Republican Debate Grade card - "Pant on Fire"

[SB Shock]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/another-check-on-the-campaigns-truthiness/#more-24087

Mr. "Pants on Fire" - Mr. Gingrich (lying 40%, lying to mostly lying - 59%)

Mr. "Honest" - Mr. Ron Paul (Truthful 23%, truthful to mostly true 46%)

Romney falls in between the two with 19% truthful, 36% most true, and only lies 24%.

[Kung Wu]

@Maggie: was correct all along. Only a "fool" would run as a politician and be truthful.

[JJClamdip]

Only a "fool" would run as a politician

Fixed.

[60Shock]

Do we really want a man who never lies to be President of the United States? That could be suicidal.

[Kung Wu]

Fixed.

Hahah, good point!

[Kung Wu]

Do we really want a man who never lies to be President of the United States? That could be suicidal.

An interesting point!

[SB Shock]

Do we really want a man who never lies to be President of the United States? That could be suicidal.

well, most americans don't want to hear the truth - that is for sure.

[Maggie]

Politicians do lie from time to time but more often they exaggerate (as an aside, these “fact checking” operations often need fact checking themselves).

Gingrich is probably the worst of the lot (Obama excluded); but Romney is doing it as well of late. His attacks on Gingrich’s record in the 80’s and 90’s are prime examples. What I don’t understand is you can go after Gingrich in a variety of ways and you don’t need to resort to hyperbole: Gingrich was, at times, highly critical of the Reagan Administration and Reagan personally in the 80’s (I am not sure why this matters 25 years later); however, in the early 90’s (after he rose to a leadership position in the House) he was very successful. Then Gingrich, as he often does, went off the rails – although I believe Romney’s characterization of this time leaves a bit to be desired and dusting off Bob Dole doesn’t help matters.

Look I think Gingrich has a basic conservative core, communicates very well, but he is also an opportunist: He pals around with Pelosi, attacks Romney’s private sector work inaptly (the Romney’s campaign’s response, by the way, was pathetic), goes after Romney personally – which is irrational, calls Paul Ryan’s plan “rightwing social engineering” (which really aggravated me), and now he wants to establish a colony on the moon.

I don’t agree with or understand what either campaign is doing now – and it drives me insane. But a primary reason I am wary of Gingrich is the fact that he is erratic and he doesn’t seem to support a “Paul Ryan” approach to entitlement reform – Romney, say what you will otherwise, does. His plan mirrors Ryan’s. I also think that Romney is the candidate least likely to negatively impact local and statewide races – which should mean the GOP retains a majority in the House and takes over the Senate.

I am not going to write about Ron Paul, it can only lead to trouble.

[Kung Wu]

Politicians do lie from time to time but more often they exaggerate (as an aside, these “fact checking” operations often need fact checking themselves).

Good point. Generally I think most politicians don't intentionally lie, but are often just wrong about their facts because they aren't knowledgeable about the specifics of the subject they are arguing and are trying to come across as informed. Saying they don't have an answer or that they haven't made an opinion about a specific subject makes them feel vulnerable. And maybe they are vulnerable. Maybe politicians should spend more time on the items that matter and learn how to deflect or diminish the popular items that don't.

[Maggie]

Good point. Generally I think most politicians don't intentionally lie, but are often just wrong about their facts because they aren't knowledgeable about the specifics of the subject they are arguing and are trying to come across as informed. Saying they don't have an answer or that they haven't made an opinion about a specific subject makes them feel vulnerable. And maybe they are vulnerable. Maybe politicians should spend more time on the items that matter and learn how to deflect or diminish the popular items that don't.

They lie when it benefits them – the problem is from a consultant’s perspective, in this day and age, it is hard to tell if that perceived benefit will arise (at the risk of causing a ruckus, Ron Paul has made numerous historical mistakes – don’t ask me to link to them just know I toss food at my T.V.). So get this – frankly they should all be fired. They take the easy way out – this goes for both parties.

What you are questioning, @KungWu is preparation.

As for your last point, and maybe I live in a strange bubble, but yes they should spend more time talking about issues that matter - but that is kind of hard to do. But perhaps the powers that be don’t think the masses will react – I know our President doesn’t.

I think they are both wrong.

[Maggie]

Good point. Generally I think most politicians don't intentionally lie, but are often just wrong about their facts because they aren't knowledgeable about the specifics of the subject they are arguing and are trying to come across as informed. Saying they don't have an answer or that they haven't made an opinion about a specific subject makes them feel vulnerable. And maybe they are vulnerable. Maybe politicians should spend more time on the items that matter and learn how to deflect or diminish the popular items that don't.

They lie when it benefits them (but most often it does not)– the problem is from a consultant’s perspective, in this day and age, it is hard to tell if that perceived benefit will arise (at the risk of causing a ruckus, Ron Paul has made numerous historical mistakes – don’t ask me to link to them just know I toss food at my T.V.). So get this – frankly they should all be fired. They take the easy way out – this goes for both parties.

What you are questioning, @KungWu is preparation.

As for your last point, and maybe I live in a strange bubble, but yes they should spend more time talking about issues that matter - but that is kind of hard to do. But perhaps the powers that be don’t think the masses will react – I know our President doesn’t.

I think they are both wrong.

[Kung Wu]

Ron Paul has made numerous historical mistakes – don’t ask me to link to them just know I toss food at my T.V.

Not good enough. I want links. LMAO

Anyway .. I agree with the rest.

[Maggie]

Not good enough. I want links. LMAO

Anyway .. I agree with the rest.

LMAO - whatever that means.

I could give you links - but how many debates have the GOP had? Look it up yourself (this is not a cop out) - recognizing his errors is not all that hard, you are a bright soul. But is all that relevant in the primary? The only relevant thing as to Paul within the GOP is how many delegates he gathers. I say let him have his speech at the convention - but he better talk about fiscal matters and he should understand this would benefit his "cause" more.

I don't want trouble – but the man is unhinged. While, as I have stated before, I may agree with him on some issues - I just can't fall in line (but he is, for the most part truthful - this is the thread right? but I have not listened to his attack adds).

As an aside, I have the same visceral reaction to Paul supporters and I did Obama supporters - just plan creepy - and nothing this election cycle has proven me wrong.

[Wu du Nord]

Do we really want a man who never lies to be President of the United States? That could be suicidal.

It was I. I cut down yonder cherry tree.

[Maggie]

It was I. I cut down yonder cherry tree.

So it seems. But it might not be suicide……….and, yet, my heart tells me, at this point, it will be. But I say no. I will wait, there is little i can do.

I think things will change. Maybe I am the fool.

P.S. I am right about the EU - it just takes time.