“Let the game show begin! Oh, wait… This isn’t Let’s Make A Deal?”

In New Hampshire the existing field of seven Republicans had different missions going into the 120-minute rhetorical tussle. There was a bothersome hectic air about the show. Being TV, host John King was constantly stressing time, time, time, as if there weren’t 14 months until the convention and 512 days until the 2012 election.
[…]
For Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, it was a chance to introduce themselves to a national TV audience, or at least those Americans choosing to watch a low-rated cable news channel on a summer evening when they’ll have interminable opportunities to watch/read/listen more later, when others like Jon Huntsman may join in.

Bachmann took the opportunity to basically announce her candidacy. […] Pawlenty, who’s new to this league, looked sincere but less comfortable than he will down the road. Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul. […] Fact is, the entire Republican field has moved in his direction in some areas like the overpowering size of the federal government now.

Newt Gingrich, trying to relaunch his stumbling campaign, was sharp, pointed and surprisingly brief for a former speaker; it served him well. […] Romney’s ridden this circuit before and looked the most poised and presidential, even plopped in center stage.
[…]
One striking sense from this initial encounter is how distinctly more conservative is the tone this time over 2007-08, especially in matters fiscal.

Although a new Gallup Poll reveals that Republicans are more interested this time in picking a winner than in finding an ideal ideological soulmate.

Here’s an article fact-checking the debaters’ statements.

Who Won The Debate?

View Results
Create a Poll




  1. tcc3 says:

    #124 Teadud:

    But you took the quote out of context. The next thing he ways makes is clear that the reduction is in the number of workers, not the number of jobs.

    Here’s the actual quote

    “Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that the household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000. That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.”

    Odd, that you would need to censor the quote to make it fit your argument.

    Its also odd that when the CBO said that the HC reform law would save money/reduce the deficit they were a liberal propaganda outlet in Obama’s pocket. When you think that you can distort their findings to fit your argument, suddenly they speak the gospel truth.

  2. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    #126 The additonal context didn’t change anything…

    that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.”

    A reduction of 800,000 working 8 hours a day = 800,000 jobs lost.

    The wording was unambiguous to everyone save those wanting to spin…

    CAMPBELL: “That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?”
    ELMENDORF: “Yes.

  3. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Bernanke is putting up a herculean fight to maintain the DOW…thanks to Obama, even the anouncement of Rush Limbaugh’s New “Two if by Tea” and the optimism and faith in America (without Obama as President) was unable to overcome pessimism about Greece and its contagion.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576387344103392986.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

  4. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    #125 You calculation ignores the Tea Party decision to go Republican, regardless of who is nominated, to make sure Obama is beaten.

    But you also err in assuming Romney will win…clearly the momentum is with Bachmann

    A wonderful woman and leader.

  5. tcc3 says:

    #127 TeaDud

    “A reduction of 800,000 working 8 hours a day = 800,000 jobs lost.”

    No. That is not what that means. Every time someone quits or gets fired that job is lost, never to be refilled? I’ve already admitted that some of those jobs might not be refilled. But if they were not refilled the person likely would have been laid off/downsized anyway. Most of those jobs will be refilled by new workers or the unemployed.

    it seems to me what happened was this: Republican Congressman John Campbell asked a leading question. Elmendorf answers the question he thought was being asked, then elucidates to ensure there is no misunderstanding.

    His explanation does not bear out your conclusion.

    And again you cut short the quote for your own emphasis. It is a lie by omission.

  6. LibertyLover says:

    Off Topic . . . a bit.

    http://tinyurl.com/3hhnry6

  7. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    #131 You continue to cite the flawed analysis of an alleged fact check…the actual document is here, not where fact check pointed:

    EC O N O M I C A N D B U D G E T I S S U E

    Effects of Changes to the Health Insurance System on
    Labor Markets

    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10435/07-13-HealthCareAndLaborMarkets.pdf

    It is impossible to dispute the 800,000 number, unabiguously assented to when asked:

    CAMPBELL: “That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?”
    ELMENDORF: “Yes.

    BECAUSE the study says quite plainly:

    The overall impact on labor markets, however, is difficult to predict. Although economic theory and experience provide some guidance as to the effect of specific provisions, large-scale changes to the health insurance system could have more extensive repercussions than have previously been observed and also may involve nuerous factors that would interact—affecting labor markets in significant but potentially offsetting ways.

    I won’t study this as carefully as Campbell did, to know it as well as Elmendorff does, but I repeat, when it was unabiguously asked if 800,000 jobs will be lost, he testified it does:

    CAMPBELL: “That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?”
    ELMENDORF: “Yes.

    While the fact checker is allusing do some of the explanation in this document, the idea jobs will be lost because of Obama care is explicitly stated… and when asked directly, unabiguously about 800,000 jobs lost, Elmendorf says “YES”…

    That overrides the INTERPRETATION given by “fact check,” whose pinochio nose evidently got in the way of realizing the CBO was walking on egg shells because it didn’t want to offend Pelosi.

    The Date of this report was July 13th, 2009, at the height of Democratic super majority power…and no CBO official wanted to be on the wrong side of that.

    Hidden in the language is CYA, “The overall impact on labor markets, however, is difficult to predict Although economic theory and experience provide some guidance as to the effect of specific provisions, large-scale changes to the health insurance system could have more extensive repercussions than have previously been observed…

    THAT’s Cover Your Ass wording for what you know is likely to be wrong.

    Hence the 800,000 unambiguous number is to be accepted as possible…Obamacare will cost the economy jobs.

  8. tcc3 says:

    #133 TeaDud

    Did you even read what you posted? The “unambiguous” 800k figure doesn’t appear in that pdf. It does mention some potential job loss, just describes it as being coupled with a min wage increase. That’s not what Elmendorf is referring to.

    Again and again you truncate his response – it is not the response of the Washinton post columnist – its what Elmendorf said:

    “ELMENDORF: “Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that the household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000. That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.”

    Also from the pdf:

    “Because employees largely bear the cost of health insurance or play-or-pay fees in the form of lower wages, the effects of those provisions on employment and hours worked is likely to be relatively minor.”

    “By making insurance obtained outside the workplace more attractive, those provisions could cause some people to retire early.”

    “In addition, those who have medical problems (or have family members with medical problems) have an incentive to stay in a job that provides health insurance in order to cover those preexisting conditions, even if more productive opportunities exist elsewhere— a phenomenon known as “job lock.” (Those opportunities could include working for a different employer or becoming an entrepreneur.)”

    So the CBO report is unreliable and full of CYA language so as to not make Pelosi mad? Then why are you relying on it? Its either lies or its not.

    Make up your mind.

  9. gmknobl says:

    Who won the debate, aside from revealing a complete lack of intelligence, wisdom and being just plain selfishly greedy, making all intelligent people want to vote for Democrats (but reluctantly at best), the only real winners were big CORPORATIONS!

    Oh, they’re licking their lips on the cash flow Republicans will give them while taking away from the American people. (They get slightly less from the Democrats but the American people still loose.)

  10. ECA says:

    WE NEED A GAME SHOW SERIES…
    For anyone that wishes to become PRESIDENT, or senator/congress person…
    REALLY..

    LETS run them on a few game shows..

    Price is right..is very good..
    Smarter then a 5th grader..

    A few video game competitions also..
    Sim city..
    populace..
    A good trading program..(elite 2, ..)

  11. So what says:

    OK, alfie want’s bachman to run. If she does win the nomination. Sure that’s gonna happen. She will lose, one reason she’s nuts, second reason she’s tea party, third reason she’s a woman. The GOP rank and file just won’t vote for the trifecta. So does that mean that alfies actually a closet liberal stacking the cards so Obama wins a second term, or is he really batshit crazy enough to actually think she has a snowballs chance in hell? Just asking.

  12. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    #134 You are violating two sound principles of interpretation, the less clear is always interpreted by the clear; and the author gives the best interpretation of his unclear statements.

    Under oath, he unambiguously said 800,000 jobs are lost, in the pdf’s, the statements are self contradictory, uncertain, ambiguous…therefore his own plain statement defines the job loss.

    I cited primary sources, and sound principles of interpretation…even if you can’t agree with the figure, you must agree it’s a plausible interpretation of his words to Campbell.

    Therefore Bachmann wasn’t wrong to use it. You might quibble with it, but you cannot soundly refute it…the language is too ambiguous and comes with a disclaimer:

    The overall impact on labor markets, however, is difficult to predict. Although economic theory and experience provide some guidance as to the effect of specific provisions, large-scale changes to the health insurance system could have more extensive repercussions than have previously been observed and also may involve nuerous factors that would interact—affecting labor markets in significant but potentially offsetting ways.

    To repeat, the disclaimer renders every conclusion in the document, uncertain.

    You can argue he doesn’t know for sure 800,000 jobs will be lost, that no one does, but you can’t argue he didn’t say it.

    He certainly did, to Campbell, unambiguously, and therefore Bachmann could cite it.

    I’m done with this, you can have the final word.

  13. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    #137 Bachmann will win for because she is tea party.

    We believe you leftists are nuts, balkanizing the USA with your victim politics, and bankrupting it with entitlements and theft.

    Being a woman is a plus, we are ready for a woman president.

    I’ve decided to support her over Paul…while I like the philosophical consistency of Paul, I can’t see abandoning Israel.

    Bachmann proved her mettle standing for the Tea Party against the progressive ruling elite, she withstood everything they threw at her, which was formidable.

    While Palin got it worse, Bachmann was next in their sights, and she not only survived, she prospered, just like Palin.

    Bachmann will overturn everything Obama did, and that will bring back prosperity.

  14. tcc3 says:

    #138 TeaDud

    I’m glad you’re done with a losing argument. You’ve gone from saying “He definitely said this unambiguously” to “He maybe said this, sort of, its vague, you cant prove he didn’t” Wow, compelling argument.

    I stand by he did not say what you said he did. He was asked a question and answered “Yes, but…” You don’t get to throw out the rest of the statement because you don’t like what it says.

    I can in fact argue that he didn’t say 800k *jobs* would be lost, because he didn’t. He said :

    “That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.”

    800k fewer workers, not 800k fewer jobs.

  15. Frownedupon says:

    When you hit the ‘Vew Results’ button for the poll it should open in a new window automatically.. what is this 1998?

  16. So what says:

    Yep he really is that batshit crazy.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13741 access attempts in the last 7 days.