So my good friend Dungy has written at some length of the republican presidential field and I just want to add a little bit.
I don't remember if the democratic primaries a few years back included this problem to the same extent, but it seems that the Tea Party style candidates are getting by with a complete disregard of facts.
Fact check websites often call out Bachman, Palin and even Perry for the crazy things they say, but the media seems to only dutifully report what they say. To it's credit, the Associated Press is also doing fact check articles but they're not weaving that information into say their regular debate coverage story.
I know politicians lie and stretch facts. That's normal, if sad. But it seems like these tea party types saw that people liked President Bush's "I'm not a smart man but I know what love is" persona and took it to the next level.
Take this exchange from last night's debate.
PERRY: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."
ROMNEY: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."
PERRY: "That's not correct."
ROMNEY: "Yes, that is correct."
Courtesy of the San Francisco Examiner
THE FACTS: Romney was correct.
Romney accurately stated that George W. Bush — even without his predecessor — saw jobs grow at a faster rate during his 1994-2000 years as governor than Perry has during his 11 years governing Texas. Employment grew by about 1.32 million during Bush's six years in office. Employment during Perry's years has grown about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As for Perry's claim about Romney's record and that of Dukakis, he was at least in the ballpark.
Democratic Gov. Dukakis saw Massachusetts employment grow by 500,000 jobs during his two divided terms, 1975 to 1979, and 1983 to 1991, a rate of more than 41,000 jobs a year.
Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, saw employment grow from 3.23 million to 3.29 million, growth of about 60,000 jobs, or a rate of 15,000 a year. That means Dukakis' job growth rate was nearly three times Romney's.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/health/2011/09/fact-check-perry-romney-twist-records-debate#ixzz1XMIsTNmW
---------------
Romney has his share of exaggerations as well to be sure, but at least he seems to be ok with using his brain, not just his don't mess with Texas mojo.
So am I just frustrated, or is there really a dearth of even attempted facts in this group of candidates?
I feel the same way. So either we're both overly frustrated or both right.
ReplyDeleteTea Party Conservativism (read: Mainstream conservativism) isn't a political philosophy, it's an ideology. And a very rigid one. That's why I can't stand supposed conservatives who look the other way about them. Especially those who took care to point out the kooky liberal ideology of the past. To hate one is to hate the other.
Facts don't matter when you've got an orthodoxy to uphold. Conservative orthodoxy can be summed up as: Taxes are always bad and must never be raised, period; Spending cuts are always good; Science doesn't necessarily prove anything; Gays are bad; Everything Ronald Reagan did was good.
If you don't agree with that orthodoxy, you'll be cast out as a liberal/socialist/statist or labeled a RINO. Facts are tricky because they don't necessarily support ideology. Those facts that don't are regarded as liberal bias.
In a nutshell, the party went batshit crazy. They're all living in a kind of alternate reality where there are liberal facts and conservative facts and the veracity of your words are determined by the orthodoxy of your political beliefs.
Look at Huntsman. Any other time, I wouldn't have given a fig about him. But he's the standout for sensible non-teapartiers - not because he's such a good candidate, but because he's the ONLY candidate who seems willing to accept the REAL WORLD.
I'm not big on voting party-line, but I cannot vote for a republican candidate for a few years, simply because they MUST spend more time in the wilderness, until the get their head on straight. Accepting a rare, qualified, reasonable republican and voting for one, out of a field of many will look too much like acceptance to them. They'll take it for a thumbs up. They need to be completely cut off until they get the picture...