More Buddy Rogers Roast

[Dardedar]

Buddy Rogers has a new column in the paper. It's temporarily online here (for subscribers):

Good President Must Be Able To Lead
PARALLELS IMPLY BARACK OBAMA MIGHT NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT HIS JOB

What follows is my response to his points:

***
What a disgraceful pile of smear and misinformation this article from Buddy Rogers represents. Republicans want to go full blast with this kind of distorted misinformation? Then let's take these lemons and make some lemonade so that an opportunity to teach can be extracted out his hopeless fetid mess. I am going to distribute this rebuttal widely and post it in our forum. To give an idea of the number of errors, misstatements and half truths, I will number Buddy's comments as I go. Let's see how many lines of bunk he can fit in one article.

1) "Barack Obama... lacks the character of a leader.">>

His record, accomplished in the teeth of goosestepping Teabagger obstruction, shows otherwise. Here are: "Top 55 Accomplishments"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1

2) "He is Nixonian in his secrecy,">>

Empty slogan. And this from the person supporting the guy who reveals one year of tax returns, to Obama's ten.

3) "contempt for law">>

Vapid mere assertion, no examples. But who has time for examples when in this article you are doing the Gish Gallop and going for quantity of talking points, not quality?

4) "a willingness to say or do anything for re-election.">>

Again, nice slogan but no example.

5) "his immigration decree,">>

This is known as the Dream Act. Let's see what the people think:

"The DREAM Act is supported by 70 percent of likely voters and by leaders in education, the military, business and religious orders.
--A national poll of 1,008 adults, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for First Focus in June 2010, shows that support cuts across regional and party lines with 70 percent overall support, 60% support from Republicans and 80% support from Democrats.
--University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have called on Congress to pass the DREAM Act."
http://americasvoiceonline.org/research ... dream_act/

So the president can lead and accomplish what the people want, or he can stand around while the republican wingnuts bollox things up and ruin the lives of millions of people for the sole purpose of petty, stupid, politics. He did the right thing.

6) "Obama’s waiver letter on welfare reform promises flexibility where the law provides none.">>

Question begging. If you change the law, then the law provides the flexibility. Flexibility for what? States to have more power to move more people out of welfare and into work. This talking point isn't just counter-productive and false, it's also just plain stupid.

7) "Romney’s ad claiming Obama is gutting welfare reform might or might not be accurate.">>

No, actually, it's not a "may or may not be" situation. We know the ad is false and we know Romney is making it up. Politicfact gives your Romney a "Pants on Fire" for lying about this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ons-tenet/

And as the Washington Post notes:
"...the waivers are not designed to eliminate work requirements but to offer states more flexibility and opportunity for experimentation. The rules can’t be expanded to include people who don’t currently qualify. To get a waiver, a governor must pledge that his or her proposed plan will move 20 percent more people from welfare to work. If no progress towards that target is made in a year, the waiver will be revoked.

A group of Republican governors asked in 2005 for waivers to get around the system’s bureaucratic red tape, which often rewards job-searching more than actual employment — something the White House is pointing out now. Romney was one of them, but it was not the same waiver being discussed now. Five states, including two with Republican governors — Nevada and Utah — have asked the current Health and Human Services Department about waivers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

Incidentally, welfare waivers were used by Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush.

And as ABC notes: “Nobody used waivers more than Ronald Reagan."
"States must include benchmarks and targets [which includes moving people off of welfare], which HHS will approve. If states fail to meet them, HHS will require changes or revoke the waivers entirely."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... re-reform/

8) "The nature of the waivers granted will determine whether the bipartisan, Clintonera welfare reform is “gutted” or merely illegally modified.">>

Hey Buddy, was the law "illegally modified" when St. Reagan used waivers more than anyone? Just wondering.

9) The governors’ letter Obama defenders cite requested legislative change, not an imperial fiat.

And what they are getting is state power to effect change, not imperial fiat.

10) "Obama’s actions flout the separation of powers by arrogating to himself the legislative function.">>

You mean by throwing more power back to the states and requiring the benchmark that they move more people off of welfare? This just shows that if Obama cured cancer you wing-nuts would be complaining about a loss of jobs in the healthcare industry.

11) "The secretary of health and human services unilaterally defines what religious practice is.">>

I'll tell you what religious practice is not, hiding behind the guise of religion to withhold healthcare benefits from the women that pay for it.

12) "The president makes recess appointments when Congress is in session.">>

Let's check:
"President Obama’s decision to issue recent recess appointments is constitutional, because recent pro forma sessions of the U.S. Senate — some lasting just a few seconds — didn’t constitute legitimate sessions that could block such appointments, the Justice Department said in a memo released Thursday.
In a 23-page memo dated Jan. 6, Virginia A. Seitz, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that although the Senate held pro forma sessions from Jan. 3 to Jan. 23, “those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to ‘receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

13) He conducts a war on Libya without congressional approval.">>

If you can't muster good arguments you can always try being dishonest with language. It wasn't "a war."

Whitehouse spokesman Eric Schultz:
"Our conclusion that these constrained and limited operations do not amount to 'hostilities' under the WPR is consistent with WPR interpretations put forward by administrations of both political parties dating back to the statute's 1973 enactment. But what is beyond dispute is the fact that we have averted a massacre, saved thousands of lives and reversed the advance of Gadhafi's forces, giving the Libyan people a chance to determine their future. We have also kept the president's commitment to transfer responsibility to our coalition partners for the enforcement of the civilian protection mission and are now in a support role."

Harry Reid says... the War Powers Resolution didn't apply because "we have no troops on the ground there, and this thing's going to be over before you know it anyway, so I think it's not necessary." Pelosi said the actions were limited, and she believed the president had the authority he needed to go forward. "I don't think they should stop the support that they're giving to NATO to stop the humanitarian disaster," she said."

If Bush had pulled off something remotely this successful, with little cost and zero American causalities, you'd be building a monument to him in your front yard. It could go right along side the one to Reagan.

14) Obama and his surrogates create and exploit division, as did Nixon.">>

More Nixon smear. As if you writing a column this filled with falsehoods doesn't "exploit division."

15) Obama solicits racial division,... choosing a racially biased attorney general.">>

Translation: Not only does Buddy have to suffer through having a black president, but a black attorney general too! It's almost too much to bear.

16) "Obama also divides by class,">>

Or as this poster puts it: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 5339_n.jpg

"If the few benefit at the expense of the many; it's "Free Enterprise."
If the many benefit at the expense of the few, it's "Class Warfare."

17) "belittling small business owners and stigmatizing them as “the rich,”>>

Here's how this one works: "Conservatives Selectively Edit Obama’s Speech To Claim He Hates Small Businesses" http://tinyurl.com/6lw2oft

Oh, and Obama has cut actual taxes on actual small businesses only *seventeen* times: http://tinyurl.com/3rl6gyn

I say "actual small" business because if there is any belittling going on it is against the farce of republicans pretending giants like Bechtel and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, are "small businesses." Here's how they do that dishonest trick:

"The Curious Republican Definition of “Small Business”
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/20/ ... -business/

18) "Americans generally want to improve our own living standards a bit and our children’s a lot. Until now that’s been the reality."

Not so. It was the experiment with giving conservative power and your Bush's decade that put the major kybosh on that trend as shown in this easy to understand chart (h/t to Alpha_cat):

"60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph"
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ph/261503/

Notice how in Clinton's decade every quintile improved, and did so better than any decade going back to the 1960's.

19) [quote] “In fact, the median American family is twice as rich today as it was in 1960, if one takes into account changes in family size, government and employer benefits, and rising immigration,” said Scott Winship,...">>

Here is the very next sentence in that article that you conveniently didn't include:

"That much of this improvement came before 1979 — even 1973 — hardly negates this central fact."

1973 for pity sake! That means improvement has drastically stagnated, and of course, as the Atlantic graph above shows, during of Bush, we took a big step backwards.

The next bit of context Buddy didn't get to:

"Congressional Budget Office statistics indicate that the median household was 35 percent richer in 2007 than in 1979. The bottom fifth of households was about 20 percent richer."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... tt-winship

If we look at the divergence in wages, it looks like this: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-0 ... titles.png
If we look at wages to productivity, it looks like this: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/fi ... ivity1.png
The growth of family incomes, see this chart: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aE7tRoJtAtE/T ... rative.jpg

20) [Scott Winship] carefully analyzes statistics to show all income levels have enjoyed absolute gains for decades.">>

Very much a distortion. As that article cites:

"A huge share of gains since 1980 went to the top 1 percent..." This is the National Review you are selectively quoting from so they don't like that and argue with it, but there it is:
"Noah plays up a finding that 80 percent of the increase in income from 1980 to 2005 went to the top 1 percent."

Tax cuts for the rich! That's what we need. And look: "Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan"
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... an/261027/#

That makes sense right? Right?

21) "the... jobless or under-employed because of the Bush-Obama recession....">>

As if we can in anyway blame a recession that started over a year before Obama took office (Dec 2007), on Obama.

22) “Understanding” ad, falsely implying Romney is to blame for a woman’s death.">>

A couple of points:
a) The ad didn't run
b) It had nothing to do with the Obama campaign (by law)
c) When you ravish companies, steal pensions and wipe out healthcare for thousands of employees, as Romney's Bain Capital did for sport and (government backed, socialized) profit, it has consequences.

23) Obama refuses to condemn the lie, because it’s his:">>

More mendacity. Let's check:
"We had nothing to do with the ad," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Thursday. "We can't speak to what they were trying to convey by the ad or communicate." ...
The Obama campaign is not responsible for the ad since campaigns, which are subject to strict disclosure guidelines under campaign finance laws, are prohibited from coordinating with super PACs..."
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08 ... -campaign/

24) "Even NPR cites evidence of illegal coordination with top Obama campaign officials.">>

More vague unreferenced smear and run.

25) Obama can’t even... honestly address Medicare’s nearing insolvency,">>

Another whopper. For years the republicans (and everyone else) asked that we should cut the waste fraud and abuse from medicare, and when Obama does *exactly* that, they shamelessly lie and say he is robbing
money from the program. Note:

"Obamacare’s $716 billion reduction in fee's to Medicare freeloaders "reduces overall Medicare spending from 7 percent of GDP to 3.5 percent by 2023,"
"As a result of these savings, “growth in spending will be restrained” and the life of the Medicare trust fund is expanded by eight years, the government estimates."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08 ... -medicare/

26) "or get one member of Congress to vote for his budgets.">>

The budget farce is pure Teabagger obstruction. If you know anything about politics (and you probably do but are just being dishonest again), you have to know this. If you don't, it's carefully explained here:

"Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget
The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... -procedure

The end.

So, about two dozen whoppers in one article. That's about how many lies Buddy's candidate is cranking out each and every week. All carefully documented and referenced, here:

"Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXXI"
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... -xxxi?lite

Oh, I see he did 37 in the last week. Buddy will have to work harder to keep up with that kind of Olympic caliber mendacity.

D.
----------------
“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.” — Adlai E. Stevenson, Governor of Illinois, 1949-53

[Dardedar]

NWAonline

***
Now to "SidneyG's" examples:

SID:
[FFT quote] "1: "His record, accomplished in the teeth of goosestepping Teabagger obstruction, shows otherwise. Here are: 'Top 55 Accomplishments.'">>

[SID] "...obvious to the most casual observer, at least one who paid attention in 5th grade, that "accomplishments" is a value-laden term;">>

No, actually that's a value you bring to the comment (had the word used been "achievements" you would only slightly have a case). I often speak of the "accomplishments" of GW Bush, so, being very familiar with his record, I am extremely aware that the word "accomplishment" can be used to describe some pretty nasty stuff. But remember, my comment was in regard to the specific complaint about "leadership." That list of 55 provides some excellent examples of the good professor "accomplishing" his goals as "leader." I am well aware you won't like some of them, or even most of them. When a politician makes promises/commitments to "accomplish" certain things, and then they exhibit the necessary leadership qualities to "accomplish" these promises and commitments, it counts as an "accomplishment" regardless of whether it causes your personal political agenda discomfort.

Here also are 190 specific referenced and detailed examples of president Obama promising to accomplish certain things, and then following through by accomplishing them:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... mise-kept/

SID: "that is, an opinion about facts.">>

Actually no. Familiarize yourself with the first and primary definition of "accomplishment:"

"an act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment: the accomplishment of our desires."

SID: "That Washington Monthly, a liberal echo chamber publication,...">>

Of course the necessary hat tip to smearing the source.

SID: "and the writer, a conservative might differ about what an accomplishment is obvious.">>

Just realize this is a value you are bringing to the word "accomplishment."

SID: "I do appreciate the... respect for your opponent shown by the Nazi allusion...">>

The word goose-stepping has an origin from around 1875, so it predates the Nazis, but of course they made it more famous. If you don't like that word, substitute "lockstep." Surely I don't need to bother showing how the republicans have walked "lockstep" in their obstruction of the presidents efforts.

SID: "(the clearest sign that no thinking is going on)">>

Actually, that's no sign at all. Of course it does not follow in any way that just because someone used a word you don't like, that "no thinking is going on."

***
Sidney's #2:

SID: "2. ''He is Nixonian in his secrecy.' >>
[FFT quote] Empty slogan.">>
"The one place you could have legitmately dinged Rogers for not giving examples and you missed it.">>

I think "empty slogan" makes the point. I can't really take attributing "Nixionian secrecy" to Obama serious enough to consider very much. I think your Buddy heard the claim on his Bain Capital Radio (Bain Capital owns Clear Channel), and he thoughtlessly threw it in the pot with the rest.

SID: "even the left-wing media have complained about O's attempts to manage news,">>

It's not clear how the charge of "secrecy" is in any way equivalent to "manage the news." Not that you have provided any reason to believe either charge.

SID: "lack of press conferences.">>

Compared to the last three presidents, he has been a little light on the formal press conferences. His spokesperson Gibbs points out that he has been more open to the media in other ways:

"Robert Gibbs took to “Fox News Sunday” to defend Obama, citing 13 local television and 11 radio interviews, along with five roundtable interviews with print journalists." http://tinyurl.com/9gzv49z

But, let's compare him with Reagan:

Reagan press conferences:
Total: 46
Average per month: 0.48
Average per year: 5.75

Obama press conferences (just to April '12):
Total: 71
Average per month: 1.82
Average per year: 21.85
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/newsconferences.php

According to this analysis:

"Obama in less than two years, has given just 10 fewer total press conferences than Reagan did in eight years (36 vs. 46)."

Oops, looks like your complaint here works really really well against the Gipper.

And if we count interviews, and we probably should because that's certainly giving access to the media, then:

"President Obama has already given more interviews to reporters than any of his immediate predecessors."
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/10 ... ent-um-no/

And that was as of only... "Oct 2010." Now there is some Nixonian secrecy eh?

SID: "why did [Obama] seal his college records:">>

I don't know. Hey Sid, can you please list the past presidents that have published their college transcripts? Actually, you can't, because no other past presidents have (GW Bush and Gore's were leaked, Kerry released his months after the election). Maybe that's why?

SID: "did he false claim to be a foreign student?">>

Oh the poor birther community. They can't decide whether Obama said he was a foreigner to get a deal on college, or said he was born in Hawaii to be president. What they can't do, as usual, is demonstrate the truth of what they so desire to be true.

D.
---------------------
I hope my new Buddy, SidneyG, hasn't given up after reaching for only two pieces of "low hanging fruit."
***

[Dardedar]

I almost thought the teacher wasn't going to return to class for the lesson. More from "SidneyG."

***
SID: "Obama was a constant presence on TV before the 2010 election.">>

Oh, I thought he was "Nixonion in his secrecy" and this was based in part on his "lack of press conferences?" Since he has had 4x as many press conferences per year as Reagan, does that make Reagan 4x times as secretive as Nixon?

SID: "An "accomplishment" connotes something positive,...">>

Not so as you admit in your next sentence when you say regarding a suicide bomber: "...undeniably he accomplished his goal."
The primary meaning of accomplishment is "an act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment:"
Obama carrying through on ACA is a profound political accomplishment and follow through on a promise he ran on, regardless of your opinion of it's merits.

SID: "Acceptance of ACA is ever lower:">>

Let's check, here's what the polling looked like when it passed:

"By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage"
"Nearly half of Americans give a thumbs-up to Congress' passage of a healthcare reform bill last weekend, with 49% calling it "a good thing."
40% called it a "bad thing."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim- ... ssage.aspx

Since then and before, your republicans have worked 24/7 to shamelessly to misinform the populace about it and they were able to confuse a lot people about this rather complex issue. So it's no surprise to have them
come along later and point to the confused mass they created and say: "look what the people think."
Five examples, of dozens, here: http://www.newsweek.com/2009/08/28/the- ... ebate.html

That'll turn around as it begins to benefit millions of people and look, it already has:

The favorability of the Affordable Care Act is going up... from 37% to 43% in the last year. viewtopic.php?p=25515#p25515

And remember, it's always a majority that either:
a) approve of it or
c) don't approve of it specifically because it didn't go far enough

Favor: 43%
Oppose, too liberal: 34%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
43 + 13 = 56

Making the point further: "Small Business Owners’ Views on Implementing the Affordable Care Act"

"Key Findings: Only a third of small business owners want the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act; a plurality of 50% would like it upheld, with minor or no changes. This support grows after learning more details about the law’s key provisions:" http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/sm ... on-aca.php
***
SID: "Obama's inability to lead is shown by the 2010 elections...">>

Let me help you with this talking point. The stars and seats were aligned nicely to let the Tea People move into some territory they won't be able to hold, but these things happen. Obama lost 60 seats. Let's observe the historical Mid-Term context:

1930-(R)..Hoover...........60
1938-(D)..FDR...............79
1946-(D)..HST...............66
1958-(R)..Ike................60
1966-(D)..LBJ................56
1974-(R)..Nixon.............52
1994-(D)..Clinton...........62

Also note that the republican majority in the house is actually *smaller* now than the Demo majority just was before that election. Reagan lost *Twelve* senate seats in his first mid term, Obama lost six and still held a majority. Does Reagan show his "inability to lead" because he lost twice as many senate seats as Obama?

SID: "and the polls still not improving."

Nate Silver (who correctly predicted every state except Indiana in 2008), has Obama at 68% chance to win vs. Romney's 31%. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... te-silver/
Intrade, the market prediction engine which correctly predicted every state in 2004, currently predicts Obama at 297 to Romney's 241 (electoral votes).
http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php

Obama doesn't need the polls to improve, he just needs them to stay the same.

SID: "Your last "birther" comment was utterly irrelevant,">>

Birthers are very relevant to the republican party. Observe:
-In Tennessee only 33% of GOP primary voters think Barack Obama was born in the United States, while 45% do not.
-In Georgia 40% of Republican primary voters think Obama was born in the United States, while 38% do not.
-In Ohio 42% of Republican primary voters think Obama was born in the United States, while 37% do not.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... .html#more

SID: "past presidents record may have been leaked... So the question,... remains.">>

Not really. In the future, including now, presidents will not reveal their transcripts. Probably. Here's a question, why should the people guarding the president have to reveal more years of tax returns than the president?

SID: "I am occasionally wrong,...">>

I think this thread has shown that to be vastly optimistic.

SID: "liar... should be reserved for the most egregious cases (e.g., the implication that Romney killed the poor cancer-stricken woman).">>

I'm glad you used that example. You call the president a liar in your column when you say:

"Obama demagogues. Thus the character assassination, such as the “Understanding” ad, falsely implying Romney is to blame for a woman’s death. Obama refuses to condemn the lie, because it’s his:">>

But the ad is not his. See my points at #22 and #23 above.

I look forward to your retraction of the false charge that the president lied.
***
SID: "I would not use it [the word lie] for your choosing to stop the press conference count in October 2010">>

Wrong. The first source I gave provides a press count to *April* of this year: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/newsconferences.php
My other source only referenced until 10/10, as I noted, but this only underlined the point that even with that short measurement:
"President Obama has already given more interviews to reporters than any of his immediate predecessors."

SID: "or for Professor Hobson's not including the 1930's...">>

I encourage readers to check out a through dismantling I gave to a completely ludicrous and unscientific article written by you (Buddy) back in 2010. It's posted here:
viewtopic.php?p=22329#p22329

That you think the hot spell in the 1934 *in the US* is relevant to climate change shows once again that you should learn about the subject before you go on about it in public. The "hot in the US in the "1930's" is a rudimentary error and is climate science denier canard #34: http://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottes ... record.htm

And incidentally (and I do mean incidentally), this year in the US was hotter.

SID: "or Alaska's current coldest summer since 1924 in his AGW discussions."

The US is about 2% of the earth's surface. Alaska is a tiny percent of the US's surface. Please learn the difference between climate and weather before saying any more about such things. This may be useful:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather ... ediate.htm

SID: "Although both instances were misleading and weaken your respective arguments,">>

Neither were misleading. You don't understand the subject you are attempting to talk about. You should begin by reviewing all of the mundane and elementary errors I pointed out in your article nearly 2 years ago:

"Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments" viewtopic.php?p=22329#p22329

SID: "I come to the comments to learn, but am usually disappointed by the left-leaners' ..., misconstruing 3 words out of 750,">>

I took 26 of your claims and gave them careful scrutiny. That's a little more than addressing "3 words."

SID: "I will give you a couple of more examples of logical and/or factual errors."

I look forward to it.