While I know Mitt Romney's throwing everything he could lie about or imagine at President Obama last evening stifled a good debate, I think the President missed a few opportunities He missed opportunities to slow the Romney "LIE" onslaught; via simply calling the man out as a liar. The nation knows Romney is a serial liar; he should have been called out accordingly. One quick example.
He stated gas prices have doubled under Obama. The statement is a flat-out lie. While many authors have written about gas prices Bush V. Obama, some have craftily written about specific periods for comparison There have been times during the Obama Administration when gas prices were double that of "a" period in the Bush Years. Lets face Bush ad eight years in the white House. Other writers craftily write of comparison between Bush's and Obama's first two years. Wow, how cheap an analogy and frankly one that should insult the reader. Did Clinton not pass an almost idyllic economy over Bush?. Now, did Bush do same with Obama? The first two year comparison is sad and very typically conservative B/S.
|Price comparison 2001 - 2008|
This comparison works for me in two ways.First and frankly, it fits my progressive bias and knowledge that Romney's Gish Gallop technique was nothing ore than that: bullshit. Gish Gallop?
DebatesGish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase "Gish Gallop" has come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.Gish has also been criticised for using a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that for several debates Gish's opening, assumptions about his opponent, slides and even jokes remained identical. In the debate itself, Shermer has written that while he stated he was not an atheist and willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral. Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, said that he ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs. Others have accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated facts or figures.
Second,k the analysis is based on average tie frames I think that scope of comparison is far more valid than "Andrew Breitbart-like" and "Fox News-like" data manipulation.