(T)he fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.
Above all, there’s this:
MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.
I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.
And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.
Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.
So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.
The Titanic sails at dawn - politics, economics & culture
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Debate - What Matters?
Krugman:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Watching it , before I started to check out live bloggers like Sullivan, I thought Romney was winning on points but not by all that much. I was stunned by the intensity of the opinions flying around the net and then on TV when it was all over. Even if Obama had been more aggressive and prepared for Romney's shape-shifting, the fact is he's just not that adept at spitting out rapid-fire sound bytes. It showed when he went up against Hillary. He can deliver certain kinds of speeches brilliantly and speak thoughtfully in a conversational give and take, where pausing to line up an idea is not a drawback. But he does not have a debater's glibness. It'll be interesting to see what gives in round 2.
ReplyDelete