These guys suck at campaigning

[WakeandBake]

Wrangor you thought that was an acceptable answer? "most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win.

You're expectations are pretty low.

you said: Ryan's is trying to make the point that there is a MACRO slant to the news that tends to favor liberals. His reason is that since there are more liberal reporters that they have let their natural inclinations affect their reporting.

Still, it's complete conjecture. No one knows how these people vote, because ballots are secret. You are just restating the theory and trying to polish it up, but it is still a turd.

And I agree with the other posts, the emergence of right-wing media blows the theory out of the water. Unapologetic right-wing slants on multiple major media networks, and Ryan is still crying bias? That's laughable.

Clinton is impeached, Bush enjoys carte blanche from the media to invade Iraq, The Tea Party rises up and takes Congress and advances in the Senate in 2010. The REpublican party is doing pretty darn well these days don't you think - the supposed bias notwithstanding?

 

[Wrangor]

People who don't think we should still be lynching black people are considered liberal down there in Mississippi, aren't they?

Pretty low blow.

 

[Wrangor]

Wrangor you thought that was an acceptable answer? "most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win.

You're expectations are pretty low.

you said: Ryan's is trying to make the point that there is a MACRO slant to the news that tends to favor liberals. His reason is that since there are more liberal reporters that they have let their natural inclinations affect their reporting.

Still, it's complete conjecture. No one knows how these people vote, because ballots are secret. You are just restating the theory and trying to polish it up, but it is still a turd.

And I agree with the other posts, the emergence of right-wing media blows the theory out of the water. Unapologetic right-wing slants on multiple major media networks, and Ryan is still crying bias? That's laughable.

Clinton is impeached, Bush enjoys carte blanche from the media to invade Iraq, The Tea Party rises up and takes Congress and advances in the Senate in 2010. The REpublican party is doing pretty darn well these days don't you think - the supposed bias notwithstanding?

I am not claiming a bias, if you would read. But these two statements have nothing to do with the media. You are pulling a Fox News. Yell out a bunch of stuff that really doesn't make sense but riles up liberals and then say that it makes your point. Ryan is stating their is a media bias, but I don't see him crying about it. I think his words were 'we expected it'. When asked to go deeper he didn't want to make a big deal of it and simply said that since there are more liberal media members he feels that it affects their judgement when reporting a story.

You seem to be the one crying about it. I don't even believe in tangible media bias, but I can see Ryan's point. I we have a post game press conference after playing Duke and 60% of the reporters are Duke grads I am not going to feel all that great about my side being reported without bias. This is no different then what we give Lenox crap about when reporting about Carolina, just on a macro scale. Seems pretty self explanatory yet here you go whining about it. It really isn't that big of an issue.

 

[WFFaithful]

You are right. He's not crying about the lame-stream liberal media. He is using the talking point to deflect from real issues.

 

[Wrangor]

Probably, but that doesn't make him any different than every other politician. You act as though Obama hasn't perfected the art of deflection just as well. I like Obama, he is a great politician, and a decent leader. But what makes him a great politician is his ability to deflect. Ryan is doing the same thing and you saying that is an example of him sucking at campaigning? Just trying to make something up to criticize. No different than Fox News making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding Obama.

 

[WFFaithful]

Repeating a well used talking point does not make him a great politician. Back to the OP, the math response only draws more criticism for his plan.

 

[WakeandBake]

I am not claiming a bias, if you would read. But these two statements have nothing to do with the media. You are pulling a Fox News. Yell out a bunch of stuff that really doesn't make sense but riles up liberals and then say that it makes your point. Ryan is stating their is a media bias, but I don't see him crying about it. I think his words were 'we expected it'. When asked to go deeper he didn't want to make a big deal of it and simply said that since there are more liberal media members he feels that it affects their judgement when reporting a story.

You seem to be the one crying about it. I don't even believe in tangible media bias, but I can see Ryan's point. I we have a post game press conference after playing Duke and 60% of the reporters are Duke grads I am not going to feel all that great about my side being reported without bias. This is no different then what we give Lenox crap about when reporting about Carolina, just on a macro scale. Seems pretty self explanatory yet here you go whining about it. It really isn't that big of an issue.

No, Ryan is crying about it. Getting on the Sunday pol shows and explaining why you are losing the biggest election of them all by blaming the media is fucking crybaby. If Grobie said "we don't recruit as good of players as North Carolina because of media bias" he would be crying.

and no, I'm not crying about it at all. I'm amused at how many suckers fall for this line of bullshit.

And if you don't think the media (and its lack of bias, for that matter) wrt the Clinton impeachment and the Tea Party is germane to the Ryan statement and the liberal bias myth, then you are just being obtuse

 

[WakeandBake]

Probably, but that doesn't make him any different than every other politician. You act as though Obama hasn't perfected the art of deflection just as well. I like Obama, he is a great politician, and a decent leader. But what makes him a great politician is his ability to deflect. Ryan is doing the same thing and you saying that is an example of him sucking at campaigning? Just trying to make something up to criticize. No different than Fox News making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding Obama.

huh? You think answering the question about the tax math the way he did is "good campaigning?" Isn't distilling a long, complicated answer into a shorter more articulate one an example of good campaigning? Isn't that what our best communicators like Reagan and Clinton were able to do so well, and therefore campaign well? You're reaching. He punted, he didn't run it down the field.

Same with the answer about bias when asked why they are behind. He made excuses. Good campaigners say "we haven't made ourselves clear enough about how much better our plan is, for example - our tax plan....."

 

[Wrangor]

What do you expect him to say? He we are losing because Romney isn't conservative enough for the base or inspiring enough for the middle? You act as though making excuses is a Republican invention.

Obama has reset the 50 yard line multiple times during this campaign, and I didn't hear you complaining. This is what politicians do - liberal and conservative alike. They make excuses, they deflect. I am SHOCKED that Ryan would do the same.

Ryan and Romney are most likely going to lose. I understand that. I am not all that worked up about it to be honest, but complaining about a Republican mentioning liberal media bias is a stretch. Next thing you know Liberals will be complaining that Republicans hate poor people. HORROR!

 

[Wrangor]

You make my point. We all have talking points. You know the liberal media bias is a conservative one. OP has a point about the numbers / Ryan should be more specific when asked to explain his plan. The add on about media bias is political "silly season".

 

[WakeandBake]

What do you expect him to say? He we are losing because Romney isn't conservative enough for the base or inspiring enough for the middle? You act as though making excuses is a Republican invention.

I expect him to say "we are losing because we have a lot of work yet to do getting our message out. We are behind, but we are not out of this. For example, we need to work hard letting the American people know that....." and then go through some solid points that make the case. And you know what, that IS why they are behind. They don't have a compelling, articulated message.

Instead, he punked out and pointed fingers at people. Not too good.

Obama has reset the 50 yard line multiple times during this campaign, and I didn't hear you complaining. This is what politicians do - liberal and conservative alike. They make excuses, they deflect. I am SHOCKED that Ryan would do the same.

This thread is about Romney/Ryan. Make a thread about Obama 'moving the 50 yard line and I will offer comment.

Ryan and Romney are most likely going to lose. I understand that. I am not all that worked up about it to be honest, but complaining about a Republican mentioning liberal media bias is a stretch. Next thing you know Liberals will be complaining that Republicans hate poor people. HORROR!

mmkay

 

[Wrangor]

I am not interested in debating Obama moving the 50 yard line but here is a perfect example. He stated the if unemployment was higher than "x" then he would be a one term president. Unemployment is higher than "x" and now he makes the claim that he shouldn't be held to that standard because he didn't know how bad it was. (I believe his number was 8%).

I think this whole exercise is pointless an I don't hold either candidate to these types of standards but you wanted an example so I gave it to you.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

I am not interested in debating Obama moving the 50 yard line but here is a perfect example. He stated the if unemployment was higher than "x" then he would be a one term president. Unemployment is higher than "x" and now he makes the claim that he shouldn't be held to that standard because he didn't know how bad it was. (I believe his number was 8%).

I think this whole exercise is pointless an I don't hold either candidate to these types of standards but you wanted an example so I gave it to you.

Link to him saying that?

 

[PhDeac]

I am not interested in debating Obama moving the 50 yard line but here is a perfect example. He stated the if unemployment was higher than "x" then he would be a one term president. Unemployment is higher than "x" and now he makes the claim that he shouldn't be held to that standard because he didn't know how bad it was. (I believe his number was 8%).

I think this whole exercise is pointless an I don't hold either candidate to these types of standards but you wanted an example so I gave it to you.

The goalposts moved because of the economic earthquake that happened after Lehman collapsed.

Anyway, you're mixing several different things up which is what the Republicans want you to do.

Here are some facts to clear that up:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-repeats-claim-obama-promised-unemployment-w/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...bama-national-debt-held-accountable-one-term/

 

[Wrangor]

The goalposts moved because of the economic earthquake that happened after Lehman collapsed.

Anyway, you're mixing several different things up which is what the Republicans want you to do.

Here are some facts to clear that up:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-repeats-claim-obama-promised-unemployment-w/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...bama-national-debt-held-accountable-one-term/

You are right...I was on the road, and didn't have sources available....Here is the promise with the goal posts being moved.

Here’s what Obama said at the meeting on Feb. 23, 2009:

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office," Obama said. "Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

The next day, Obama repeated the pledge, this time in an address to a joint session of Congress. "Yesterday I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office," he said.

Is Obama keeping that promise? In a word, no.

In 2009, the year Obama took office, the annual deficit was $1.4 trillion. (Generally speaking, the deficit is the amount the government takes in minus what it spends.)

The deficit was a little smaller in 2010 and 2011, but only modestly so, at about $1.3 trillion for each year, according to numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. For 2012, the budget is projected to be $1.1 trillion.

The White House’s budget projections show a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, also short of Obama’s goal, even if his policies are enacted by Congress, which is by no means certain.

Obama was specifically asked about the promise in an interview in February 2012 with Atlanta’s WAGA-TV. (His campaign pointed us to those comments when we asked for response.) He said he wasn’t able to keep the promise because the economic downturn was much more severe than was commonly understood in 2009.

"Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized. Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back at what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3 percent. It turns out it contracted close to 9 percent. …

"So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't lay off teachers, etc. The key, though, is we're setting ourselves on a path where we can get our debt under control.

"The most important thing we can do, though, to reduce our debt is to make sure that we continue growing this economy. We’ve seen some recent good news about unemployment numbers coming down, more jobs being created. We’ve got to to maintain that momentum even as we make some tough choices in terms of government spending."

And I want to reiterate. I have no problem with this as I believe it is normal politics. When something doesn't go like you want it, it is impossible to simply man up and say you failed because the opponent will beat you over the head with it. So instead you invent straw men, or create excuses. I would love for Obama to say...you know what, I promised that, but I failed. I could make up excuses, but I didn't get done what I wanted to get done, and I will work hard to do better. Or for Ryan to do the same instead of blaming the liberal media (whether it exists or doesn't exist doesn't really matter to me). I just get tired of the faux outrage over the other side doing the exact same thing that your side is doing.

When we do that we fall prey to the chess game. Little pawns moved around and used to distract and conceal while the real players take out the competition. About the time I find some common ground with one side, I end up moving back to the other side because I get so tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. It was tea party rhetoric that drove me to Obama last election, and it is stupid rhetoric like this that drove me back.

 

[PhDeac]

So the depth of economic collapse is just a bad excuse?

 

[Skydog Deac]

I listened to the Fox show with Ryan last night on the way back from Nashville. They spent a good amount of time talking about liberal bias. When one side or another starts talking about the media bias against them, it's close to coffin shutting time. The Pubs are frustrating and know their Pres candidate is on the path to defeat, and so they resort to the liberal bias argument. Painfully amusing.

 

[WakeandBake]

You are right...I was on the road, and didn't have sources available....Here is the promise with the goal posts being moved.

Here’s what Obama said at the meeting on Feb. 23, 2009:

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office," Obama said. "Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

The next day, Obama repeated the pledge, this time in an address to a joint session of Congress. "Yesterday I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office," he said.

Is Obama keeping that promise? In a word, no.

In 2009, the year Obama took office, the annual deficit was $1.4 trillion. (Generally speaking, the deficit is the amount the government takes in minus what it spends.)

The deficit was a little smaller in 2010 and 2011, but only modestly so, at about $1.3 trillion for each year, according to numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. For 2012, the budget is projected to be $1.1 trillion.

The White House’s budget projections show a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, also short of Obama’s goal, even if his policies are enacted by Congress, which is by no means certain.

Obama was specifically asked about the promise in an interview in February 2012 with Atlanta’s WAGA-TV. (His campaign pointed us to those comments when we asked for response.) He said he wasn’t able to keep the promise because the economic downturn was much more severe than was commonly understood in 2009.

"Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized. Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back at what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3 percent. It turns out it contracted close to 9 percent. …

"So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't lay off teachers, etc. The key, though, is we're setting ourselves on a path where we can get our debt under control.

"The most important thing we can do, though, to reduce our debt is to make sure that we continue growing this economy. We’ve seen some recent good news about unemployment numbers coming down, more jobs being created. We’ve got to to maintain that momentum even as we make some tough choices in terms of government spending."

And I want to reiterate. I have no problem with this as I believe it is normal politics. When something doesn't go like you want it, it is impossible to simply man up and say you failed because the opponent will beat you over the head with it. So instead you invent straw men, or create excuses. I would love for Obama to say...you know what, I promised that, but I failed. I could make up excuses, but I didn't get done what I wanted to get done, and I will work hard to do better. Or for Ryan to do the same instead of blaming the liberal media (whether it exists or doesn't exist doesn't really matter to me). I just get tired of the faux outrage over the other side doing the exact same thing that your side is doing.

When we do that we fall prey to the chess game. Little pawns moved around and used to distract and conceal while the real players take out the competition. About the time I find some common ground with one side, I end up moving back to the other side because I get so tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. It was tea party rhetoric that drove me to Obama last election, and it is stupid rhetoric like this that drove me back.

??

Fiscal collapses have slowly emerging, long term, and often impossible to predict outcomes. Business leaders and government leaders do their best to gauge and plan for them. Obama, as well as most business leaders and leaders of academic thought, whiffed on their predictions/projections. Obama is admitting that he whiffed, is he not, when he says "this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized"?

Ryan, when asked why he thought his team was losing, offered no explanation that they weren't getting a message across - an answer that's tone could have been spun into somewhat of a positive by taking responsibility for it ("we need to work harder to get our superior plan out"), but instead blamed someone else entirely with a myth.

Your equation of the two is unfounded.

 

[Wrangor]

So the depth of economic collapse is just a bad excuse?

Yes, because he is using it to shift the burden of failure away from his economic plans. You can always say...well it was so much worse than we thought. [Redacted] uses it all the time. Oh but you don't know how bad it was when I got here. I mean the guy before me screwed this up so much worse than I could ever imagine. It is an excuse, plain and simple.

 

[DeaconSig]

Or, you know, its actually what happened. Are you still going to vote for Romney? Really?