Christie responds to Obama whopper: ‘Stop lying, Mr. President.’

posted at 12:01 pm on October 1, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

As New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made the Sunday talk show rounds, “This Week’s” George Stephanopoulos confronted him with a portion of President Obama’s recent two-minute-long ad, being that they don’t have time to run the Aeneid on TV:

“Gov. Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall St., all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.”

If Christie were on stage at Wednesday night’s debate, how would he respond, Stephanopoulos asked. “Stop lying, Mr. President.”

Lying?!” an incredulous Stephanopoulos gasped. “What’s the lie there?”

Christie defends Romney’s tax plan by explaining, as Romney has, that tax rates would go down while deductions would be removed. Stephanopoulos may want to check the Washington Post, which awarded Obama’s declaration on “trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place,” Three Pinnocchios, concluding “[i]t’s time for Obama to retire this talking point.”

Don’t hold your breath. More, from the Post, which also notes Romney’s plan would eliminate deductions to remain revenue neutral:

Just to be sure, we checked with [Ezra] Klein—[whose column was used to justify Obama's claim in the ad]— and here is how he responded: “I am absolutely not saying the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence of that.”

Klein is right. While some on the left have speculated about some kind of Rube Goldberg phenomenon — that the tax cuts put so much money in the pockets of the rich that they had nothing to spend it on but risky and exotic financial instruments — we are unaware of any respected academic study making this link. The Bush tax cuts have been amply criticized for costing too much and generating too little economic growth, but that’s entirely different from causing the Great Recession.

Indeed, the official government inquiry, the 631-page final report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, makes no mention of the Bush tax cuts. The report, endorsed by every Democrat on the panel, does cite deregulation, but 30 years of deregulation across multiple administrations — not just deregulation in the Bush years.

His claim that Bush’s policies led to 90 percent of the current deficit? Four Pinnocchios, so look out for both of those Wednesday.

Hugh Hewitt does audience debate prep today with a column on Obama’s most frequent verbal ticks:

If either does, we will be treated to “tell No. 4,” the president’s feigned outrage that anyone would interrupt or question him. When this happens, his countenance displays a disapproving sneer and his voice clouds with displeasure. It is practiced. It is also profoundly anti-democratic and arrogant, and if he plays this card on this stage, it will backfire.

Watch as well for nonresponsive self-pity, verbal essays on how difficult it was when he took over and how hard he has been working. Self-pity and self-regard are not designed to endear him to the unemployed or even the economically fragile, so he will be coached to try to avoid displaying his sense of outrage at being thought a failure or “in over his head,” but the president’s sense of his own immensity is so great as to blow past such base political calculations.

And, James Antle says watch for the zingers.

As for Christie, Stephanopoulos may be squeamish about using the word “lying”— would he use it for the administration’s last two weeks’ response on Benghazi, I wonder?— but the state of New Jersey is just fine with its governor’s confrontational style.

Christie boasts an impressive 55 percent approval rating with registered voters in a new Monmouth University poll, up two points since the July. But fully 63 percent of New Jerseyans are unfazed by Christie-style zingers:

The governor continues to make headlines for what have become known as his “YouTube moments” – which some critics have likened to the behavior of a bully. New Jerseyans, though, are not particularly concerned by his conduct. Fully 63% say they are not bothered personally by the governor’s style of speaking to or about people who disagree with him. Only 1-in-3 Garden State residents are bothered – either a lot (23%) or a little (11%) – by the way Gov. Christie deals with his detractors.

“Critics and media pundits might object to Gov. Christie’s confrontational style, but the vast majority of his constituents simply shrug their shoulders. It’s not a big deal to them,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.

Memo to Mitt. Take Christie as a role model Wednesday over hand-wringing Stephanopoulos.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Look,let’s just get the POS out of office on November,6th. 2012. You could vote for Bozo the Clown and it’s be an improvement by a factor of 10.

DevilsPrinciple on October 1, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Benanke, who is Obama #1 enabler, speaking publicly today, October 1, 2012:

“If the economy is growing at trend or below trend, that is just enough to provide jobs for new people coming into the labor force. It does nothing to eat into the backlog of the unemployed. Our unemployment rate of 8.1% is currently about the same it was in January. We are not really making progress,” Bernanke told the Economic Club of Indiana in Indianapolis on October 1, 2012.

Put it in a Romney commercial.

matthew8787 on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The president lies? I am shocked, shocked, I say!

Old Fritz on October 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Stephanopoulos is so firmly lodged up obama’s butt, that he can barely breathe.

Pork-Chop on October 1, 2012 at 12:38 PM

He’s so far up there, he can taste what 0bama is going to have for breakfast tomorrow morning.

UltimateBob on October 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM

It’s time for Mitt to start smacking the Messiah! The eSTAB-lishment Republican Cowardice on this subject is just astounding. It is not smart or nuanced, it’s only cowardice justified by BS! The same goes for their position on accepting the Obama Enemy media’s bias against them & pandering to these clowns!

For those following,How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The Bush Tax Cuts have been amply criticized for costing too much and generating too little economic growth

That, too, is deeply dishonest.

How, exactly, is it that the Bush tax cuts supposedly “cost too much”?

The Bush Tax Cuts didn’t cost us anything.
The Bush Tax Cuts didn’t lower tax revenues. In fact, they did just the opposite… they RAISED revenues. And not just by a little bit, but by a HUGE percentage.

The second part of the Bush Tax Cuts were signed May 28, 2003 and Fiscal Year 2003 ended September 30 that same year.

Revenues (Total Receipts) had been declining since FY 2000, thanks to the Dot Com bust and the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. The Bush Tax Cuts turned that around:

Year Total Receipts (in millions of dollars)
2000 2,025,191
2001 1,991,082
2002 1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985

The Bush Tax Cuts didn’t “cost us” anything. To the contrary, in the four years after the Bush Tax Cuts, revenues increased from $1.782 Trillion to $2.568 Trillion… an INCREASE OF 44%!!!

Anyone who is honest should be singing the praises of the Bush Tax Cuts and their positive impact on our economy!

ITguy on October 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

President George W. Bush “inherited” the Dot Com bust and the 9/11/2001 attacks, both of which hurt our economy and decreased employment (increased unemployment).

The second part of the “Bush Tax Cuts” were signed May 28, 2003, and turned the economy around… both employment and revenues went UP as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts.

For employment numbers, use the Employment-population ratio: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
For Revenue numbers, use: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

Let’s look at the Employment-population ratio in the last month of each Fiscal Year (September) from 2000 onward:

Year Employment-population ratio in September
2000 64.2
2001 63.5
2002 63.0
2003 62.0
2004 62.3
2005 62.8
2006 63.1
2007 62.9
2008 61.9
2009 58.7
2010 58.5
2011 58.4

And let’s look at Receipts (Revenues) from 2000 onward:

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017

Year Total Receipts (in millions of dollars)
2000 2,025,191
2001 1,991,082
2002 1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,724
2011 2,303,466

Starting with Fiscal Year 2000, note how both employment and revenues went DOWN in FY 2001, DOWN again in FY 2002, and DOWN again in FY 2003. That’s the effect of the Dot Com bust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But the Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around. Note how both employment and revenues went UP in FY 2004, UP again in FY 2005, UP again in FY 2006, and while employment dropped slightly in 2007, revenues were UP again that year.

The Bush Tax Cuts improved employment and improved revenues… Revenues in FY 2007 were 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

It wasn’t until the Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, in January 2007, that the economy really started to tank. The Democrats have been in majority control (holding 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency) for 5.5 years, and they spent the first half of that driving the economy in the ditch and the second half of that leaving the economy in the ditch.

If the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire, and tax rates go up, both jobs and revenue will be lost. We will have lower employment (higher unemployment) and lower revenues.

To allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire would be irresponsible.

The baseline is that the economy was in a three-year-long downturn when the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were passed, with the Employment-population ratio having fallen from a high of 64.7% in April 2000 down to 62.3% when the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were passed in May 2003. And the truth is that the Bush Tax Cuts turned that downturn around and the Employment-population ratio started increasing again, such that after three years it had risen to 63.1% in May 2006.

The truth is that the Obama “stimulus” did NOT turn a downturn around, and three years after the “Stimulus”, the Employment-population ratio was 1.7 points lower than where it had been when the stimulus was passed (58.6% in February 2012, vs. 60.3% in February 2009 when the “stimulus” was passed).

The truth is that the August employment/unemployment numbers show that we have gone three straight years (from September 2009 to August 2012) with the Employment-population ratio below 58.8%… and the last time that was true was January 1975 – December 1977. The truth is that the average Employment-population ratio during the Carter administration was 59.1%, and the average Employment-population ratio during the Obama administration has been 58.7%. Obama is now officially worse than Carter.

No wonder so many people feel like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl41JUXi9lU

ITguy on October 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I recall someone in 2008 pledging to run a “respectful” campaign and then talking down to our POTUS in the debates. That strategy probably had the approval of top McCain aides.

All “respectful” did was suppress questions and observations like Hannity had and put a gag on this good looking woman in glasses who ran with McCain.

BTW, Steve Schmdt was on MSNBC this AM. He is a regular.

IlikedAUH2O on October 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

When you can get Christie pointed in the right direction it is a wonderful thing to watch. This is really the case when he is annoyed or angry. Obama’s ad and Stephanopoulos annoyed him, and therefore he decided to go nuclear and use the “L” word.

No matter what you may think of him, I would pay money to see him in a debate with Obama.

William Eaton on October 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Christie is exactly like those pit bulls in aggressively going after the bad guys, but the problem with pit bulls is that they often don’t hesitate to chomp on their own good guys, (Palin) because that’s what they do and all they can do is chomp,chomp, chomp.

That being said, it is far too late to start branding the liar in chief what he really is (it now sounds like just another election jab)It should have been done everytime he lied. Let the racist charges fly back at those who dare use such filthy degrading weapons as a personal assault to defect truth.

Don L on October 1, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Obama lied?

I am shocked, SHOCKED!!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on October 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

No matter what you may think of him, I would pay money to see him in a debate with Obama.

William Eaton on October 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Rather see Rush do the task, he has more than bluster to back him up, facts , figures, history, right at his fingertips and he’ll do it without degrading all of us.

Say, where has Mr “National Politics” Christie been hiding these last few years?

Don L on October 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I would pay money to see Christie in a debate with any of the treasonous media, especially Stephanopoulos. Ooooh, Bill Maher would be great as well.

I hope Mitt calls Obama a liar without actually using the word.”I think the President is confused/muddled/doesn’t understand the math/doesn’t have a grip on the subject at hand” etc.

Mitsouko on October 1, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It wasn’t until the Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, in January 2007, that the economy really started to tank. The Democrats have been in majority control (holding 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency) for 5.5 years, and they spent the first half of that driving the economy in the ditch and the second half of that leaving the economy in the ditch.

Hold on a minute, let us not drink our own Kool Aid here. The Dims may have won back the Congress but W still could have used the veto pen more frequently. W was as complicit in running up the spending as the Dims. Compassionate Conservatism = Spend More Money.

Old Fritz on October 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Stephanopoulos has his head so far up Obama’s ass, it’s a wonder he can keep that pretty hair-do so well manicured.

GarandFan on October 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM

““Lying?!” an incredulous Stephanopoulos gasped…”

(as he adjusted his knee pads and wiped Obowma’s man goo from his chin…)

Seven Percent Solution on October 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Obama, how dare you claim that a socialist RINO is going to lower taxes! How dare you!

nottakingsides on October 1, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Obligatory:

When you quote these “fact check” organizations as if they were authoritative, you give them an undeserved air of credibility.

They are not authoritative, or neutral, or, for the most part, even honest. The fact that they will call the left on some of the most outrageous lies does not mean that they are committed to telling the truth.

“Fact checkers” are basically no better than Pravda.

Now, it’s quite true that Obama is lying. But the truth of that has nothing to do with any “fact-check” organizations.

The same “politifact” or “factcheck” or other so called fact-check organization that calls Obama on his most egregious lies will not hesitate to call a conservative a liar based on opinion.

Case in point: Calling “death panels” the “lie of the year,” when the very reason it was effective is that it was true.

To subvert a phrase, “the fact checkers will betray you.”

tom on October 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Hit him over the head with this too

And it’s $16 trillion now

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s your household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $3.85

Who could live like this

audiotom on October 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The Bush tax cuts have been amply criticized for costing too much and generating too little economic growth, but that’s entirely different from causing the Great Recession.

What kind of happy horsesh*t is this statement? The Bush tax cuts (in which everyone benefitted) generated demonstrable growth, certainly more than the bandages that Obysmal’s economic efforts have done. If they were criticized, the braying was generated by those with a partisan axe to grind. Please compare and contrast the actual figures before perpetrating this false narrative, WaPo.

onlineanalyst on October 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM

If Obama stopped lying there would be no communication except for a bit of blame, whining and of course some of him telling us just how incredible he is.

Reality Checker on October 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Hey, remember when conservatives argued for tax cuts not only because they were the right thing to do, but had the benefit of actually *increasing* revenue to the government? You know – like every time, without exception, it’s been tried?

Instead we get “oh, it’ll get paid for by removing deductions”. No, “it’ll get paid for” by ramping up the economy, you non-conservative a$$hats. If you think yo have to ‘pay for them’ by removing deductions, then you’re not very well actually reducing taxes, now are you, s@#$heads?

FFS.

Midas on October 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I hope Mitt calls Obama a liar without actually using the word.”I think the President is confused/muddled/doesn’t understand the math/doesn’t have a grip on the subject at hand” etc.

Mitsouko on October 1, 2012 at 2:41 PM

No, I want him to call Obama a liar on national television, and lay out the evidence why.

Enough of the milquetoast/pu$$y crap.

Midas on October 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Midas on October 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Agree. If he lies whenever he opens his mouth, he’s a liar! I’ll bet Hot Air archives has video of Obama lying at least once for every day he’s been in office.

Christian Conservative on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I hope Mitt calls Obama a liar without actually using the word.”I think the President is confused/muddled/doesn’t understand the math/doesn’t have a grip on the subject at hand” etc.

Mitsouko on October 1, 2012 at 2:41 PM

No, I want him to call Obama a liar on national television, and lay out the evidence why.

Enough of the milquetoast/pu$$y crap.

Midas on October 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

He can do it without sounding shrill.

All he has to do is say, “Excuse me, but what Mr. Obama just said is absolutely false.”

fossten on October 2, 2012 at 3:57 AM

“Critics and media pundits might object to Gov. Christie’s confrontational style, but the vast majority of his constituents simply shrug their shoulders.

Ah, no, we’d stand up and cheer.

SDN on October 2, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The Dims may have won back the Congress but W still could have used the veto pen more frequently.

Sure, he could have, if he’d wanted to shut down the government and get blamed for that.

Or he could have ruled by EO, just like Obama.

SDN on October 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I hope Mitt is respectful.. and humble.. and looks Obama right in the eye…

when he tells him point blank, how saddened he is, that for political gain, Obama has so demeaned the office of the presidency.. To put in in slow.. then twist the blade, reminding the narcissistic little schnit, the presidency belongs to the people of the United States.. not to the temporary occupant of the moment. He should hold the office in trust…. and not disgrace it by lying like a lazy hound dog every time he speaks..

He has failed the people.. and needs to stand by and own his actions like a man..

America can fire a president, and still forgive him, if his heart was to do right by the people..

They won’t forgive a cynical player who was gaming the office for his own benefit.

I want to see Mitt put that arrogant, craven, little snot on notice, we have his measure… and he has to answer for what he’s done.

That’s what I hope to see..

and I hope Mitt uses Obama’s hate for him, to goad him into a meltdown that anyone dare question a living GOD like him.. “HOW DARE WE QUESTION his yoyal friggin self”… I’d pay to see Obama self destruct..

with his ego.. I bet it can be done.. his skins so thin, he can’t process criticism in any form..

mark81150 on October 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2