Brutal: CNN Torches DWS on Medicare Falsehoods

Let me say this right up front: Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for being a relentless, responsible journalist. If you value the truth, this interview is a pleasure to watch. If you have even an ounce of human compassion for the in-over-her-head target of Blitzer's inquisition, it's positively brutal:

Poor Debbie. She's totally out-gunned and has nowhere to hide. Her talking points are pitifully hollow and cannot withstand even basic questioning. She stubbornly rejects the (correct) premise that the Romney/Ryan Medicare reform plan exempts everyone over the age of 54, and plays fast and loose with numbers -- conflating 55 and 65 on several occasions. When she is brow-beaten into finally acknowledging -- if not admitting -- the truth around the 3:45 mark, she quickly realizes her "mistake" and reverts back into denialism. When Blitzer asks her to specify exactly how current or soon-to-be seniors would be impacted by the GOP plan, she cannot. Because they're not. The Left is intellectually bankrupt on the very subject they claim will allow them to crush Mitt Romney in November. They despise the bipartisan solution Republicans have offered, but they have no alternative of their own. Dear Democrats, Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2024. You say it's wrong for future seniors to be denied Medicare as it currently exists. Okay, what's your plan, guys? We know that your actions have already cut Medicare by $700 Billion to pay for part of Obamacare. We also know that Obamacare establishes a government panel to ration care for the elderly. And yet the 2024 deadline is still coming. Again, what's your plan, Democrats? Mr. President? Anyone? I confronted Wasserman Schutlz on this very question last summer, and she gave an incoherent and inaccurate response. Also, here's video of Paul Ryan destroying DWS' talking point about seniors (read: future seniors) having to pay $6,000 more per year for healthcare. A debt crisis is on the near horizon. Entitlement programs are going under. Twenty-three million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have given up home. GDP growth is slowing. The president and his allies have no plans, so they're forced to invent smears and argue against positions that their opponents don't hold.

I'll leave you with this clip of my debate with Sally Kohn on Fox News. The topic: Whether comparisons between Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan are apt. Sally, like many liberals, is forced to pretend that she adores Reagan -- arguing that he was far too liberal to win the GOP nomination these days. (Remember, every Republican is either dumber or more evil than the last). This assertion is laughable, and her characterization of Reagan's record is flat wrong. Kohn also offers some, um, creative "interpretations" of what the Romney/Ryan plan would do:

The Romney/Ryan plan does not raise taxes on anyone, let alone 95 percent of the country.

UPDATE - Just a reminder: I do not pick on DWS because she's an easy target. I hold her to account because she is Barack Obama's hand-picked leader of his party. She's not a fringe player. She's the DNC Chairwoman, installed at the request of the president of the United States. This seems like a good commercial for Mitt Romney: "I picked Paul Ryan. He picked Debbie and Joe. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."

Nice summation and time-line, and I agree with you. You remember some of the nuances better than I do.

I realize that the media has shown its left-wing stripes since Watergate, at least... maybe even earlier.

My parents gave me a subscription to Newsweek when I was in high school; I started reading it in the orthodontist's office, and enjoyed it.

Newsweek had a caption format for pictures back then that was interesting. Each caption was in two phrases, separated by a colon. The first part was factual, and the second part was more analytical, sometimes in the form of a question. The second part was in italics, too. I liked that, thought it was cool. Newsweek back then was pretty much down-the-middle. They covered campus unrest, but with a very slight underlying cynicism that I thought sounded like my parents.

That changed after Kent State; they began be a little less evenhanded. Their support for the students became a little more noticable.

Then, during Watergate, they began to really get into it. Newsweek had (IIRC) more than 50 cover stories about Watergate before Nixon resigned. When they got rid of Nixon in 1974, the media really started to get full of themselves.

I was aware that they supported Carter, but the intensity, the explicitness of their support was far less noticable then than it is today. You're right that that level of support began to waver with the hostage crisis; one might even say that it began to waver just a little bit when Carter admitted that he was shocked that Brezhnev had lied to him about Soviet intentions in Afghanistan.

They tried to support Carter during his election campaign, but their support was less than whole-hearted due to the obvious problems, the Iran hostages topping the list but others besides. The economy was a mess, with inflation noticable on a week-to-week basis and the prime rate over 15%. The misery index was a staple of the nightly news, and there was no escaping it.

I agree with you about the sea change that happened during the Clinton campaign. They completely stopped even pretending to be objective; that all went right out the window. Clinton made them giddy, made them act like teenage girls. When Bush 41 lost, they practically started dancing the jig on camera.

...does she always do this or just when she is lying?

Ummm, her mouth was moving AND she's a democrat... Seriously, I believe she was blinking so much because she was furious that Wolf wasn't buying her lies.

Usually 'journalists' give dems a pass even as the lies are dropping from their twisted mouths. DWS wasn't expected Blitzer to treat her like she was some kind of outcast or, worse - a Republican...

Dems are smug with the press, it's 'kiss my behind here - now kiss my behind here = and over here'...

I was a Democrat when I was young - and I can tell you that Democrats have ZERO respect for the press. Republicans respect them more... much more. Why, I'll never know.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.