Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Paul Krugman Blasts Media Over Presidential Debate: Press Can't 'Handle Flat-Out Untruths' (VIDEO)

Posted 5 years ago on Oct. 8, 2012, 9:06 p.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Paul Krugman Blasts Media Over Presidential Debate: Press Can't 'Handle Flat-Out Untruths' (VIDEO)

[Media Fact Checkers MIA | Horse Race Profit Motive | Mitt's Pants On Fire: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/pants-fire/]

Posted: 10/07/2012 12:27 pm EDT Updated: 10/07/2012 12:43 pm EDT

Paul Krugman hammered the media over its handling of the first presidential debate, specifically what he said was its failure to fact-check Mitt Romney.

President Obama's performance on Wednesday dominated the roundtable discussion on ABC News' "This Week" Sunday. Instead of piling criticism on Obama like other pundits, however, Krugman took aim at factual inaccuracies made by Romney during the debate. Watch his remarks at the 6:39 mark in the clip above.

"I don’t know whether to blame Lehrer or the president but it was kind of amazing cause Romney was not only saying things that are not true, he was saying things that his own campaign had previously said weren’t true," he said.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist alleged that Romney displayed "contempt" for the press and assumed that "the news media will not cover me on this. As long as I say it forcefully, they'll say I won."

"Oh, so you’re saying the press is against Obama now?” panelist Mary Matalin asked in disbelief.

“The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths," he said.

Other members of the roundtable objected. James Carville said that Obama could have confronted Romney "on any number of issues" during the debate, while Peggy Noonan insisted that it was "the president's job" to correct Romney's inaccuracies. Jonathan Karl claimed that Obama was also "loose with the facts."

"No, those were minor compared with Romney’s," Krugman said, when Karl gave specific examples.




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

by Richard Wolff. PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 8, 2012

Today’s New York Times column by Paul Krugman achieves a new low. "Good news" for workers? Wow. Maybe ignoring criticisms of Keynesian economics from the left all these years has made Krugman see no need to deal with them; after all his job now seems to be to attack the Republicans for Mr Obama's benefit.

Lets see; as important as having a job - and we are not yet even half way from the crisis peak of 10% unemployment back to the pre-crisis outrage of 5% unemployment - is what kind of job. No good news there: high paying jobs keep being replaced by low-paying jobs; benefits associated with jobs keep being cut back; workers everywhere report speed-up and overwork pressures like never before. Public education - a major route to better jobs - is everywhere being cut at all levels, quantitatively and qualitatively, thereby deteriorating that path for workers; is that good news for jobs now and in the future?

Biggest error of omission in Krugman's oh-so-moderate rant: like Romney and Obama, he carefully avoids mention of a public employment program like that adopted by Roosevelt from 1934 to 1941 (when he created and filled over 12 million federal jobs). Krugman writes as if that never happened so that it cannot be imagined or brought up for consideration as anyone not blinded by ideological and/or careerist motives would surely do.

Most reasonable response to Krugman: "shame on you!"

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Republican Senator, Vietnam Veteran Endorses President Obama

Posted: 10/08/2012 11:59 am


As a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam with twenty-two years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief. Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time.

As a Vietnam vet, one of the reasons I support President Obama is because he has consistently shown he understands that our commitment to our servicemen and women may begin when they put on their uniform, but that it must never end.

This decision is not easy for any lifelong Republican. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, the first time I ever voted for a Democrat, because the Republican Party was drifting toward a dangerous path that put extreme party ideology above national interest. Mitt Romney heads a party remaining on that dangerous path, proving the emptiness of their praise as they abandon our service members, veterans and military families along the way.

What really set me off was Romney's reference to 47% of Americans to be written off -- including any veteran collecting disability like myself, as a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) veteran.

Behind closed doors with his donors, Romney made clear he'd write off half of America -- including service members and veterans -- because, as he said "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility for their lives." But there's no greater personal responsibility than to wear your country's uniform and defend the rights we all enjoy as Americans. We don't sow division between "us" versus "them." The Commander-in-Chief sets the bar for all to follow and fight for the entire country. Mitt Romney fails that test. As a veteran I feel written off.

Just as revealing is what Romney actually says publicly. As a former Foreign Service Officer, I find it offensive that Romney, Congressman Paul Ryan and their Republican Party are politicizing the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans who lost their lives in Libya. Being Commander-in-Chief requires a resolve and steadiness that's immune to politics and fear mongering. Mitt Romney fails that test.

And along with high-profile Republican surrogates, Romney and Ryan are pandering to election-year politics rather than focusing on pending cuts to military spending. Strategy should drive our military priorities, not party purity.

We are a nation at war -- the longest war in our nation's history -- and we must remember the sacrifice that so many have given for the protection of our country and our values. That's why it's so surprising that Republican nominee Mitt Romney has given five speeches on foreign policy -- and will be giving another one today -- and has yet to outline any plan to end the war in Afghanistan or bring our troops home. That's unacceptable for anyone running to be Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ended one war, is ending another and meeting our national security needs with support of our military leaders. He's laid out a clear plan that would reduce the deficit and prevent the mandatory military spending cuts that no one wants. But today's Republican Party, including Ryan who voted for the deal that would trigger the cuts, is willing to bring our country's defenses to the fiscal cliff -- just so a multimillionaire doesn't have to pay a single extra penny in taxes. And the real lack of leadership? Failing to own up to your role in racking up a record debt from two unpaid wars and two massive unpaid for tax cuts. Mitt Romney leads the party that fails this leadership test.

And as former member of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and Chairman of the then Commerce Committee, I came to know the federal budget in detail. I'm disappointed that just as our troops are returning home after a decade of war, Romney and Ryan might gut by up to 20 percent investments in the Department of Veterans Affairs -- and even suggest privatizing the veterans' health care. Again, they would short change our national security and the education, health care and employment benefits our veterans have earned and deserve just to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

Let's be clear, Romney and Ryan would be disastrous for America's service members, veterans and military families. Public praise rings hollow when you fail to mention an ongoing war in accepting your party's nomination to be president, or veterans in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a so-called jobs plan or in a budget that should be a blue print of our nation's values.

Meanwhile President Obama recognizes our sacred trust with those who serve starts when they take their oath and never ends. He's enacted tax credits to spur businesses to hire unemployed veterans and wounded warriors. He implemented and improved the post-9/11 GI Bill, the largest investment in veterans education since the original GI Bill over sixty years ago. He's proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that would put returning service members to work as police officers, firefighters and first responders. As part of his achievable plan to keep moving our country forward, the President would use half the savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to help pay down our debt and invest in nation building here at home, putting Americans back to work -- including our veterans -- fixing our roadways and runways, bridges and schools.

And something that hits close to home, President Obama also secured the largest increase in VA investments in decades so our veterans get the care and benefits they earned, like treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury. As someone with service-related PTSD, I meet with younger veterans weekly to help them through the treatment and transition to a productive civilian life. It makes a difference for them knowing their President has their back.

That's the difference in this election. In word and deed anywhere and every time, President Obama never forgets that standing by those who serve is the heart, soul and core value of this country. As a life-long Republican, I stand by him as he stands by all of us, putting national allegiance ahead of party affiliation. I endorse President Obama for reelection in 2012.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago


nevermind the bail out and the wars and the sell out of health to insurance

romney is worse

Tuesday, October 23rd: -Third Party Debate in Chicago

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

? and ?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

I agree with Krugman for once....Romney is full of $hit. But maybe Krugman should turn his finger around and point it at himself....maybe get your act together before you start accusing other people.

Pretty sure if Obama had made up more stuff during the debate we'd hear crickets from the honest non-partisan Krugman.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Krugman ain't non partisan!

I think he's got his act together, and although he has criticized Pres Obama & Dems (justifiably) he is clearly pro dem.

Why would you think he is non partisan? Does he need to be?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

It's called "sarcasm" VQ.....look it up:


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

and if Romney had sprouted horns and ate a baby on stage, FOX news would have called it a bold move

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Yes, that's quite possible coming from fox.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

What lies did Obama "made up" in the debate?

[-] 3 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

I didn't say he did.

But you can check it yourself at :


He does have some false statements...although Romney is the clear winner on the lieometer.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

This was the only Obama "false" that I saw
Barack Obama says "Donald Trump is a small business" in debate

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

This will be the year of false equivalencies! It's getting to the point where if just one side does it, says it, is it, then it's assumed it's an equivalency. The Republicons have achieved a critical mass of political gullibility. Rove must be screaming "It's alive! It's alive! Now I know how God must feel! ... uh, by 'God' I mean you, Oh Dark One."

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The crickets are deafening from Main Stream News Media! No need for hypotheticals, look - there's reality!

Why is it that conventional wisdom openly and frankly considers Romney a two-faced (or 3 or 4) liar, "full of shit," corporatist, vulture capitalist, even among his [continuing] supporters? But news doesn't report it? Guess it's NOT NEWS!!

Cronkite and Morrow are rolling in their graves.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 5 years ago

They never stopped rolling in their graves from the 08 election. Not only did the media fail to vet Obama, they actively campaigned for him. On the bright side, I have been pleasantly surprised to hear a few negative comments on cbs, nbc, and abc lately.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The liberal media must be turning on him.

[-] 2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 5 years ago

One can only hope.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Oh, you know it's happening, the pendulum finally swings.

[-] 2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 5 years ago

You have put a BIG SMILE on my face. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Try this video for size.


[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 5 years ago

Scary. Hope he's wrong.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Yeah, Romney is full of $hit....lied his butt off through the whole debate...and according to the media...he won. People in America need to wake up....they're in zombie land and care more about what reality TV show is on next.

That isn't an endorsement for Obama by me saying that...Romney flat out lies...Obama is smooth about it.

Both of these clowns are chosen by the very companies everyone hates here so much. It's a false choice wrapped up in a media sandwich that makes it appear as if there reallly is a difference between the two.

All it takes to become the next president in this country is to get up on stage....look pretty....talk somewhat fluently...hang a little american flag behind the stage...occasionally say crowd rousing statements like "this is the best country in the world".....cosy up to the major corps "you scratch my back i'll scratch yours"....and lie your a$$ off. And the american people eat it up like excited little kids that are too stupid to see whats right in front of their face. Disgusting.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Not buying your GOP false equivalency campaign tactic to Suppress the Vote.

People! Don't be Suppressed: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Smith....take the blinders off man...open your freaking eyes.

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago
[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

FACT CHECK: Barack Obama, Promises Kept It's been nearly four years. How many promises did President Obama actually keep? It's a habit for virtually any candidate running for virtually any race - making huge amounts of promises.

For President Barack Obama, that habit wasn't any different when he ran for President in 2008. Multiple organizations counted hundreds of promises back then, and as the President's first term is nearly complete, these organizations are counting up the successes and failures. So far, the general consensus seems to be that President Obama has either kept, partially kept, compromised with Republicans to reach his goal, or in some way made progress, on most of his promises.

Here are three examples, as fact-checked by CBS News:

On Tax Reform: "I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." STATUS OF PROMISE: KEPT

On Health Care: "Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American." STATUS OF PROMISE: PARTIALLY KEPT

On Foreign Policy: "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly..." STATUS OF PROMISE: KEPT

For an even longer list of President Barack Obama's accomplishments, click here: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9880240


VIDEO: Why Obama Now?

There are still a few people on the fence who want to know: Why should we vote for Obama?

It's simple, really - so simple that Family Guy animator Lucas Guy built a website, took under four minutes of audio from President Obama, along with a slew of facts, and made a simple video answering this very question.

Show this to the doubters in your neighborhood. Today.


[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

That list does NOT bring me onto Obama's side at all..a third of that stuff is incredibly thin....a third i don't agree with...and the last third of this list a monkey that learned sign language could have accomplished.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

You are clearly anti Obama partisan so no reason to hope you would support him. At least you were given the opportunity to see the truth.

You can't be made to believe the truth. That is your choice.

I hope the monkey comment wasn't some racist slur!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Give me a break VQ...racial slur....one of my best friends in college was black who i lived with...don't give me that crap.

"You can't be made to believe the truth."

Can say the same thing about you....can't open your eyes to discover the fact that your party is just as corrupt as the other side.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The parties are vastly different. I am a registered independent but I support the dem platform and progressive policies. Certainly not the right wing wacko conservative platform that favors the 1% plutocrats.

To suggest the parties are the same is simplistic & uninformed.

I only asked if your monkey comment was a racial slur. I ain't interested in your unprovable college racial experience. I AM interested in an answer. But that you left out. So I suppose the would fall under the "silence is deafening column"

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Lol, you're really accusing me of being racist? That's a whole new level for you. Was it a racial comment? The only one who even remotely connected that with a racial slur was you....didn't even dawn on me that might be taken as racial.

"To suggest the parties are the same is simplistic & uninformed."

No...to suggest they aren't is simplistic and uninformed. Every four years we fight over what the highest tax bracket should be....go back and forth for the last 100 years on the same issues....yet our country still keeps digging itself deeper. Both parties are funded by the same corps people here hate so much...both parties increase militarism and foreign interventions...both parties support giving dictators foreign aid...both parties support increased government spending...both parties strip our rights away and erode our liberties....both parties have the intelligence level of a 2 year old when it comes to the economy and monetary policy....both parties lie to get into office....both parties are propped up by a system that creates a monopoly on elections forcing any possibility of someone with some common sense a platform to compete (monopolies are something you're supposed to hate VQ).....both parties are more concerned about getting re-elected than actually doing something good for the country (case and point...Obama talking to Russian President)....both parties support the patriot act and NDAA....both are trying to create internet security that would strip us of our rights to communicate freely...both support the drone wars....both support illegal assassination of american citizens....both support indefinite detention of american citizens without due process....both support the premise of the war on terror.....and on and on.

Now lets address what most americans seem to think the most pertinent topics are and glaze over everything else....a 4-5% difference in the top tax bracket...abortion......religion....right to life...and maybe gay marriage. Those may be important to people on a personal level...but are the same monotonous BS debate questions we get every four years....and dont' scratch the surface of the real issues going on in this country that could actually make a difference.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I have not accused you of being a racist! I have asked if your monkey statement was meant as a racist slur. You continue to avoid the question.

The parties are vastly different.

  • One supports raising taxes on the 1%, The other has promised to cut their taxes further.

  • One supports stronger fin regulation, The other has watered down fin reg, delayed fin reform, offered no vote support for fin reform, & promised to repeal Dodd-Frank. As a result the wall st banksters money is going overwhelmingly to repubs NOT dems.

  • One party supports a public health ins. option, the other prevented that element of healthcare reforms, offered minimal support for health care reform, & and has promised to repeal it.

  • One party has ended and/or ending 2 illegal oil wars, reduced US military killings from a million+ to thousands. The other started those 2 illegal oil wars.

  • One party created the indef detention policy in 2002, used it, wrote the law in 2010, and defeated the dems attempt to repeal it. The other party (Dems) has NOT used the indef detention authority.

  • One party has resisted the right wing war mongering pressure to invade Iran. The other party (Repubs) have created an atmosphere of fear 11 years ago when they exploited the 9/11 attacks to pass their conservative agenda in regards to trampling constitution freedoms, attacking fed union collective bargaining/strike rights by creating Homeland security, perpetrating devastating wars, And they continue using the fear mongering to pressure for more wars in Iran, & Syria.

Now let's discuss some other important issues that repubs would rather we disregard and play down.

  • One party supports LGBT rights! The other doesn't.

  • One party supports immigrants. The other doesn't.

  • One party supports womens rights. The other doesn't!

  • One party supports science. The other pushes religious concepts over science!!!

  • One party supports minimum wage increase. The other doesn't.

  • One party supports expanding voter registration. The other has embarked on a massive effort to suppress dem voters.

  • One party supports minority rights. The other does not. (Do you support minority rights? Jes aksin since you avoided the question on your monkey slur)

So if you just compare the parties with a bit more sophistication and less simplisticness you will see that they are VASTLY different.

And remember. A tennis ball and an orange or also the same because they are round! But of course they are vastly different.

Now let me say I oppose the the party duopoly and support real 3rd party access. I support the effort to create a new system, from the borrom up, horizontal, & with real direct democracy.

Until that system emerges, I support replacing pro 1% conservative w/ pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99%, and lays the ground work for the political change we need.

I believe the dem party is more likely to be pulled from the right and made to serve the 99%. The repubs are too far gone.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

What's Twit (R Mitt Romney) got???

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Nothing....i'd never vote for that guy...ever....we are in a agreeance there.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Spread the word!

But there is NO comparison with Obama.

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

IYO...in mine they are basically equivalent.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I've been studying this subject for a while and I can tell you with provable certainty they are very politically and ideologically different. If you'd like to discuss their differences, I'm up for that, I'm curious to hear what similarities you see. You should see Frontline's The Choice which aired this evening.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

The banks are still robbing, the bombs are still dropping, health and insurance rates continue to go up, etc. Bush cuts extended, Gitmo still torturing people.

Now we are sending in troops to Turkey. And the Fed announced QE3 without a single peep from the Commander in Chief.

Monsanto is arguing that labeling GMO shouldne be neccesarry, but why is GMO even AROUND!! With Obama appointing Monsanto execs to the FDA, its no wonder.

Drilling permits here are up from Bush. No harsh penalties for DeepWaterHorizon. The well is still leaking. No pressure though.

Kept Bernake from Bush, and the Bernak is not on the people's side. Bank of America and Wells funded the DNC @ 20million dollars.

No talk of universal healthcare, better to force poor people to buy it. Benefits down, rates keep going up, health ins stocks keep climbing.

I could go on and on and on.....

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Will watch it then get back to you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Well said.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Hc is clearly an anti Obama partisan repub plant.

I disregard his unfounded partisan campaigning immediately.

He doesn't consider facts.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

But fun to mess with

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Sure. consistent, & predictable.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Wrong and proud of it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

LOL. He is. 'sok. He thinks no one realizes he is working for the repubs.

It's adorable.

[-] -1 points by Clicheisking (-210) 5 years ago

What lies?

[-] -2 points by Clicheisking (-210) 5 years ago

Lies like the lies about a film that supposedly got an American man raped and killed? Oh, along with three others being murdered. You mean killing lies?

[-] -2 points by Clicheisking (-210) 5 years ago

Wow! This brainless egomaniac really believes in the whole "ends justifies the means" philosophy.