I have had a few days to reflect on the recent presidential debate and the reaction from leftist pundits and bloggers. Leaving aside the outlier points like Al Gore's altitude excuse, it seems that many have settled on Romney as liar and bully. Many have debunked the former point but nobody that I know of has considered the latter. So I will.
I watched the debate. I have seen many replays of particularly relevant segments. If someone were to tell me with a straight face that Gov Romney was a bully during the debate, I might have to quote said Gov and say "I don't know what you are talking about." I didn't see anything that even remotely resembled bullying. Whatever you might think of Romney's arguments, he simply advocated them assertively, unapologetically, respectfully, and with occasional humor.
But the left are masters at word play. And the left is also leading the crusade (or is it a jihad?) against bullying. Is it fair to connect the alleged bullying by Romney with the broader effort to confront bullying behavior? Perhaps not but I will anyway because both efforts emanate from the left primarily.
Bullying should be confronted. On that point I agree with the anti-bullying crowd. But it all depends on what is meant by bullying. If asserting a point of view that is disagreeable to leftists is the new bullying, perhaps we need to be suspicious of the movement to confront bullying. If bullying must be stopped and asserting positions that offend liberals is bullying, then the anti-bully movement is little more than a disguised assault on the freedom of speech. Calling one who challenges liberal orthodoxy a bully becomes the secular equivalent to blasphemy. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the left is more open to criminalizing insults to Islam. Who is the real bully?
Contact Denis
About Me
- Denis Navratil
- I love Racine Wisconsin. But I am not naive about the challenges we face. I have chosen the name Free Racine for a reason. For Racine to realize its great potential, we must free ourselves from our own failed policies, from high taxes, failing schools, and self serving politicians.
College Fix
- Althouse
- College Fix
- Journal Times
- LiberTEA Racine Blog
- Protein Wisdom
- WSJ opinion
- blogging blue
- breitbart
- caledonia unplugged
- charlie sykes
- city of racine
- drudge report
- instapundit
- investors editorials
- jihadwatch
- lucianne
- national review
- newsbusters
- racine uncovered
- real clear politics
- real debate wisconsin
- root river siren
- townhall
- wisconsin opinion
15 comments:
I haven't heard the word "bullying" used at all with regard to the debate, nor do I think it makes any sense at all to apply it, that's just silly. This strikes me as a made up, non-issue, not worthy of discussion. So thats my 2 bits, catchyalater.
Really? I can't remember all the sites I read but one of them was definitely the NYT commenters. I did seek out lefty web sites and found the bullying line with quite a bit of frequency.
I take it then Sean that you wouldn't describe Romney's debate performance as bullying. That is good to know on the one hand but frightening all the same as it suggests that there are many people far to the left of you.
Bullying? No. Lying? DENIFINTELY!
Denis, Sean is already on record for saying Romney lied at the debate, which means he didn't win it. Only an Alinskian could say that with a straight face.
As for the content of your post, bully for you!
When anyone calls an obvious non-bully a bully, I have to look for the agenda behind it. I don't think it is a reach the bully card is being played because Obama is half minority. Just another soft way of playing the race card. Kinda like how our side (Tommy)always gets labeled a bully for calling out a Tammy Baldwin type for her extreme record.
But then again, it is always open season on a women like Palin or Michele Backmann. There is no crude act towards them the left would consider bullying.
Can bullying be added to the racism list? Now that the First Amendment has the hate speech/racism/anti-religion clause, it will be even more effective with the haziest clause yet: bullying. "I don't like your policy" can now be bullying and censored! I am so excited! The intelligence of Cranley combined with the thuggery of the Black Panthers -
We all know (well those of us who are not indoctrinated in the Cult of Con, anyway) that Romney will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him at any given moment wants to hear, which is why he wins gold in the flip-flopper olympics. The only principle that he really holds dear is that he wants to be president.
With this knowledge in hand, his comments about the 47% say more about the disgusting attidudes of his audience that day last spring than they reveal about Mitt the Twit. Say what you want about Pall "lyin" Ryan, at least he has the consistency to stick to his lies like glue, something I can attest to from personal, eye to eye experience with Pall. Thursday should be a woot!
That being said, I'm so glad that Romney is the Republican nominee, because I don't think he is a bad person and he's not off his rocker like the rest of the completely scary Republicon field (Pawlenty excluded) that lined up for the job this time around. And yes, all PCness aside, I put Michelle Bachman at the front the looney line, I don't care what gender she is. And that goes for Palincomparison too. Crazy and ignorant are very bad combinations for the presidency.
For my next trick, and at the risk of being called a bully and using unfair tactics (facts) I will use my "intelligence" to document Romney's lies during the debate, which will no doubt send Gearhead into incoherent arm waving wailings. "Nyahhhhhhh, rerahhhhh!
Actually I don't read Cranley so maybe he is intelligent now.
Purposeful ignorance is Ano's only defense.
Good to see union thug bullies are still around Kenosha to practice tolerance and acceptance. Note link below which demonstrates just how liberals promote free speach, unless it is something they don't agree with:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=324936704272103&set=a.309366725829101.65412.309359122496528&type=1&theater
Gearheaded, A) you don't know who did that or what they're a member of. B) As ussual, Obama and other dem lawn signs are vanishing left and right out here in Burlington. Looks like both sides have their share of "thugs". Sheesh.
And now as promised Romney's debate lies revealed.
Romney - "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." LIE
Romney has been campaigning for months to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney
Romney - "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." LIE
Excerpt from the above-linked Tax Policy Institute study: "Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households."
Oh, I'm really going to enjoy disecting Romney's big (but dishonest) "win".
By the way, the results of Mitt's plan outlined above will further deminish the middle class (the people who buy the most stuff, the Real Job Creators) and thereby dampen consumer demand in an American economy that is 70-80% consumer driven. In other words, Mitt will make the economy in the wake of the Great Republicon recession EVEN WORSE!
LOL. A Eyes wide shut, eh?
B. Where is the proof of those missing signs you claim?
I don't have a problem with rate cuts during a recession. Or during expansion. But I can make a case against raising taxes in a recession. Like 01-01-2013 as it stands. Or during the next expansion after Romney gets into office. Tax increases are bad. They only lead to more spending, too much of which we have already done. That is what is killing the middle class.
Sean:
Isn't name calling a form of bullying? (Mitt the Twit; Pall lyin Ryan). Or is the Left always exempt from their own rules?
Gearheaded, try rereading what I wrote, may be with a little repetition you'll understand. I didn't say the signs weren't missing, I said you don't that it was union members who did it, AND that our signs are dissappearing all over, just like every other year due to "thugs" on your side.
Dispite your statement of Con orthodoxy, we'll NEVER retire the debt run up under Republicons with cuts alone. It'll have to be a combination of that and putting rates back to where they were when we could pay our way as we went along.
And kudos to your ignoring completely the fact that Romney lied through his teeth (just like Ryan did) like a good Cult of Con indoctrinant should.
Are you ready for doumentation of more lies you can try and ignore?
Post a Comment