Author: Richard

Texas Governor makes a false claim and is called on it, but somehow the person who called him on it is the one whom pundits are saying made a “gaffe”.

In the 94q3542p59876394867th debate last night in Iowa, Texas Governor Rick Perry repeated a false attack against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney that conservatives who dislike Romney for being too sensible just can’t stop lying about. Here is FactCheck.org‘s summary of it:

Perry once again falsely accused Romney of writing in his book “No Apology” that he wanted to impose his state’s health care plan at the federal level.

Perry: I read your first book, and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts, which should be the model for the country — and I know it came out of the reprint of the book, but, you know, I’m just saying, you were for individual mandates, my friend.

Romney: You know what, you’ve raised that before, Rick. And you’re simply wrong.

Perry refused an offer from Romney to bet $10,000 as to who was right. In fact, Perry is wrong and Romney is correct. As we have written a couple of times before, the book was revised and this line was removed: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” But the phrase “the same thing” refers to the goals of the state law: “portable, affordable health insurance,” not the controversial individual mandate or the entire law. Romney saw the Massachusetts plan as a potential model for other states, if they so choose, but not as a federal mandate.

So Romney “bet” Perry $10 thousand dollars over the issue and Perry declined. “Bet” is in quotations because there are two types of betting: 1) a gamble on what is only a possible outcome and 2) a challenge to a claim of fact. To Romney, it is the latter and to Perry it is the former. In other words: Perry would be gambling if he took the wager because he knows he might be wrong since he didn’t read the book and is only going on what his handlers keep giving him despite multiple news sources reporting that the shit just ain’t true. To Romney, there is no gamble because he wrote the book and knows Perry is saying something false.

So the reaction after this is that Perry is being a douche by not correcting the record AND not accepting $10,000 to his failing campaign just to prove what he keeps saying at these debates, right?

Nope: the media attack line is that Romney made a blunder by offering the bet.

Kathie Obradovich says that “Romney bet was one of his worst debate moments”

But Perry really made his mark when he successfully goaded Mitt Romney into one of the worst moments he’s had in a debate so far. Perry challenged Romney on a passage in his first book, claiming an early edition said the Massachusetts health-care program should be a model for the national plan.

Romney disputed the claim and when Perry persisted, he jokingly offered a $10,000 bet. Perry didn’t take the bet, but he won the point. Romney was casually offering the equivalent of about one-fifth of the average median income for an Iowa family. Romney’s privileged background was driven home later when the candidates were asked whether they’d ever had to cut costs in their own family budget.

“I didn’t grow up poor,” Romney said, and noted that if voters are looking for someone who did, they’ll have to vote for somebody else.

That line sounds rhetorical, but evidently there are a shit-ton of morons looking for someone who “grew up poor” to be their nominee.

This is not Romneys worst debate moment, it is everyone who thinks this is an issue at all whatsoever’s worst debate moment. Whether its the casual observer at home or the educated and experienced political pundit or anyone in between – they all have no excuse for not knowing better.

Ed Morrissey on Hot Air, a conservative blog, continues the Leftist stupidity:

Romney, however, made the gaffe of the evening when he attacked Rick Perry, of all people. Until now, Romney has been very careful not to punch below his class, but Perry got under his skin and Romney ended up going after Perry on Gardasil all over again. He didn’t do it well, either, and when Perry attacked Romney over statements in his book regarding health care, Romney tried to intimidate Perry by challenging him to bet $10,000 over the issue. If Romney wanted to make himself look rich, arrogant, and clueless, he could hardly have done a better job. When was the last time someone challenged you to a ridiculous bet in order to intimidate you out of an argument? For me, I think it was junior-high school.

What the hell? There is no one running for president that does not have $10,000 of disposable funds to risk, but as I said: If Perry actually read the book (which he didn’t) and it said what he claims it says (it doesn’t) then he’s not risking anything. So why is someone calling them on it a bad thing, again? Oh ya. Because Romney has made a lot of money in his life and is more of a millionaire than the other millionaires on the stage and that’s bad because not everyone in America has made millions so they don’t want to be reminded that the person who might lead their country was more successful than them. This is stupid with stupid sauce poured all over it.

At least one guy gets it:

You may not have heard: Romney laid down a bet with fellow candidate Rick Perry for a cool $10,000 (or what Newt probably spends on lunch every week) during a recent debate. Doesn’t Mitt know that candidates, no matter how successful they may be, must always act as if they mow their lawns and eat curly fries at diners on Friday nights. If not, the electorate will be deeply insulted.

This kind of rhetoric is nothing new for Republicans. During the 2008 primaries, Mike Huckabee noted that “Mitt Romney looks like the guy that fires you.” This assessment was backed up by then-candidate John McCain, who, we soon found out, understood as much about the economy as Meghan McCain.

If you get rich working in finance, there’s a good chance you did something wrong, right? And Mitt, well, Mitt is heartless. Mitt worked for Bain Capital. Mitt was part of the private equity firm that salvaged poorly run, bloated businesses — sometimes through “painful” cuts and firings. There are honorable ways of getting rich (peddling political influence and/or writing books), and then there’s the Wall Street way. Newt, no less of a flip-flopping careerist than Romney, sold his political connections for wealth rather than create any.

The only reason to criticize this moment is if one is trying to find a way to confirm what they already don’t like about Gov Romney.

If someone lies about you in public, you can only say “nuh uh” back and forth so many times until one side is willing to put something on the line to prove their case. Romney manned up and was right. Perry pussed out and was wrong.

There was nothing wrong with this debate moment.