"No, Romney Did Not "Move To The Centre" In Debate"

[applegrove]

No, Romney Did Not "Move To The Centre" In Debate

By Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_10/no_romney_did_not_move_to_the040319.php

"SNIP......................................................

Did he back off on his tax-cut proposal? No, he’s always claimed his tax plan would not reduce the tax burden on the wealthy or boost the deficit. And he’s never accepted the $5 trillion price tag placed on his proposed rate cuts by the Tax Policy Center.

Was his solicitude for Medicare anything new? No, he’s been ranting about Obama’s “Medicare cuts” for ages, which is far less startling than hearing his running-mate do the same thing. Did Romney back down at all from his determination to dump Medicaid on the states with ratcheted-down funding (and yes, that’s what current-spending-plus-one-percent means unless you think medical inflation is suddenly vanishing), giving Republican governors eager to cut eligibility all the encouragement they need?

Was anyone moved by his alleged concern for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions? This is a lie he’s been repeating at least since the “repeal and replace” debate among Republicans that preceded the Supreme Court decision on ACA, and his own staff had to repudiate the idea that it represented anything new even as the “new Romney” talk was pervading the spin room.

How about his denial that he favors cuts in education funding? The whole key to the Romney/Ryan “vision” on non-defense discretionary spending is that nobody has to support specific cuts in anything: we’ll just have freezes and across-the-board cuts, and the dirty work will all be handled by the appropriators very late at night. I certainly didn’t hear him repudiate his “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge to permanently reduce federal spending to a level incompatible with maintenance of the New Deal/Great Society programs or the levels of non-defense discretionary spending we’ve seen since the Eisenhower administration.

......................................................SNIP"

[geckosfeet]

1. He certainly raised the bar for liars running for president.

[xfundy]

2. That's true.

He just lied, repeatedly.

[grasswire]

3. "try to understand that this election is not about substance anymore"

That's from a comment on that essay.

Doesn't matter what Romney says. It's not about substance anymore.

[NCLefty]

4. Pure subterfuge on pre-existing conditions.

His only apply to people who already have insurance. Obama was focused on trying to get everyone covered.

[applegrove]

5. "Subterfuge" is a good word. I hope the idea goes viral.

[HopeHoops]

6. It wasn't a "debate" - it was a rMoney stump speech.