As we begin the big 4th of July holiday week, I think it’s important that we keep our minds sharp. Besides, it’s a slowish news day. Anyway, I took it upon myself to design a mental exercise for C4P readers. It’s extremely simple, and far more appealing than eating broccoli. After watching and carefully listening to the two contestants (below), identify what differences, if any, there are in their arguments.
Our first contestant: Obama’s spokesman, Jack Lew, trying to convince Chris Wallace that the federal mandate Obama imposed to fund Obamacare (call it the ”Obamatax”), isn’t really a massive new middle class tax, but rather a “penalty”:
Our second contestant: Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom (he of Etch-a-Sketch fame), trying to convince Cuck Todd that the state mandate Romney used to fund Romneycare isn’t really a tax, but rather a “penalty”:
Take as much time as you need. This isn’t a race. If necessary, go back and listen again. Is there a difference between the two in terms of how they describe a government health care mandate?
Bonus exercise: Which of the two is better at obfuscation presenting his talking points? They’re both in synch with their respective bosses, but I tend to think Rupert Murdoch has a point regarding the caliber of the Mittster’s people. Eric Fehrnstrom in particular.
Oh, I almost forgot: For those who aren’t familiar with Fehrnstrom, go here.