Well then your job sucks
Following up on the post below, here is the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza using Alice In Wonderland logic to explain why even though the CBO report on the ACA doesn't say what lazy pundits like him says that it says, it's still ok for him to say it.
My job is to assess not the rightness of each argument but to deal in the real world of campaign politics in which perception often (if not always) trumps reality.
Wow. Gotta go to Brad DeLong for this one:
Note the assumptions here:
Even if you accept that Cillizza is only a political reporter and it's not his job to report on the facts of Obamacare but only the facts of campaign politics, his immediate rush to declare this bad for Democrats in yesterday's article still amounts to, as i said below, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he wanted to wait until after Republicans put out their "Obamacare killed 2 million jobs" ads and Democrats put out their "Bill was a 59 year old man with his cancer in remission who was ready to retire but was afraid of losing his healthcare until Obamacare was implemented" ads, then he's welcome to do analysis on that and tell us which was more effective. Instead he even now barely seems to understand the distinction and just says it's too complicated to explain. In his original article he called it "economic nerd-speak". Not sure what value he is bringing to the table.
By fnord12 | February 5, 2014, 4:46 PM | Liberal Outrage