One of the problems with media “factchecking” is the notion that all things must be “checked” equally. If you factcheck a Republican and find three whoppers, your fact check of a Democrat better work real hard to find a comparable level of spin or dishonesty.
Which is exactly how Associated Press reporters Matt Apuzzo and Tom Raum approached Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic convention last night.
Clinton’s speech–along with others–“either cherry-picked facts or mischaracterized the opposition.” But their first example is extraordinarily weak. They quote Clinton talking about the difference between Obama and Republican leadership when it comes to eagerness to compromise:
Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is the enemy and compromise is weakness. One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.
It’s hard to know how one would even try to fact check that, but the AP reporters present their case:
THE FACTS: From Clinton’s speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.
Emanuel is also pretty well known for hostility to the left-wing of the party, so as “THE FACTS” go, this isn’t very persuasive.
AP goes on to recount the failure of deficit reduction “grand bargain” negotiations with John Boehner, which “would have required compromise from both sides.” So what happened?
Boehner couldn’t sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.
How on Earth this contradicts anything Clinton said is up to readers to determine.
The factcheck also includes the failure of the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan. The piece argues that “Obama mostly walked away from the report”–this is misleading, since there wasn’t a report at all–but that he “later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported.” Which is proof of… something.
The Clinton speech listed all the policy arenas where Obama compromised with Republicans. (People seem to forget that the healthcare negotiations went on for so long in part because of the desire to get Republican support.) He also referenced Senate Republican Mitch McConnell’s comment that the “single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
It’s difficult to debunk the claim that the Republican strategy is to block Obama at virtually every turn because it is their stated political goal.
It’s not all bad factchecking; AP thinks there’s no evidence to support Clinton’s claim that Obamacare is responsible for the slowdown in Medicare spending over the past two years. But the final item is a doozy.
Clinton accurately quoted a Romney pollster saying, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by factcheckers.” Which means it’s time to talk about… Monica Lewinsky:
THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were “legally accurate” but also allowed that he “misled people, including even my wife.”
If that’s the standard, then nothing that Clinton said last night could possibly be believed. If that’s AP‘s actual position, they should have made that their top “FACT”–and left out all the rest.
Here’s a factcheck on McConnell’s comment:
The Republican strategy is “to block Obama at virtually every turn” …
When he’s not in near-perfect snyc with them.
Which, when it comes to empires – national, financial or corporate
Is always a good bet.
Doug Latimer:
Here’s a factcheck on your comment:
The “not in near-perfect sync” trop is poppycock, and certainly not what Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint and their ilk had in mind when they pledged to oppose Obama at every turn regardless of the issues. And that’s precisely what happened. Wingnut interventions on their behalf really should stick to the facts. As to your flight of fancy about “empires,” well, have a nice flight. But you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you.
the fact checkers also mention the economy took a down turn at the end of the Clinton era but failed to say who controled congress at the end of his second term
hint it was the other party.
Ronald Broun:
Thanks. Probably because of his left-wing orientation, few commenting here have anything to say about the cutesy first-responder drivel spewed here day after day after day by Doug Latimer. I don’t know whether to puke or re-read michael e.
Roger, I’m sure you’re delighted to find someone who agrees with you.
Misanthropy loves company.
And I seem to recall a “few here having [something] to say” about my posts a short while back.
And I thank them for coming to my defense against your ad hominem attacks.
As they’re the folks I care about, you’ll forgive me if I take your “drivel” for what it’s worth.
Roger and Ronald
Lord help me, I actually enjoy this at some level.
Must be the masochist in me.
Or perhaps “derive satisfaction” is more accurate.
In any event
Keep ’em coming.
Shut your mouths and open your eyes.Especially the women,elderly. and those with medical problems.We need this President! We are so much better off than 4 years ago! Without the auto industry we would all be in the unemployment line. FORWARD
Doug Latimer: I know nothing about you and had nothing ad hominem to say about you. I focused entirely on your comments on this site. Your response, by contrast, was entirely ad hominem and addressed my criticism in no way whatever. I’m a “misanthrope?” On what do you base that opinion?
Brenda: You are right that we need this President, and it is essential to future generations that we get out and vote for him, but we will nevertheless be voting for someone who, unlike F.D.R., has not only failed to inform the electorate of an economic disaster caused by ignorant right-wing dogma but has inexplicably moved substantially to the right of his 2008 campaign rhetoric.
It has taken him until September, 2012, to state that global warming is not a hoax. When do you think he will note that there are unpunished criminals on Wall Street, or that taxes on the rich must be increased?
ad hominem:
Attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
Roger, when you use terms like “drivel” and “puke”, and accuse me of pimping my blog, that’s a personal attack in my book.
Of course, the last charge is also an outright lie.
Why you engage in such actions, for what reason and to what end, I’m at a loss to fathom.
But that you do toward someone who’s done no harm to you would seem to indicate a deep-seated need to piss on others. As my psychoses are largely self-destructive in nature, it’s difficult for me to understand what drives those of an anti-social character.
But regardless of reason, they are symptomatic of a mean-spiritedness that has no place here … or indeed, anywhere else.
That to me is misanthropy. If you don’t want to be labeled as such, I’d recommend not giving cause for same. There’s nothing ad hominem about calling a spade a spade.
Your “criticism” is nothing more than an attempt to demean me, perhaps to inflate your own ego. I can’t say.
But it will have no impact on what I do. Other folks have made it clear that they get something out of my comments, and I’d be selfish to alter my behavior to avoid your turd tossing.
And so, I won’t.
Shit away, but realize you’re only soiling yourself.
Welcome to the age of postmodern “jounalism” nothing is true, only relative.. Once upon a time “objectivity” made it possible to know the truth. Now “objectivity” makes it impossible to know the truth…the “news” you see on the networks – cable or not – is bought an piad for by money and power interests to whom the dissemnation of “truth” is a real expensive problem..as asshole extrodinaire paul wyrich once said… “do you want everyone (whos eligible) to vote? i dont want everyone to vote”…..he might now say (if he werent in hell)…. “do you want eveyone to know whats really going on? i dont want everyone to know whats really going on”…..
@roger bloyce
you think we “need this president” ? for what? more billionaire tax cut extensions? more extra-congressional,unelected, unanswerable-to the voter “super comittees’, to cut billions out of medicaid and social security? to continue using unmanned drones to assasinate people (including ameridcan citizens) based on unseen, un – reviewable completely “secret evidence”..well i have some evidence that proves everything you said and did for 20 years is factually wrong and morally repugnant, and your privellege to speak via the comment section is going to terminated with extreme prejudice..now now, lets not hear any whining about “fairness”… its SECRET EVIDENCE and you cant see it. so…… : 0p
Why do we call it “factchecking”? Mostly it’s about a conflict of opinions–not verifiable facts. Kind of like statistics or the Bible: you can find support for any sort of argument (or against any argument) if you look hard enough. Let’s see “factchecking” for what it really is: a means media use to convince the public they are “fair and objective” and are therefore worthy of everybody’s attention–both conservatives and progressives. Doesn’t really work for progressives. Don’t know about conservatives.
The only term that could possibly be used to describe this deliberate peddling of falsehoods as “factchecking” is MEDIA FRAUD. I suggest we start splashing that term all over the internet. Maybe people will start to realize that all of the American Media is full of BS.
Where there is no compromise (hint: think “congress”) there cannot be democracy UNTIL there is revolution.
The AP is an extremely biased outfit. Their function is to mold information so that it fits the corporate political agenda, which is the effective overthrow of the US Constitution and more importantly, the obliteration of the Bill of Rights. Does that sound far-out and paranoid to you? Then you don’t know your history and you haven’t been paying attention for the last forty years.
Not sure why everyone is dogopiling on Doug for stating the facts. Obusha never met a Bush or Neocon policy he did not continue to enable and expand upon; further, he never met a progressive initiative he did not ignore or secretly quash. And before you talk about healthcare and gay rights, let me say clearly that the Neocons don’t give a tinker’s cuss about social issues. They’re gimmes, throw-aways, to make Obusha seem populist. As for healthcare, if Obusha really wanted to change thimngs he would have fought for single payer or Medicare for all, not immediately take those options off the table, thus ensuring a monstrous giveaway to the insurance companies.
From warrantless wiretapping to the NDAA to executive privilege to drone strikes to expansion of the wars to continuing almost all major Bush policies to failing to close Gitmo to refusing to prosecute anyone on Wall Street to deliberating monkey-wrenching the climate talks in Copenhagen, this president is no more a ‘Democrat’ than I am Jimmy Durante. Did you know that this so-called constitutional scholar now claims he can kill anyone anywhere, at any time, with no oversight, ocurt order, congressional approval, nothing — and that his killing them constitutes “due process”?
The fact that the American public by and large still doesn’t grasp that he’s a shill, a fraud, a marketing creation, is due to three factors: his undeinable charisma; a complicit, 100% owned and controlled media, and our own profound willingness to believe lies unquestioningly and strike out at anyone who dares question them. I have nothing personal against the guy. I’m sure he’s a decent fellow, and what he SAYS is mostly wonderful, populist and just. What he DOES, however, is something else entirely.
Please, folks, do not be swayed by the major media and the cult of personality. Scrutinize Obama as carefully as you did W. Don’t give him a pass because he says good-sounding things (lies). Get your news from independent, alternative news sources and consider voting third party — Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, Justice, Green — all of them are a far, far better choice than either of the two fundamentally corrupt, 100% owned major party candidates.
Jim, thanks for the backup.
I can’t go along with the Libertarian endorsement, and I think Dear Misleader is very much a “Democrat”, given their complicity with plutocracy since Hector was a pup.
And yes, that includes the sainted FDR.
We, or any others, can discuss the above, if you’d like.
Civilly, I should hasten, but shouldn’t have, to add.
What the AP did was to present their opinion as “fact”. A true fact has proof, in the form of a hard piece of evidence, like a document, etc. That is why Lying Ryan’s lies can indeed be characterized as lies, because the actual law that he and Romney say takes away the work requirement for welfare does not exist. Even the legislator, an “R”, who wrote the legislation, says that what Obama did does not remove the work requirement, and yet they continue to say it. Could it be that they have taken a page from Goebels, whose philosphy was that if you tell a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.
Whether or not a third party candidate is “a far, far better choice than either of the two fundamentally corrupt, 100% owned major party candidates” is irrelevant to the reality of our political situation. First, none of these candidates is electable, no matter how good they might–or might not–be. They are simply too unknown to most people in the population and have nothing but fringe support. Ron Paul, a Libertarian and a far more visible candidate than the others with very active and vocal supporters, couldn’t get any traction. Therefore a vote for any of the third-party candidate is a vote that Obama will not get. You may consider him corrupt, a fraud, etc., but I believe the country will fare far better under his administration than under a Romney administration.
Second, even were one of these third-party candidates to miraculously have a breakthrough and get elected, how exactly would they interact with Congress? Congress would still be the domain of the Ds and Rs, and they would go on their merry way doing what they want to do. Unless a majority of the members of Congress shared the principles of the third-party candidate who was elected, we would have even more of a stalemate than we do now.
Third, I have a lot of difficulty taking any of these parties seriously. Each presidential cycle they put up candidates for president, but what have any of them done to build up support at the grass roots? There is not ONE Green party legislator, for example, at the federal level and precious few at the state or local level. What are they doing to gather support, to make themselves visible, to demonstrate that they will, in fact, govern in accordance with their rhetoric, or that their policies are actually workable in practice? What are they doing to elect Reps and Senators who will work along with the president to carry out the policies they proclaim? It is all a lot of posturing and self-indulgence that sucks in the idealistic who are more interested in their “feelings” about what is good than in doing the hard work to build support among significant parts of the population and then to actually govern. If third-parties cannot even succeed at the local level and cannot even elect Representatives, why should anyone give them any credence at all when they go for the big one?
And, fourth, Jill Stein, for example, as demonstrated at the Green’s web site, seems either to have little understanding of how our system works or is, as noted above, simply posturing. She talks about how “I” will do this or how “I” will do that. Right. Since when is the president a dictator who simply issues orders?
You may claim that the system is rigged against third-party candidates, but unless they get serious about doing the HARD WORK at the local level and stop just going for the glory of being president as they proclaim themselves to be the good guys, nothing will ever change.
So, go ahead, vote for one of these “feel good” candidates and watch us continue on the same path that we are on now.
I watched Clintons speech.Mostly I think HE did not believe what he said in that speech.Forget the fact checkers.Obama said early on..” Remember I won…Im the president’He completely cut all republicans out of the most important,expensive legislation of our times.He pulled every dirty trick in the dark of night to get it past. The Majority of Americans were against it.All those on the right.And many on the left who were threatened,bribed,and lied to(it wasn’t a tax and would cost no more than 700 billion.They(Rs) learned then compromise is an idiots game with this man.They would never again consider compromising their core values with a man who was not within a country mile of “traditional American values”.And remember though he once held a super majority his OWN party turned aside his joke of a budget as well as everyone on the left.You seem to be saying that voting against idiocy,incompetence,and incomprehensible socialist policies is wrong headed.No ….he was shot down every time people like the tea party reminded Americans who they were.And how different was this mans vision.
….everyone on the right
Michael – Really? It took about a year to get the health care bill passed BECAUSE Obama really wanted to get the Republicans on board. He tried compromise after compromise, listening to what they wanted, making changes–and in the end, not one single Republican voted for the bill. And that is in spite of the fact that what the bill provides is almost identical to a plan first put forth by that ultra-libereral organization, the Heritage Foundation. Oh, what’s that you’re mumbling–the Heritage Foundation is–what’s that you’re saying? Oh, yeah, the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation. A YEAR. Not something carried out in the dark of a single night. A YEAR. Where was the Republicans’ alternative plan? A YEAR. All they could do was obstruct and make demands that once agreed to were never enough. A YEAR. A plan originally proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, a right-wing think tank. Give me a break. Stop listening to Limbaugh and talk radio, pay attention to what is really going on. A YEAR. Point me to any alternative plan proposed by the Republicans during that period. Right, they didn’t propose one because if they had and it had passed and been signed into law by Obama, they knew that he would get credit for it and they just couldn’t have that, now could they? Seventy per cent of Americans want universal health care, so stop with the b.s. that it’s not an American value. Those on the left were disappointed with the ACA because they didn’t think it went far enough–they believed that Obama gave in too much to the Republicans. And you haven’t the foggiest idea of what a socialist is if you think that Obama comes anywhere near being a socialist. God, I can’t believe all the people who have fallen for the crap emanating from Fox and the idiots on talk radio.
Believe it, Christie–our boy m.e. is an avatar, a thrilling peek into our future. It’s what happens when a political party becomes an addled cult, and it’s adherents are crazy for every hare-brained scheme and idea that the lunatics at the top put forth. Facts, the truth, science, culture, the life of the mind, a moral life–these things are held in utter contempt by the Cult of the Imbecilic that the Republicon Party now is. It’s an utter waste of time to point out what the truth or the facts are, Christie–you might as well bark at the moon. At this point, as FAIR illustrates, the cult is no longer even trying to hide the lies and the contradictions and the other assorted horrors. Worse still, the cult has a frightened, stupid, greedy and sycophantic press to back up every move.
@Christie – excellent posts. I have long held the belief that REAL change can only start at the bottom (i.e. the local level) and work its way up to the top. In other words, we must elect progressive/green/independent (whatever you want to call them) candidates locally and state-wide. And on the national level, vote to KEEP progressive champions like Bernie Sanders in office to give the president a REAL Congress that will work WITH (not against) him. Only then will we see REAL hope and change.
“and consider voting third party — Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, Justice, Green — all of them are a far, far better choice than either of the two fundamentally corrupt, 100% owned major party candidates.”
People voting for a third party gave us W as president, along with all his corrupt and/or incompetent cronies, more extreme right-wing conservatives on the Supreme Court (young ones who will be there forever!), and the war in Iraq, to mention just a few things. The fiasco in Florida helped to “elect” Bush too, of course.
We have to be grown-ups, people! Of course most Democrats are owned by big-money interests (though less so than Republicans are), but they are closer to what we want than the lying-bully Republicans are. We have to be practical if we don’t want a totally pluto-theocracy. We don’t want a Republican appointing the next couple of Supreme Court justices, or giving more tax cuts to the rich, or handing the entire social safety net over to evangelicals, or laying off half of the public sector workforce.
Don’t insult us, Jim Carlyle, by saying we should really look at what Obama has done and not just listen to his rhetoric. I’ve disliked Obama since about 2007 when I started to look at his voting record, and heard him demonstrate what a sexist guy he is, but I voted for him in the general election in 2008 because I’m an adult, and he was the best alternative — yes, the lesser of two evils. That’s what grown-ups have to do.
Mr. Bloyce: I don’t know what your problem is, but I think you need to talk with someone about your feelings toward Doug Latimer. The two of you seem to agree on a lot of things, yet you lambaste him just because of his writing style and because he often happens to be first to post comments. It makes no sense.
Jamie, I appreciate your words of advice for Roger, but I have to say you should have taken them to heart in your response to Jim.
He wasn’t trying to “insult” anyone, and there’s nothing juvenile in his view, simply because it differs from yours.
Now, I like to think of myself as an “adult”, and given the choices, it’s quite likely I’ll vote for this murderous bastard come November 6, and for other Democrats, someone’s god help me. For the record, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him last go ’round.
If I thought that a Republican win, and possibly control of the Senate as well, would spark the mass revolt necessary to give us any chance of averting disaster – and by that I mean the end of the world as we know it – as horrible as that might be in the short term, I think it would be the best outcome in the long term.
I don’t see any evidence of that, and so I agree that Dear Misleader’s victory would be the most favorable result.
But if we don’t get off our collective ass and do what should have been done four years ago, and that’s to make clear just what he and his party represent, and that our only true hope lies outside the voting booth, making the human connections with those who know how horrific life is like under “the lesser of two evils” – which is, by definition, still evil – both here and abroad, and doing our damnedest to figure out how to organize ourselves to present an effective and resilient counterweight to the plutocracy both major parties serve …
Well, it really won’t make a rat’s ass who we vote for come 2016, will it?
I’ll just finish by saying that even though I may not vote for a third party, I will not demean anyone else’s choice to do so. If that’s what their conscience leads them to do, I’ll respect that, even if I don’t feel it’s the best option in the current circumstances.
Does that make sense to you?
Christie
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.So the Heritage foundation was the originator of Obama care??A good friend of mine is big shakes over at the heritage foundation.I sent him your charge.He wrote back”What??? What In Gods name is she talking about?)I will wait for you to explain.
As far as Obama being inclusive, that is a joke.There were no republicans allowed into those meetings.My God girl even at the end Nancy Pelosi famously said “we wont know what is in it till we pass it”.No- one in the house or the senate on the left admitted to reading it(far to massive).And remember Obama promised it would be televised so the people could join in?And also remember there were lots of people on the left who refused to pass it.Not till they were paid off… strong armed,allowed to opt out…..promised it was not a tax….And promised it would be fully funded at 700billion,and would go no higher.On the right no one bought this bullshit.They said it would easily go over 2 trillion and was in fact a tax.Well my dear it is now at 2.7 trillion and is according to the supreme court ..A TAX!!!!!So who was right?Your attitude seems to be that yeah BAM lied his ass off but the ends justifies the means.And why didn’t the right sell their core values to help this man LIE HIS ASS OFF and get away scott free?Do you know what saved this country from going down his socialist rabbit hole with its tax raises,carbon taxes,and all the rest?The tea party and the line in the sand drawn by conservatism.And they did not do it legislatively.They did not have the muscle.They did it by simply alerting the American people who put pressure on their elected officials.Thats why his own side has voted down HIS budget.That is why he lost big time in the last elections.
As far as why didn’t the right present a healthcare bill?THEY DID.The Senate refused to even let it in for consideration.Don’t worry though.Soon…very soon it will be up for your consideration.in place of the Obama healthcare tax.
Tim….You spend most of your writing time personally insulting anyone who holds conservative viewpoints.To many people on this sight that is right up their alley.They think you are a liberal Dem just like them,and they cheer you on.But that is not correct is it?You are actually an admitted socialist.You hate the right….. but only “more” than the left.As a socialist you are outside the mainstream arguments.You are outside American values.Outside the center right OR center left view.Outside even the hard left viewpoint.You are the other view.Outside any acceptance of a capitalist free market society.Acceptance of our constitution.You are the worm in the apple in these discussions.Often I write “as a tea party constitutionalist with conservative viewpoints”to start my point.I think it would be more honest to start yours with…..As a devout socialist…Then we can hear what a socialist believes
Doug….I honestly dont see where you are going with what you wrote.I think you did not articulate well what it is you are struggling with.I hope you expand on it.
I think you should read the new book out on Obama called “The amateur”.I think it will put a lot of things into perspective.Please get it and read it.Five bucks in paper back I think I saw.I believe it will stop anyone who reads, it from pulling the lever for Obama .
Michael –
Okay, it was an exaggeration to say that Obamacare is “almost identical to a plan first put forth by…the Heritage Foundation.” However, the part of the bill that has engendered the loudest screams from the right is the individual mandate and that indeed had its origin at the Heritage Foundation. Your friend’s outrage is as phony as a $2 bill and typical of those on the right when they’re called on those pesky little things known as facts. Don’t believe me? Check out this article at the Wall Street Journal (another bastion of liberalism, of course):
“Heritage Rewrites History
The think tank proposed the individual mandate years before Clinton took office.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448.html
There were no republicans allowed into those meetings.
At the very end, the Republicans were shut out of the final vote–but that was only after a year of obstructionism that had slowed the process to a crawl and after it was absolutely clear that the Republicans–in spite of having gotten their points included in the bill–were determined to vote as a block to prevent passage of the bill in the Senate through the tactic of requiring a super majority. Meanwhile, the Republicans had been fully involved in preparation of the bill up until that time:
“In the summer of 2009, Mr. Baucus slowed the progress of the health-care reform bill sought by President Obama as he pursued extensive negotiations with Republicans on the Finance Committee.”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/max_baucus/index.html
“Senate negotiators are inching toward bipartisan agreement on a health-care plan that seeks middle ground on some of the thorniest issues facing Congress, offering the fragile outlines of a legislative consensus even as the political battle over reform intensifies outside Washington.
…
Three Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee will brief Obama on Thursday about the progress of their sometimes arduous talks, which are now set to extend through the August recess. The negotiators are holding the details close as they continue to debate key issues, and it could be a challenge for them to meet the Sept. 15 deadline set by the committee’s chairman, Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for a deal.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503996.html
From a March 2010 article at Huff Post:
“I just can’t figure out what on earth Snowe is talking about. She voted with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee reform plan, but now appears to be looking for an excuse to oppose the effort. But to sound even remotely credible, Snowe will have to do better than this.
Snowe has been complaining about the speed of the legislative process since July, but therein lies the point: how could this possibl[y] get slower?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/olympia-snowe-will-vote-a_n_398557.html
As for American values, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll taken June 19-23, “even” Republicans support many parts of the ACA. For example, “Eighty percent of Republicans favor ‘creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.'”
More at: “Republicans support Obamacare by any other name”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/27/2871204/republicans-support-obamacare.html
Sorry, that should have been “phony as a $3 bill”. There used to be perfectly good $2 bills, although it’s been years since I’ve seen one.
I can’t help but crak-up when I hear about “Obama’s undeniable Charm”. Even when it’s combined with a negative. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t see anything charming about anyone who us being so as part of a con. If the guy doesn’t have substance and character, there’s nothing charming about him. And Obama doesn’t…and there is not.