid (or too honest for politics) to pass it up. The R's are using it to it's potential this election, and it's only going to get worse. Every D is going to need to be at least this good if they want to win the next few elections.
I'm more and more convinced we need a law making it a crime to lie to the public while seeking political office.
Gish gallop is the technique in a debate of drowning the opposite side in BS- Of starting 10 argumentative fires in as many minutes.
There is a longer article on it at rational wiki.
The technique can work if the person setting the fire appears to be someone who has a plausible story. It attempts to win over the confidence of the audience by demonstrating the superiority and confident projection of BS, while the other side scrambles to put out the fires with factual evidence.
Biden was able to play a card that an elder and trusted old white guy can play against a young and earnest though green appearing young man. He can simply laugh at the BS of the naive kid.
Oddly enough, the elder narrative is the sort of condescension route that Romney used against Obama-- the line comparing Obama to his boys who twist facts. Obama did not have the leverage of an establishment white and very wealthy equity investor. The established narratives for what younger black men say to such fellows would not have been flattering to Obama, and Romney's handlers knew it and fully took advantage of it. They knew of the advice that Axelrod provided to african american candidates and knew that Obama had one hand tied behind his back. Romney fully exploited it, pummelling Obama who was counciled to be polite. There are lines even Biden could not cross- at one time stopping himself and saying Ryan was not candid.
That is not to say that Obama could not have availed himself of other tools to annihilate the Gish Gallop. Which one he chooses and how effectively he delivers it is the central question for the next debate.
Who ya gonna believe- your eyes, or Lyin' Ryan?
You know if I had been so nice all the time, people would have literally died and that is a far worse than I could ever stand. There is a point in time that in order to do things the right way, you have to speak up and say No this will not be tolerated. Otherwise, it is like saying oh ok it is alright to lie, cheat, and steal from people so it causes misery, despair, violence, and death. VP Joe Biden was absolutely right to finally speak to these bozo Republicans. How foolish do you think people want to be over all this with what is going on with these corrupt ones? These Republicans have been relying on others to be nice and polite all the time to them so they can continue that dark agenda of theirs.
The reality game forces impartial journalism to take sides.
There is a tremendous friction between integrity as a truth teller-- of describing the accounts of both sides accurately, and to be gamed by those whose goal is to use the impartiality of news organizations to hide the truth.
It is a story about a confidence game where the media can be conned into participating in a scheme to provide the audience the impression of a false equivalency between two sides in a political conflict. One side is conventional- biased but honest and the other assymmetrically has utter disregard for the truth.
How do you tell that story from "both sides"? The real "opposite" side is not the lies Ryan is saying, but why they are saying what they are saying- eg. why they felt it necessary to get the traffic accident tragedy story out for Romney. The real story is about what media handlers are telling the Romney campaign they have to say and do. But that story is unobserved, and so the subject of speculation not factual reporting.
Tough story to report on. It's the dilemma of Amanpour in the Balkans. You have a dead muslim family and one side says it was ethnic cleansing and the Serbs say there was a feud between one family and another. There were feuds and that can be verified. The result is that reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Europeans who are predisposed not to get involved. And so they are gamed into sitting idly by while genocide goes on.
The moral stakes of genocide are high, and Europe's recent historical complicity in genocide pushed Europe to overcome their doubts. But what is the journalist's role in this? Amanpour was faulted for violating rules of objective journalism. She stated conclusions based not on facts, but on what her gut instinct told her about the veracity of the competing fictions each side was promoting.
It's an odd place to be in where those who attempt to hide the truth have put the journalist in the position of either violating standards of professional integrity or telling the truth.
Ryan's auto accident story had two purposes. First, as you say, try to humanize Romney. Second (and this is really low-down), try to rattle Biden by reminding him of his own family tragedy.
Huh. The first plausible explanation I have heard of this anomaly.
There is more there I think than the mere high school debate tactic of trying to throw your opponent off his game.
I can see how an arrogant pol might believe that Biden was doddering and could be thrown into an extended soliloquy that the Romney campaign could chop into ads spinning the statements as self-pitying. -- Painting a larger picture about Obama. They could portray themselves as sympathetic to the nice guy Obama is who can in well intentioned at a moment of national tragedy, but who was paralyzed by weakness- whose reactions to the crisis, though understandible let the country down.
The trouble is the Pol was bought into the gaffe picture of Biden, who could be thrown off by such tomfoolery, and did not study how Biden actually behaves in debates. Biden instead decisively used the opportunity to challenge Ryan-Romney not just to try to appear sympathetic, but to "be responsible" and to do something concrete to help people, not just tell them how sympathetic you are.
I wanted Joe to say something like, "Well, it's great that Mitt has an affordable-college plan for some. All you have to do is be a member of his church and lose a parent and he'll give you the money." --but that would have been too sarcastic.
The way he answered was much better. Acknowledge his own tragedy but not turn it into a self-righteous moment, and turn it back to taking responsibility.
I wanted Joe to say, yes thats very nice that rmoney would help one family with education. BO wants to help all Americans with education. Then launch into how repugs have consistently cut grants and any kind of education benefits, to include wanting to abolishing the Dept of Education.
No no, see, Ryan was telling the truth... from the Republican point of view. To them, things are going in the wrong direction, which is the direction that will lead to the re-election of the president. Can't have that, can we?
Astute observation!
Down is up. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
What kind of world is the GOP leading us into?
It's called "Feudalism"
"What kind of world is the GOP leading us into?"
It's called FASCISM - where the government is run by and for the benefit of the corporations - after all the SCOTUS has said that corporations are people! And that's exactly why the GOTP is dangerous, they believe it and have been actively moving this nation in that direction!
"Can't we just take our country back to the 1850's?? Life was sooooooo much simpler then...right???"
Honesty. Out of all the words Ryan could have chosen, he selected the one word that mocks US citizens the most.
Even though I'm sure they had audience noise filtered, I'm pretty sure I could hear laughter when Ryan said that.
That might have been me you heard laughing
Jane
I'm not surprised either you or VP Biden were Laughing. The incoherent verbiage that came out of Ryan mouth was laughable.
Vice President Biden lived up to his title and responsibility. Having the details, he did not allow Mr. Ryan to slip by with vagueness. He shared his religious beliefs, yet enumerated his responsibility to not force his beliefs on others. He was in command. Though this may be unfair it tickled me. Charles Pierce in ESQUIRE "You know the difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan? Lipstick."
I've noticed something about Congressman Ryan when he talks. When he knows that he is lying, the skin around his eyes tightens and his eyes become big circles. His eyeballs also appear to bulge outward a bit. Watch him closely. You'll see it. In poker, we call it a "tell." Ordinarily, you wouldn't pick up on it because most people don't lie with the same frequency that Mr. Ryan does. But he does it so often that we have a lot of data to work with. Man, I would LOVE to play poker with that dude. It would sure beat workin' for a livin'.
The Ryan group demanded that Paul Ryan be called Mr. instead of Congressman. I guess he didn't want to be associated with such an institution. Joe called him Congressman and do did the moderator...I bet we'll here the RW bitch about that too.
I loved it!! Both called him that throughout the debate.
What I noticed was that Ms. Raddatz' use of the Congressman "honorific" started later in the debate, though I would find use of the term unremarkable enough that I could have missed some use of it earlier.
I found myself wondering if she had just gotten caught up in the moment, and picked up VP Biden's term of address for his opponent (people are often susceptible to picking up others' verbal "tics", and, after all, referring to politicians by their elective job-titles is ordinarily employed as a gesture of respect, so she could have fallen into it by force of professional habit) or if maybe something about what Ayn Lyin' Ryan had said by that point had irritated her enough to start deliberately and repeatedly disregarding his wishes in that matter.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
I loved when Joe reminded Ryan that Mitt's $5 trillion tax-cut was on Mitt's web site. Harder to convincingly lie when the facts are smacking you in the face, right Paulie.
One thing that struck me was Ryan's comment about the tax cuts he and Romney want to implement. From the transcript of the debate:
Anyone else think that sounds like they plan to just give the 20% break to the wealthy to start with, and then see where it goes from there? My guess - the wealthy would get theirs and then Romney/Ryan would see they can't afford to give the 20% to anyone else.
I think the media should be reporting more on just this statement and asking R/R to explain their plan fully.
@KJ - I am glad that I wasn't the only one who picked up on that. I thought it was very telling, almost a moment of accidental lucidity (remember that was when he was pushed for more specifics).
So in other words, cut taxes for the wealthy by 20%, and then if we have money left to cut the middle class we will? Sounds like a classic scam called the shell game.
@ Bolbis - even if the GOP were to 1) cut everyone's tax rate by 20% and 2) offset that by eliminating loopholes and deductions, it helps the wealthy much more than it helps someone with less income.
I put this to the test myself. Of course it's very rudimentary because the R/R plan isn't clear, but here's what I did:
- A low-income person with gross income of $30k. Tax rate of 15%. Standard deduction of about $12K. Taxable income is $18k. Taxes = $2700. Now, take away the deduction and lower the tax rate 20% to 12%. Their tax goes up to $3600.
- Middle income person, $100k. Tax rate 25% Deductions of $20k ($3k of which is charitable giving). Taxable income $80k. Tax = $20,000. Now lower the tax rate to 20% and take away all deductions but the $3k donations. Taxable income becomes $97k and tax is $19,400. A savings of $600.
- Wealthy person, $1 million gross income. Tax rate 35%. Deductions of $200k, with $150k of it charitable giving. Taxable income is $800k and tax = $280,000. Now lower their rate to 28% and take away all deductions but the $150k donations. Taxable income becomes $850k and tax = $237,000. The wealthy gets a $42,000 savings while the lowest income person pays $900 MORE.
And this doesn't even factor in that Romney wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains. The wealthy person could very well end up paying less in taxes than the guy who makes $30k gross.
No wonder they don't want to go into any detail on their tax pan.
I kept waiting for the plan from R/R on how they will cut my taxes by 20% and raise military spending, and, and, and. As I said to a friend on f/b last night: "Trying to get Ryan to give specifics is more elusive than a snipe hunt!"
Tax cuts employing across-the-board rates (20% for everybody, yay!) are not "fair", for the same reasons that "flat" tax plans, generally, are not "fair". But then, the Rape-Public-CON preference has always been for regressive rather than progressive taxation (if any).
Life may well be unfair (duh) but this doesn't mean government can't or shouldn't be used to redress some of the more glaring inequities.
And, oh yeah, that reminds me - Willard, where the hell are your tax returns? I demand to see the long-form worth certificates!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
@ MP 1910 - speaking of your snipe hunt - I actually said to my wife last night, "It's easier to get a 3-year-old to eat cooked spinach than it is to get a Republican to answer a simple question."
It wasn't a lie, it was a gaffe. If you're Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the economy is, in fact, going in the wrong direction. I have no doubt that they talk about that a lot over the big boardroom table made of an endangered rain forest species of tree at Rmoney HQ.
Vice President Joe Biden:
Truer words have never been spoken.
Better for whom? Is it better for the doomsayers on the right? Where is your compassion? Where is your sympathy? They do not have enough "birthers" and theocrats to win so they need more fear mongering.
There IS a depression going down! Just look at these republicans and see how depressed they are becoming. (or perhaps it is depravity I sense?)
Have we ever had an election quite this weird ??
We are at about a month out and I still have no comprehensive concept of the Republican platform. It keeps changing. All of a sudden Romney and Ryan are attempting to "look like" they are drifting to the center and that they think Obama IS doing an OK job-- BUT that they can do Obama's job even better.
Both R's have been lying for months and to now drift towards 'center' seems insane. Especially when neither one of them can justify "how to pay for it". The R's plan to pay for their budget defies mathematics... unless... we are still being lied to.
I've noticed that the trolls have remarkably upped the rhetoric on- "Obama lies, too". Uh... only if the judge of the "lie" is Fox News. Duh. Try thinking... I know it hurts, but you might learn something useful.
Joe kicked butt and the whole debate shined still more spotlights on the totally ridiculous Plan for America that Romney and Ryan think will actually benefit ALL Americans.
Be interesting to watch the great Republican 'smoke, mirrors, and lies" debacle continue in this style.
What have we come to.....?
So, what is the unemployment rate in Janesville, WI? Has it gone up? down? stayed the same? Is it getting worse or better? A piece of information to counter the Scranton stat or support it would be an interesting fact to present.
8.6 for August
9.4 in June
__www.bls.gov/eag/eag.wi_janesville_msa.htm__
Another interesting fact that would have fit in this discussion was how MA ranked #47 in job creation during rmoneys gov.
Thanks, Knobson. Very Interesting that it is improving; not at all what Ryan implied was happening all over the country.
Am I the only one who left that debate humming the Eagles tune..."you can't hide your lyin' eyes...and your smile is a thin disguise...I though by now, you'd realize...there ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes"?
Unemployment: If Obama/Biden retains the White House, Unemployment WILL reach the worst level of all time! Obama supporters... just remember you were warned, so don't ignore the signs that are right in front of you. Listen to the Businessmen/Businesswomen when they say they are going to reduce their employees to 30 hours to get around providing "Obamacare" or paying fines.
Maybe even your job is at risk!
Since it is written into the Affordable Health Care Act that fines cannot be levied, one can see that Republicans would rather see facts as they would wish them to be, not like Democrates who see facts as they really are.
I recently did a post on my "Grumbles From an Old Grouch" blog (grumblesfromanoldgrouch.com) on Ryan. I titled the post "Fryin' Ryan". I should have called it "Lyin' Ryan". Ryan is a hypocrite to put it politely. To put it not so politely, he's a serial liar that thinks people are too lazy (or too stupid) to google his record. He even lied about his marathon performance (and that borders on pathological lying).
Paul Ryan is not a fiscal conservative, he only plays one in the media. If you take a close look at his actual actions since he's been in congress, you'll find his major purpose is to make the rich a lot richer and to hell with the rest of us. His medicare scheme fits right into that theme. And, as they said about Watergate "Follow the money!"
You stated it perfectly ...the reason they can't go into the numbers on their "plan" is that it's no plan at all...just a scheme...another in a very long line of Republican grifts!
Every sentence Ryan speaks has three parts: a noun, a verb, and a lie.
The idea that a successful, smart business owner would claim that higher taxes will sink the business, or cause them to downsize, is ludicrous. Only a poor business owner would see lower revenue due to higher taxes as an opportunity to make the business even smaller, and earn even less revenue in the end.
Higher taxes being used as a reason to not expand a business is about as bad a business decision as there could ever be. Any business owner that would take the opinion most likely shouldn't be in business in the first place.
The ability to expand is generated by demand, which is created by customers with spending power. Lowering the taxes for the wealthy and businesses does not create spending power for the majority of Americans.
The owner will never expand the business unless he injects capital into the business, which, if it comes from his own pocket, is still a reduction in his personal earnings, more so than higher taxes would cause. Or they could finance the expansion through credit, but without the majority of Americans having strong spending abilities, the banks aren't willing to lend for expansion, once again tying the expansion to the spending ability of Americans, and not the tax rate of the owner.
I can't imagine any bank saying, "Sure, we will approve this expansion loan, because your tax rate was just lowered." That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think that Obama just opened the debate to commit Romney and Ryan to their views and let the VP openly attack first. The President will come in and clean-up on Romney. I think that this was the strategy in the beginning.