Time magazine: the GOP is "full of it" and the press won't call them on it

A stirring editorial in Time by Michael Grunwald calls out the US press for failing to report on contradictions in the GOP's platforms (for example, condemning Obama for not cutting Medicare enough while also telling people to vote against him because he wants to cut Medicare). Grunwald cites many examples of this, and says that the press is so anxious to appear nonpartisan that they're simply unwilling to state the obvious: the party's strategy is based on saying whatever is convenient at the moment.

I’ve written a lot about the GOP’s defiance of reality–its denial of climate science, its simultaneous denunciations of Medicare cuts and government health care, its insistence that debt-exploding tax cuts will somehow reduce the debt—so I often get accused of partisanship. But it’s simply a fact that Republicans controlled Washington during the fiscally irresponsible era when President Clinton’s budget surpluses were transformed into the trillion-dollar deficit that President Bush bequeathed to President Obama. (The deficit is now shrinking.) It’s simply a fact that the fiscal cliff was created in response to GOP threats to force the U.S. government to default on its obligations. The press can’t figure out how to weave those facts into the current narrative without sounding like it’s taking sides, so it simply pretends that yesterday never happened.

The next fight is likely to involve the $200 billion worth of stimulus that Obama included in his recycled fiscal cliff plan that somehow didn’t exist before Election Day. I’ve taken a rather keen interest in the topic of stimulus, so I’ll be interested to see how this is covered. Keynesian stimulus used to be uncontroversial in Washington; every 2008 presidential candidate had a stimulus plan, and Mitt Romney’s was the largest. But in early 2009, when Obama began pushing his $787 billion stimulus plan, the GOP began describing stimulus as an assault on free enterprise—even though House Republicans (including Paul Ryan) voted for a $715 billion stimulus alternative that was virtually indistinguishable from Obama’s socialist version. The current Republican position seems to be that the fiscal cliff’s instant austerity would destroy the economy, which is odd after four years of Republican clamoring for austerity, and that the cliff’s military spending cuts in particular would kill jobs, which is even odder after four years of Republican insistence that government spending can’t create jobs...

Whatever. I realize that the GOP’s up-is-downism puts news reporters in an awkward position. It would seem tendentious to point out Republican hypocrisy on deficits and Medicare and stimulus every time it comes up, because these days it comes up almost every time a Republican leader opens his mouth. But we’re not supposed to be stenographers. As long as the media let an entire political party invent a new reality every day, it will keep on doing it. Every day.

I'm all for pointing out this sort of thing whenever it arises -- including pointing out that Obama's "most transparent administration in history" is the most secretive in history. It's the press's job to hold politicians to account for their public utterances and to point out contradictions. If the press committed to calling out BS whenever it arose, we could, in fact, produce a who-lies-most scorecard, without letting anyone off the hook for lying less than the other guy.

Fiscal Cliff Fictions: Let’s All Agree to Pretend the GOP Isn’t Full of It


  1. Nice RDF. Good thing Democrats are standing up for the true reality like keeping reefer addicts off our streets. Time is simply on their knees for whoever’s in power. What’s Joke Line up to these days?

    1. Your comment seems a strange mix of word salad and proof in the pudding.  To stretch the metaphor: “where’s the beef?”

      1. It’s deceptive and ahistorical to portray this as a Republican trait, which makes Time Magazine to be acting a tool.

        1. It’s deceptive and ahistorical to portray it as *not* a Republican trait.  There, fixed that for you.

        2. Sorry, but most of us have had enough of the false equivalency bullshit when comparing republicans and democrats.

          YES. They both suck.  But, please… for the love of GOD, look at the voting records.   With republicans, we are doomed.  At least there’s hope of gradual (yes, I know, too slow for you) change with democrats and eventually open doors for better third parties.  In the meantime, we need to destroy the republican party, it serves no good purpose anymore.

          1. Because you expect a one-party system to be such a smashing success? Somehow I doubt that will bring about the utopia you’re envisioning. 

            Both sides are equally corrupt and compromised past the point of believability. No matter the party label, both sides abandon campaign promises and quickly get to looting and destroying anything unburdened by the crush of government “assistance”. 

            Look at all the warrantless spying, bombing, ramped-up spending, indiscriminate warfare,  and graft from the last four years. It should be clear that the real problem goes way beyond one single party being the problem.

          2. Because you expect a one-party system to be such a smashing success?

            Nope, because then we’ll need to get rid of blue-dog democrats as well. And, please put on your critical thinking cap, then go back and read what I wrote about third parties.

            Somehow I doubt that will bring about the utopia you’re envisioning.

            Trite hyperbole will get you nowhere with me.

            Both sides are equally corrupt

            That’s a lie. And, once again, I implore you too look at the voting records. They are both corrupt, but it’s entirely nonfactual to say they are both equally.

            Dismissing facts is what got us into this mess in the first place, please don’t attempt to perpetuate the problem by embracing ignorance.

            Look at all the warrantless spying

            I do and I hate it. And, that’s why I support democrats which at least opens the door for viable, third party candidates in the future. If you look at FACTS, republicans do everything in their power to nail that door shut.

            Once again… voting records… look at them:

          3. I love the name votesmart because it reads like Votes Mart, which is all too accurate for electoral politics since Citizens United.

          4.  You sound like a college freshman in love with his “Intro to Marxist Theory”class. Ah, I was there once too, a dewey-eyed radical, back when it counted- in 1972, throwing rocks at Nixon’s inauguration. Sad to say, reality has made me become a pragmatic realist; I feel I can’t afford to hold my idealistic breath waiting for the perfect world. Though I still agree with virtually everything he said, what did my vote for Nader in 2000 do? You ought to hold your nose (if you feel the need) and vote for the lesser of two evils (ie, democrats), or else keep your mouth shut when the next Bush/Cheney cabal gets into power.

          5. What “graft” are you referring to? I must have missed that. What ramped up spending would that be that offends you- the stimulus? Obamacare? Bombing- I assume you mean the drones; yeah, it’s a shame- what would you do? Indiscriminate warfare- sorry, that’s how it is sometimes. It seems we’re a lot more discriminating than most, although there have been notable exceptions- mostly by the mercenaries Bush hired for security in Iraq. Obama’s trying to get OUT of the messy shitholes Bush got us into, no? (So we can sit back safely here and watch Afghanistan slide back into the stone age when the Taliban takes over.) Yeah, the spying sucks, you got me there. It’s certainly not pretty or pleasant to see some of these things. But DO YOU HAVE ANY BETTER ANSWERS? Not ones from books; real-world answers. And don’t fucking say “Ron Paul”.

          6. Who is it that you say wants a “one party system”? The Democrats who stupidly keep getting burned by trying to work together, or the Republicans who dig in heels and try to bring to an end any government that isn’t theirs?

            Please give me a bag of whatever you’re smoking I have a feeling it would make me completely forget the toothache I’m currently not enjoying.

          7. Both sides are equally corrupt and compromised past the point of believability
            They might be equally corrupt, but they’re not equally sane

          8. When I’m offered the MacNuggets or the punch in the nose, I don’t have to be a big fan of mechanically separated bird to say that that really isn’t much of a choice.

          9. The equivalency is that they’re all politicians acting in interests other than the citizenry’s. The only difference is who their victims are.

            That site is terrible, usability-wise, but I guess in your view I’m not allowed to complain about that thin gruel either.

          10. The equivalency is that they’re all politicians acting in interests other than the citizenry’s.

            And, that’s a lie and you know it. There’s many democrats working for ingrates like you as we speak at their own detriment. Once again, voting records.. look at them (with whichever site you prefer).

            False equivalency simply embraces ignorance and gets us nowhere.

            That site is terrible, usability-wise

            Then offer something better instead of whining. While you’re at it, maybe offer some constructive criticism of how it could be better instead of just whining about it?

            I guess in your view I’m not allowed to complain about that thin gruel either.

            Trite hyperbole will get you nowhere with me, sorry.

          11. Seriously, you people need to study economics before opining on which party is best equipped to lead.  The dems, and particularly Obama just focus on taxes for the so called rich.  This has very little to do with our problems.  It’s our massively inefficient, wasteful govt where the trouble lies.  Unfortunately it doesn’t make for good political talking points and the dems just like to play class warfare and completely AVOID dealing with it.  If Obama had half a brain he’d start by carving up every program and remove the waste. From welfare, to food stamps, to education, etc.  I have no problem raising taxes when our spending is managed as best as we can.  It’s not.  So just asking for more revenue encourages wasteful spending.  Get over your BS about Republicans not getting it. Unfortunately the dems know it’s easier to get elected if you position reduced spending and higher taxes as class warfare.  Keep this up and you’ll all be asked to pay the interest on the debt, and there’ll be no money left to pay for vital services.

          12. Seriously, you people need to study economics before opining on which party is best equipped to lead

            Romney? Is that you?

          13. Maybe you should study economics. I mean really study economics, not just take the freshman survey courses that were required for your political science bachelor’s. If you did, you would know that it is programs which amount to direct transfers (Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid) that take up the lion’s share of the budget AND actually have some of *lowest* administrative costs. Economists actually love direct transfers because, accountingwise, they’re the best way to deal with externalities, moral hazard, and all the other things that you talk about but never really apply in Econ 101 and 102.

          14. Seriously, you people need to study economics before opining on which party is best equipped to lead.

            So say millions of (conservative) idiots who don’t actually know the first thing about economics.

          15. Doomed? Doooom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EjNBzyLqDPM#t=9s

            Here we see that partisan tripe and ridiculous fear mongering are to be found on both sides of the isle.
            Somehow, I suspect that both parties are completely corrupt and the partisan view is colored by heavy confirmation bias. 
            The cultish partisans on both sides exhibit very specific blind spots when it comes to the wrongs committed by their party. This Time piece is an excellent example.

        3.  Make some case for parity, then.  Can you show me the contradictory Democratic criticisms of Republican policies?  What are some of the issues Democrats are lying about?  If I give you a list of Republican lies can you match each with a similarly consequential lie from Democrats?

          I’m not a fan of the Democrats but cripes, man, there’s pretty obviously a difference here.

          1. You may be suffering from the same condition I am, which is an inability to identify Democratic lies simply because I agree with them more. I truly believe it’s a mistake to give D’s a pass here.

            Note that nobody is arguing for a decrease in lying from politicians in general, the elephant in the room. If there was any justice, political lies would be career-ending depending on severity, as crimes against the populace.

          2. The problem here though isn’t lies, it’s lack of basic coherency.  Republicans basically are complaining how the food is horrible and the portions are too small. 

          3. I truly believe it’s a mistake to give D’s a pass here.

            I agree with you.  But, ironically, if we vote in enough dems to thwart republican filibusters, we can finally end the blame game where democrat corporatists blame the other side for their inaction, etc..  At that point, we can finally more easily usher in third parties.

          4. “We” are not a coherent body that can usher in anything. The only choice available is no longer voting for R’s or D’s. The system is set up to protect “the blame game.”

          5.  I’m not giving D’s “a pass”.  I don’t agree with them that much in the first place.  And in fact, I reject the left/right and liberal/conservative dichotomies as artificial thought limiters preventing people from taking nuanced and honest approaches to understanding the world.

            That said, given the range of possible states of honesty from 100% completely honest to everything-they-say-is-a-lie it would be an extremely curious coincidence if both parties were actually equally dishonest.  I think it’s quite possible to compare what politicians say against reality and come to some decision about whether one party is more honest than the other and by how much.

            I think this “oh, they’re just as bad as each other” is intellectually lazy and dishonest.  I’m absolutely willing to listen to arguments that D’s are “just as bad” or even worse, but you need to actually make that case.  I’m so fucking sick of people just asserting it and assuming that laziness and apathy can substitute for research and analysis when it comes to party politics.  That attitude just reinforces the thought-limiting dichotomies I mentioned in my first para.  You may think you’re striking some kind of enlightened golden mean but in all reality this laziness is exactly the problem.

          6. “We” are not a coherent body that can usher in anything.

            @boingboing-f35fd567065af297ae65b621e0a21ae9:disqus , what are you talking about?  “We” as a coherent body voted to keep Romney OUT of the White House.

            The only choice available is no longer voting for R’s or D’s. The system is set up to protect “the blame game.”

            Um, you’re not being coherent there, ironically.  And, you’re not really addressing my points.  At this point, let’s just agree to disagree.

        4. I disagree on all three points. The modern iteration of the Republican party is practically defined by the Rove/Ailes tactic of telling outright lies about one’s opponent to deflect from their own candidate’s weakness: John Kerry was a decorated war hero, where Bush was not, so “swiftboat.”  Obama is very well regarded by other nations where Mitt gave the world “Romneyshambles,” so “apology tour.”  When presented with negative evidence, never apologize, do double down.  I see no such ad hominem or overtly false portrayals by the Democratic side against their Republican opponents. If I am mistaken, please show me evidence.

          And Time is the press, so they are “acting as a tool” of themselves? 

        5.  I think this is exactly what the author of the article was referring to at the beginning of his article.

    2. I wish proponents of legalized pot (which includes myself) would keep in mind that it is a very controversial topic. Being perceived as soft on drugs can be just about as damaging to a candidate as soft on defense. The day is coming, but don’t think that just because a couple states managed to pass laws that a national-level politician can back it successfully. Maybe now, in a certain bong bandit’s second term, we’ll see some action.

      1. Being perceived as soft on drugs can be just about as damaging to a candidate as soft on defense.

        Has this ever happened?

        1. Clinton’s marijuana use (smoked but didn’t inhale) was seen as a character issue which could have kept him from office.  Ron and Rand Paul have both been attacked by opponents for being “soft on drugs”. 

          1. The word is damaging, yes. Are you suggesting that Clinton was helped by his admission of innocuous drug use as a youth?  The Rand’s avocation of drug legalization caters to their particular regional family brand of libertarianism.  It doesn’t play well with their Republican cohorts outside the Rand sphere of influence.

          2. The opposite of damaging here is not “helping,” it’s “indifference.” Which is what this information is always greeted with. Sure, some Fox and PMRC lamers will screech about it, but people don’t care. There are lots of stoner Republicans and there are lots of churchy Dems.

      2. It’s like Nixon going to China- a liberal couldn’t have done that, he would have been killed by the right. Obama can’t do it with herb- plays to the stereotype of the shiftless druggie minority member that the Fox News folks and their sycophants would have a field day with. it will be done by some corporate republican when they realize how much $$$$ they can make off of it.

        1. Don’t conservatives claim to care about states rights? 
          Don’t conservatives claim to care about balancing the budget?
          Don’t conservatives claim to care about reducing government intrusion into people’s lives?
          Don’t conservatives claim to care about reducing crime?

          In addition to other developments recently – Pat Robertson opposing prohibition, the state refernda, the majorities in national polls calling for an end to prohibition, the speed at which Latin Americans are abandoning the War on Drugs, the exposure of Fox’s diminishing influence in the recent presidential election, the steady growth of libertarian politics – the opportunity to end the War on Weed clearly exists, should Obama choose to seize that opportunity. If nothing else, this would go miles towards breaking down the modern US apartheid system, which was designed from its inception to disenfranchise minorities through outlawing their common forms of recreation. 

          If none of this suggests that the time is right what would?

          1.  I realize that whole apartheid thing is a part of it. “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” is a great book on the roles that the AMA and “Fear of Negro Music and Asian opium addicts” pushed by Hearst and other yellow journalists (as well as other reasons I can’t recall- read it 35 years ago) played in the pot prohibition. But I still think that Obama has more important issues to deal with (and I have smoked herb daily- several times daily) for over 40 years. I don’t give a shit if it’s legal or not. Fuck the law! Just ignore it. You just smoke it and be careful. It’s not even a big deal anymore. Just deal with it as if its another everyday normal part of life- don’t even give it any extra thought- and that’s what it becomes and is accepted as. The law is always the last thing to catch up.
            Now LSD is what they really SHOULD legalize. Everyone should read “The Doors Of Perception” and try it at least one or twelve times.

          2. “Fuck the law! Just ignore it. You just smoke it and be careful” doesn’t do shit for the fact that our (private) prisons are filled with young black and Latino men who are branded for life as felons and therefore unable to navigate much of our society with any real ease. It doesn’t help the thousands dying at the hands of cartels, and it doesn’t help the thousands ailing who need medicine that doesn’t make them felons.

            Don’t *just* ignore the law, don’t *just* smoke it and be careful (but do those things, too, if you find it improves your life). Talk to your friends, family, neighbors. Write your elected representatives, particularly on the state level. Make this a hot button issue.

            Then, when all is said and done, meet me in front of the police station for a blunt of some Grandaddy.

            EDIT: Also yeah we should legalize the shit out of acid (and maybe put small doses in the drinking water).

      3. Being perceived as soft on drugs can be just about as damaging to a candidate as soft on defense.

        Then why aren’t candidates going after one of the most dangerous drugs of all… alcohol? Aren’t they drug softies?

        1. Hush. At the rate that we’re going, being in favor of Prohibition may be a campaign ‘necessity’ in a decade or so.

    3.  Riiiiiight. The democrats are as bad as the republicans. Who the fuck are you gonna vote for, Gus Hall?

      1. Don’t forget Politifact either.

        Scorecards are kind of tricky though since it’s hard to quantify lies fairly. How should we tally a relatively innocuous lie like “I’m happy to be here” against a whopper like “…sought Yellowcake Uranium from Africa?”

        1. I guess the usual approach would be to measure the percentages to see how many facts check out in general, instead of comparing facts with facts. That leaves you with selection bias, though. (Although that might be helped by the fact that the more you claim “side X tells only lies”, the more scrutiny they get – so more statements are checked which should equal out bias to a degree.)

          It would be interesting to see whether there is actually a trend, a “percentage of bullshit over time”, if you will.

  2. My favorite contradiction: the GOP has been in charge in Congress for years, and has authorized every expenditure in the national budget. Now they don’t want to pay the bill, and somehow that is Obama’s fault.

  3. While the press may very well be partially to blame, I believe that more fault lies in a system which has allowed massive consolidation of media distribution often in hands of corporations that drive the political process via their very deep pockets.  It’s had for a journalist to report on a corrupt system when their parent corporation is the one corrupting the system.

  4. I agree with the general tone of the editorial and most of its content.

    I have a small nit to pick WRT the BoingBoing headline though. The editorial was hosted by Time which publishes a variety of opinion pieces from several viewpoints.

    Most magazines and newspapers try hard to differentiate their news from their op-ed sections. (Some of course succeed more than others.) By stating “Time magazine:…”  instead of  “Time magazine editorial:…” carries an implication that Time magazine is taking a stand here. It’s not. It’s just providing a place for Michael Grunwald to state his opinion.

    I’m really not trying to be pedantic here…but I probably succeeded. Thanks for posting the original article.

      1. I guess that was my point – why give them the “credit” for taking a stand here when it’s not warranted.

        Scanning the recent articles in Time regarding the recent fiscal cliff negotiations largely show a “Dems said this, Reps said that” false equivalency. On the face of it that appears balanced. But doesn’t call out the BS that both sides throw out. And at this point the BS on the Republican side just seems particularly outlandish.

        1. It’s a strategy. If you give Time the credit for the idea that it’s ok to say that politicians are constantly lying, then that idea suddenly gains Time’s credibility.

    1. I would note that in the case of this specific piece the author is Time‘s senior national correspondent.

      1. The closing line from the article:
        “As long as the media let an entire political party invent a new reality every day, it will keep on doing it. Every day.”

        If only he knew somebody in a position of power at a major media outlet that could bring about these changes.

        This op-ed is a good first step. Time Magazine using it as a stepping-stone to do more analysis to cut through crap would be a great one. I’m not holding my breath.

        As long as I spend my life gorging on ice cream and sitting on the couch I will keep gaining weight. If only I knew somebody who could make this change…

    2. Brad K,  

      I agree with your point, but adding the qualifier “editorial” doesn’t fix anything.  An editorial IS the official stance of a publication.  The term for Grunwald’s signed opinion piece is op-ed article or column.

  5. “the party’s strategy is based on saying whatever is convenient at the moment.”

    So they found the perfect candidate in Romney

  6. I’ve been arguing with Republicans on other forums.  They lie when they say the rich are precious snowflakes who will fail to create jobs if taxes are raised.  The rich will move their money out of the country.  

    I say, if the current rich cannot handle the new tax rates, then some new rich will take their place.  

    The Republicans use the same reasoning for high CEO salaries.  The CEOs are so special that we must pay their salaries.  If there is one thing I know about business, EVERYONE can be replaced.

    1. As a report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) just over a year ago detailed, the administration has embraced the Bush Administration tactic of using overly broad “state secrets” claims to prevent the declassification or exposure of information. It has fought court orders to release photos depicting the abuse of detainees held in US custody and supported legislation to retroactively exempt the photos from release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It has threatened to veto legislation to reform congressional notification procedures for covert actions. It has  refused to declassify information on Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, a section believed to allow for the collection of information not relevant to espionage or terrorism investigations. It also has aggressively pursued a war on whistleblowing by prosecuting whistleblowers or so-called leakers to a greater degree than any previous president.


      But yeah, if you wanna pick nits, MOST secretive might be hard to prove.

    2. I usually hear it is related to FOIA requests. Far more of them have been rejected than in Bush’s term (according to some, 50% more in 2010 in absolute numbers). Though absolute number of requests processed is also up around 50%, so…

      1. It usually related to wiretapping citizens these days http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/22549-EFF-Opposes-Governments-State-Secrets-Claim-in-Wiretapping-Case.html

    1. …and we had Ron Paul right in the palm of our…

      I thought Ron Paul got all his sexual favors directly from the Invisible Hand of the Market.

  7. The problem isn’t that the press wants to appear nonpartisan, like they have some strong moral belief in “balance” and, I guess, the equal merit of good ideas and bad ideas…

    It’s that partisanship == ad revenue. 

  8. It’s very strange how one of the only show on TV to call both parties on their constant contradictions and ridiculous reality-bending statements is a comedy show – The Daily Show has been doing this for years now, and it’s why I love watching it.

  9. Does no one see any irony about the fact that Cory felt the need to “balance” a post critical of the Republicans with a “but I have real issues with Obama’s administration too” postscript?

    For cripes sake, cant even he let the story stand as it is?

  10. Breaking News: Democrat writes article saying Republicans are “full of it.”   In other news and on other site, Republican writes article saying Democrats are “full of it.”   Video at 11:00. 

    Seriously though, is anyone shocked by this?   You may not agree with a Republican philosophy but trust me, from their point of view (ever tried to see it?) Democrats are full of just as many contradictions and are just as “full of it.”

    1.  Yes, I try to understand other people’s points of view.  Again, false equivalency is boring and useless.  Stop being lazy.  Make the case that they’re “just as bad” as each other.

      I don’t care about whose “point of view” says what.  I want to know, factually, whether one party is more dishonest than the other.  How do we determine that?  We certainly can’t do that by sitting around equivocating about “points of view”.

      1.  You can’t determine that.   Done.  :-)   

        Each point of fact can be debated endlessly through the perspective of each political philosophy.   I’ve watched and participated as D’s and R’s endlessly hurled facts at each other.  And I watched as each side refused to believe or choose to ignore the other side’s facts.  

        Are you actually talking about a scientific determination of which party is more honest?   Good luck with that!

        FACT:  The Obama administration has begun using the tactic of the “double tap.”   (What a cute name!)   That is the practice of doing a second drone strike against the mourners and rescuers at the site of the first drone attack.   FACT:   That is a war crime.    Fact:  Democrats don’t give a shit about this.   FACT:  If Bush were doing the exact same thing there would be riots in the streets calling for his impeachment on war crimes.

        See how fun this is???

        1. Each point of fact can be debated endlessly through the perspective of each political philosophy.

          So are you saying that there are no perspectives from which the problem could be addressed?  That the only perspectives possible are “liberal democrat” and “conservative republican”?  What a small, sad world you must inhabit.

          FACT:   That is a war crime.

          By your very own argument, there is no fact of the matter about what constitutes a war crime — it is merely a matter of competing perspectives.  You see the problem with this argument yet?

          Fact:  Democrats don’t give a shit about this.   FACT:  If Bush were doing the exact same thing there would be riots in the streets calling for his impeachment on war crimes.

          1. Many Democrats do give a shit about that very issue; perhaps they don’t think Republicans would be any better on this particular issue.  History would indicate they’re probably right.  2. Bush, in fact, started the illegal CIA drone war in Pakistan and there were not riots in the streets.  Nor were there riots in the streets when Bush started the Iraq war on the basis of false intelligence reports.  So not only is that one not a “FACT”, it is contradicted by actual true facts about the world.

          You’re right that if we start from a partisan point of view we’ll excuse bad behavior from “our team” and be less-than-forgiving of bad behavior on the “other team”.  I’m arguing that we have other options — that we don’t have to start from a partisan point of view when we do things like try to assess which party is more “full of it”.  If you want to convince me the Republicans are “just as bad” as the Democrats I’m happy to listen to you with open ears and open mind — I’m no fan of the democrats or republicans and I don’t really give a shit who ends up winning in that comparison.  But simply concluding they’re equally bad with absolutely no research or analysis — just assuming it — is a lazy, stupid, backwards way to approach the problem.

          In other words, if you want to say that each is “just as bad” as the other, make a real fucking argument to that effect, not a bunch of hand-waving “oh we can’t really know and it’s all just a matter of point of view whatevs d00d” bullshit.

        2. Each point of fact can be debated endlessly through the perspective of each political philosophy.

          You clearly don’t know the meaning of ‘fact’. The Democrats may do all sorts of nasty things, but the Republicans have cornered the market on lying.

  11. Unfortunately, Democrats take the “law and order” line because they have to.  If they waver at all, they open themselves up to being “soft on crime.” Same with terrorism. (Here, we need to blame those “undecided” “low-information” “Reagan democrat” voters who sway with the wind.)

    But at least Democrats draw the line when it comes to women/gay/minority rights. And they aren’t deluded by a religion commanding them to be ignorant (eg, evolution, creationism, etc.) And they don’t equate greed with righteousness.  And when they have the purse strings, they don’t break the budget, then blame the other side.

    So, yes, Democrats are annoying vis a vis the War on Drugs, but they are not lethal to our nation, as the Republicans currently are.

    And the greatest fraud is when Republicans con voters who earn less than, say, $200K to vote GOP purely on religion and “values,” while they raid the Treasury on behalf of themselves and voters who earn more than $200K.

Comments are closed.