Lying game

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/marco_rubio_is_lying_about_hillary_clinton_lying.html  Saletan basically says HRC’s statements on the video were expressed with enough Clinton-esque nuance and obfuscation that it’s impossible to call her a liar.  And thus Rubio is a liar for doing exactly that.  I don’t buy it.  Look, whats true is the Clintons are self-serving liars, and they do so in excess of the hyperbole privileges that we grant most politicians.  This ought to be accepted everywhere.  But having to acknowledge that, liberals are going to claim no, this one’s not a lie, the Clinton’s didn’t lie here… Its weak.  Just go to the no moral equivalence excuse already, they’re liberals acting in furtherance of [dystopic] egalitarianism, and they get to lie so that sheeple don’t elect politicians the Koch brothers would want.  AND… there’s an error in method here I think as Saletan is ignoring the statements of HRC toadie Cheryl Mills, who lied more unambiguously when she did the 5 talk shows the Sunday after.  Those count for Hillary.

Jots w/ dots 11/3

Obamacare is working:  http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-slow-motion-implosion-of-obamacare-1446417104-lMyQjAxMTA1ODA5MjUwNDIzWj  10 million people gain coverage, 9 million of them were from expanding Medicare.  So no, the funding mechanism doesn’t work so far as the program needed unsubsidized people to use the exchanges.  But it’s working…. Cuz doosh talking point explained by Ezra Klein or Kevin Drum or MattY.  Let’s be real, O-Care was in some ways meant to destroy employer insurance, but that didn’t happen and won’t because the product is quite generally a turd.  It’s not very good insurance.  So I’m not really surprised at the failure to destroy the employer insurance market as intended, and as far as it goes I’m delighted the Democrats lied their way into providing 10M more people insurance, failed at destroying the employer insurance market, and lost congress over it.  There’s a weird justice in all of that.

The unstated on GC:  I agree, yes, the antis want to take your guns, yes the 2As will accept a certain amount of ambient violence.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/yes-they-want-to-take-your-guns-away.html  I though, have not shied away from a notion that a certain amount of ambient violence is the price you pay to be able to ‘bear arms’.  But thing is. It’s not a big price to pay, we don’t have a lot of violence and crime in this society.

Appeal to liberal authority on CNBC media bias:  Ezra  “Rather, it’s CNBC’s perspective that’s different: The other networks asked questions about electability that were implicitly framed as if they came from a concerned member of the sponsoring party; CNBC asked questions about policies and records that were framed as if they came from a critic of the sponsoring party.”