Forget Mitt Romney’s verbal gaffes for a moment. Something more important has happened in the last few days. The linchpin of Romney’s most powerful argument has turned out to be bogus. I’m talking about Romney’s claim about job creation – specifically, that Obama lost 2 million jobs as president while Romney, as a leader of Bain Capital, created 100,000 jobs. It’s taken a few weeks, and what seems like a few hundred posts by the indefatigable Greg Sargent, to get the media to focus on this claim. But now they are.
The freak-out by the Israeli right, and supporters of the Israeli right, to President Obama's speech can be understood by Glenn Kessler's careful analysis explaining why Obama did break new ground. Previous administrations began from the premise that the 1967 borders had no validity and were militarily indefensible: [U]ntil Obama on Thursday, U.S.
The Washington Post editorial clucking its tongue at Democratic attacks on the GOP Medicare plan is a useful encapsulation of the vacuity of the conventional wisdom on this subject. It's worth paying some attention to the editorial, because it takes at least a half step toward making explicit the assumptions that undergird most of the coverage of this issue. Here are all the parts of the editorial that make, or gesture toward, arguments. First: Democrats have effectively scared seniors as a political tactic for many years.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page says the Congressional Budget office has jacked up its cost estimate of the Affordable Care Act by 8%. House Republicans say it's a staggering 54%. Who's right? Neither, says Glenn Kessler: [L]ate Wednesday, the CBO addressed this question in its Director’s Blog.
Glenn Kessler, who has been doing a bang-up job writing the fact-checker column for the Washington Post, has a piece today rapping the knuckles of some House Democrats for using some tenuous projections to tout the success of the Affordable Care Act. it's a useful corrective.
Paul Ryan has been saying of President Obama's budget, "What we have is $1.6 trillion in new tax increases, $8.7 trillion in new spending. He's going to be adding $13 trillion to the debt over the course of his budget." Glenn Kessler figures out where these numbers come from. It's staggeringly dishonest: The problematic figure in Ryan's statement is the claim that the president proposed $8.7 trillion in new spending.
Frankly, I do not think that Barack Obama ever really believed that an accommodation with Iran over its nuclear designs was possible. What follows is that he prevaricated about this promising turn in diplomacy and that one, all the while knowing he was going straight down a dead-end street. And going down that street in a quite cavalier fashion so as to keep his critics at bay. Some Americans were even persuaded by the seemingly confident president that he must have something up his sleeve.