No, if what the Daily Beast article says is true then Romney’s speech may have been “technically true” but he has no reason to complain - MSNBC’s report was “technically true”. MSNBC was, after all, showing footage of Romney’s speech - so they can claim that what they reported was accurate.
Same thing with Romney. If he said there was a 33 page form (which he did) but didn’t mention you only needed to use two pages of that, he might have been able to claim that what he said was accurate. But Romney and MSNBC were both guilty of knowingly creating a false story by leaving out most of the relevant facts.
If you’re going to defend Romney for telling the “truth” then you need to step up and defend MSNBC for also telling the “truth”.
Well, Romney just bought a car elevator for the reno on his third (fourth?) house. I can relate to that, since I hate having to go downstairs to the garage.
Romney: “This optometrist wanted to change his billing address. He moved his office from one side of town to the other, same zip code, same post office … The form he gets to change addresses is 33 pages long. … They send it back, wasn’t done right, gotta do it again. Another 33 pages…”
Can we put this tangent to bed? It’s clearly meant to imply the optometrist had to complete a 33-page form three times. Even if it can technically be construed as accurate another way, it’s phrased in such a misleading way that I’m comfortable with calling it a lie if the guy only had to fill out two pages.
I agree. But, the issue is not that he is a rich, out-of touch, White guy. It’s that he is trying to pretend he is not. He is trying to be an extroverted man of the people, when it’s clear he is not, and is viscerally uncomfortable playing that part. MSNBC was just highlighting that. I don’t know if that is particularly unfair. However, I think they do everyone a disservice when they don’t explain why they think being really rich and out of touch is a bad thing, or something that will make him a worse president. I think the argument can be made, I just wish they woud make it.
I don’t think either of them are “dumb”. While Kerry’s is worse from a PR point of view, they are both just transparent, failed attempts to relate to people. They are both equally bad at not being themselves. Now that you mentioned it, I think both Kerry and Romney both have similar trouble relating because they are so far removed from everyday people concerns. It becomes clearer when you see either of them talk about something they are actually passionate and informed about (see Romney talking about his horses). He seems so calm and comfortable, even sneaking in a dig at that dumbfuck Donald Trump.
I think people would be more forgiving of these deficits if the person would just be honest about it. I don’t see the point of this ruse that even though I have hundreds of millions of dollars, my life is pretty much just like yours. The whole point of getting rich is so you don’t have to worry about stuff like coupons, HMOs, grocery shopping, running errands, waiting in line, etc. etc. Nobody should be surprised that a guy who is rich doesn’t waste his time trying to remember what it is/was like being poor. Romney (and Kerry) get in trouble because just spouting phrases and brands normal people are interested in doesn’t make you empathetic or knowledgeable, it makes you either an asshole or a sycophant.
Romney: “The form he gets to change addresses is 33 pages long.”
Actual facts from the link:
So that’s 5 pages. The rest of the document is NOT PART OF THE FORM.
Now I guess it’s time for you to fall back on the old chestnut - “If Romney was misinformed by an aide, then he did not KNOWINGLY make the false statement, and if he did not KNOWINGLY make it, then you cannot say he lied.”
Sorry. But I found your post off-putting. So, I guess we’re even.
Un, no and no. Read on!
Hmmm. The clear implication here is that only simple tasks can be simplified. What a strange position to take. Care to elaborate so I can understand it better?
Also, no one has offered the proposition the all tasks should be, or could be, reduced a few touches on a key pad. But thanks for the straw, all the same. The point is that 1) most things can be simplified, and due to the competitive nature of the private sector, those that can be simplified, usually are. 2) And because the government does not have that competitive pressure bearing down on it, much stuff that can be simplified and should be simplified, doesn’t get simplified.
Now wait a second. Wouldn’t you say that those are non simple things to start out with? Yet, they were simplified, So, your implication above that only simple things can be simplified was wrong. Is that right?
Also, you’re serving up more straw: no one said that there are zero instances of government simplifying things. The point of the analogy, which amazingly still evades your understanding, is that because the competitive pressure is not there, government has less reason to do so than players in the private sector. Thus, many things that can and should be simplified aren’t.
Thanks for the last line, it gives me full license to guffaw. But probably not in a way that one would hope. Now, if business and the business models are not rightly held up to be the standard for efficiency, who should be? Let’s see, we have the government…anyone else? Who am I missing that should be considered the standard-bearer?
Obama is still probably out of touch with the average person. The only things that keep him somewhat grounded are the fact that he grew up poor, only becoming rich recently, and that he is Black. Being Black keeps you a bit more grounded even if you are rich because people generally assume you are not. It’s a ego check to some extent.
That said, Romney’s dilemma reminds me of this article. The author talks about how wealth can change one’s perspectives. To quote the article:
Romney has opted not to see these things for so long that it’s hard to develop the skills to see them. I think that is less of an indictment against him, and more a commentary on the increasing utility and role of money in our society.
What form are you talking about, please? Specifically.
I say that the form in question is CMS-855S (PDF).
Page 5 must be filled out.
Section 4, pages 15, 16, 17, and 18 must be filled out.
Section 8, on page 24, must be filled out – even if you don’t use a billing agency, you need to check the box that says you don’t.
Section 12, on page 26, needs to be addressed – same deal; if you don’t have a surety agent, check the box.
Section 13, the Contact Person, must be identified on page 27.
And you must sign the certification page 32, but not before reading the Certificaiton statements on pages 30 an d31. In fact, that signature page clearly states:
That seems to require at least reading the entire application, doesn’t it?
Now – what form are you talking about, please? Specifically.
Actually, today’s *Modern Marvels *rerun happened to be about fast-food tech. In one of the bumper factoids before a commercial, they mentioned Burger King’s “Have it Your Way” ad campaign. They said that there are more than 211,000 ways to order a Burger King Whopper. It would seem that ordering a sandwich may not be so simple.
So your point is that changing your address with Medicare is not such a simple task. So?
Hey, wait a minute! You are a staunch advocate of voter ID laws – in order to combat (nonexistent) fraud. So, the government (in some states) has taken something that used to be simple and added a bunch of unnecessary steps to it. All to combat fraud. Yet, here you are, seeming to advocate that fraud is okay with regard to Medicare reimbursement. Or am I misunderstanding.
You are misunderstanding. Because he can explain a thing to you doesn’t mean he thinks it’s a good thing. I can explain Roman Catholicism to you pretty well and I’m an atheist.
Romney’s point was that it isn’t as simple as it should be because the federal government doesn’t have to compete blah blah blah talking point. At the end of the day it’s kind of a “why don’t they make the whole airplane out of the same stuff the black box is made of?” argument, but there you go.
You are indeed correct and I am wrong. To change an address requires a person to read more than 5 pages, and tick some boxes on more than a few pages.
Yes, I was incorrect.
Page 5 must be filled out.
Yes, you must put in a two letter code for your state, put in your medicare number, and then tick a box saying you are changing your information. My God, I’m getting tired already.
Section 4, pages 15, 16, 17, and 18 must be filled out.
Will the nightmare ever cease? In order to let them know you’ve changed addresses, they actually demand that you write your new address down. On a form! Those bastards!
Page 16 demands that you tick a box telling them your state. Like you’re supposed to remember that sort of thing!
Now they want to know where to send your cheques. What sort of sneaky stuff are they up to here?
Section 8, on page 24, must be filled out – even if you don’t use a billing agency, you need to check the box that says you don’t.
Another box! A check box! My hand is getting a cramp.
Section 12, on page 26, needs to be addressed – same deal; if you don’t have a surety agent, check the box.
Jesus, another box! My pen is running out of ink.
Section 13, the Contact Person, must be identified on page 27.
Why do they need to know who I am? Can’t I just do this whole thing anonymously?
*And you must sign the certification page 32, but not before reading the Certificaiton statements on pages 30 an d31. *
Sign it? Nobody told me about signing the damn form. Who do they think I am anyway? They should just trust me.
But hey. You were right. It is more than 5 pages where you actually have to make some kind of a mark on a page.
I’m just glad I don’t have to pay your hourly rate for going over forms with a fine toothed comb.
Its kind of like old Perry Mason shows, and any second now Euphy is going to break down and confess, yes, yes, it was me! I did it, me! Oh, Og, what have I done?..
When Romney was wrong, it was perfectly appropriate to call him a liar, and dismiss as a tired chestnut any excuse about merely being mistaken he might offer.
