Your results may vary.

Over the past few days, Mitt Romney made three of the four statements below. The other statement, I just made up. Can you find the fake Romney quote among the genuine?

I put links to the sources after each quote. They lead to the story as reported by Talking Points Memo, your source for liberal-friendly political news. The fake quote’s source link leads to my favorite picture of President Obama.

1. “I admit this, he has one thing he did not do in his first four years, he’s said he’s going to do in his next four years, which is to raise taxes.” Source

2. “Look, George W. Bush was president when the financial meltdown began. I know that. And the Obama team has done a pretty good job of turning all of that around. But, the next four years are going to be critical.” Source

3. “The largest contributors to the Democratic Party are the teachers’ unions. And so if they can elect someone, then that person is supposed to be representing the public vis-a-vis the teachers’ union, but actually most of the money came from the teachers’ union. It’s an extraordinary conflict of interest.” Source

4. “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.” Source

How did you do?

The fake quote was inspired by this story. And now that you know which of the quotes are real, feel free to discuss them in the comments section.

UPDATE: Should have waited a day…

“[D]on’t forget — I got everybody in my state insured,” Romney told NBC. “One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don’t think there’s anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.”

Taking quotes out of context is a peculiar breed of dishonesty. It carries a sense of credibility, as the person actually said the words, but that only makes the lie more powerful when the meaning isn’t preserved. Lately, we’ve seen a number of instances of a particularly virulent strain of the practice, one in which the out-of-context quote conveniently fits an existing narrative about the speaker. The liar is comforted that his lie is meant to convey a deeper truth.

For example, a while back, Mitt Romney offered the statement “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” Now, anyone watching the original speech in context understood that he was talking about his preference to retain the ability to change health insurance companies. But because the left had already characterized him as someone who had built his fortune destroying jobs, it became very easy to shorten the quote to “I like being able to fire people,” or simply “I like… to fire people.” It doesn’t really feel like lying if we believe it to be an accurate portrayal of how he really feels deep down, right?

So when Barack Obama uttered the now-famous sentence “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Republicans didn’t care that he was referring to roads and bridges. They knew that he really believed in his heart that business owners didn’t deserve credit for their own success, so taking him out of context seemed to be fair game. In a way, it felt even more honest than leaving the quote in context. They went so far as to base their entire convention around the misleading reference, shouting back at their fictionalized idea of the president’s intentions with righteous fervor. By the end of the convention, the imaginary Barack Obama seemed so real that Clint Eastwood even tried to have a conversation with it.

Now, a video has surfaced which has raised some questions about what Mitt Romney meant when he said that it’s not his job to worry about the 47% of Americans that don’t pay federal income taxes:

Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 … I mean, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center, that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases, emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what he looks like.

He was talking about his job as a candidate, not as a future president. So a response of “Well, Barack Obama is president to ALL of the people” is an unfair non-sequitur. All he’s saying is that it would be a waste of his time to court the votes of the non-taxpayer, because to do so would require getting them to vote against their own entitlements, thus taking responsibility and caring for their lives.

In fact, a President Romney would indeed convince the 47% to take personal responsibility and care for their lives by helpfully removing the safety net, their dependence on which has caused them so much detriment. You’re welcome. Added to which, we are to believe that a Romney presidency will lead to an immediate American Renaissance in military strength, traditional family values, and economic prosperity for all Americans rich and poor alike. The statement just doesn’t make any sense, from Romney’s point of view, if he’s talking about himself as president.

Now, I have to admit that there’s a part of me that is a bit amused by Romney’s complaint that he’s being taken out of context. Sorry, Mitt. You built that.

But I actually think it’s important to look at what he said in context, because that in itself is disturbing enough without having to distort it. And yes, the 47% does include soldiers and seniors, but I am willing to give Governor Romney the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably wasn’t talking about them. I want to focus on what he really meant, not what we want him to have meant.

If you look at what he is saying and who he is saying it to, you can see that he is painting a very broad picture of people who pay no federal income taxes as lazy freeloaders – not just the people who receive government aid, but also people who simply pay no taxes because they don’t earn enough to tax. That would be the poor, many of whom do harder work every day than Mitt Romney or I could even imagine. Now, these people never asked for a government handout; they just benefit from a tax code that doesn’t take food off of their table. Like everyone else, they’ll pay the lowest rate possible and certainly won’t volunteer to pay more. If anyone can appreciate that, it should be Mitt Romney.

When a man who owns a car elevator bemoans at a $50,000-a-plate dinner how the working class believes that they are entitled to food, we really have to consider what that means for us as a nation. Marie Antoinette, at least, offered cake.

Now that Mitt Romney has chosen his running mate, I’d like to return to a comment he made earlier in the campaign.

“I think this is a land of opportunity for every single person, every single citizen of this great nation. And I want to make sure that we keep America a place of opportunity, where everyone has a fair shot. They get as much education as they can afford and with their time they’re able to get and if they have a willingness to work hard and the right values, they ought to be able to provide for their family and have a shot of realizing their dreams.”

The key phrase is “as much education as they can afford.” Right now, our taxes provide a K-12 education to all children in this country free of charge. This drives conservatives crazy. Their fantasy is a free-market education system where schools have to compete for learner dollars. If a school isn’t making the grade, well, parents just won’t send their kids there and, bang, the education crisis is over.

And I have to admit that the position is consistent with their other ideals. Liberals believe that the government can be a force for good in people’s lives. Conservatives believe that it cannot be, that government interference is always unwelcome. So getting rid of government services like education and Social Security and Medicaid makes perfect sense to them.

Even their lopsided tax values make sense, in an odd sort of way. For you see, Romney tells us in the quote above that the ingredients of success are hard work and the right values. If you don’t have a job, that’s your fault. (Unless the president is a Democrat, in which case it’s his fault.) So the wealthy are a special class of people who deserve special consideration. They should get as much influence in government as they can afford.

It’s not surprising that Romney believes that his immense wealth is a direct function of his hard work and correct values. And it explains his cringe-worthy comments about the economic disparities between nations being due to culture. This is his worldview. The free market is a just God, and doles out rewards and punishments appropriately.

For obvious reasons, he doesn’t like to talk about this worldview very much. We only get the occasional glimpse of it through these “education” and “culture” slips when Romney commits the ultimate gaffe of speaking from the heart.

But with the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, he is signaling that this is not an accident, not a coincidence, not an occasional gaffe. Paul Ryan is the human embodiment of this philosophy. And it’s not just his adoration of Ayn Rand; his actions speak much louder than her words.

Paul Ryan’s plan phases out Medicare. It phases out Medicare. You hear that, PolitiFact? It phases out Medicare. Over the past few days, Republicans have been quick to point out that, under their plan, current seniors would not have their benefits affected. But after that, they phase out Medicare. Really. Under their plan, Medicare would be replaced by a voucher system which – just like their voucher proposal for education – would be underfunded and ultimately targeted for elimination.

And then seniors will get all of the health care they can afford.

Barack Obama campaigned on some pretty progressive issues: health care as a right of citizenship, a measured withdrawal from Iraq, a tax increase for Americans making over $250,000/yr., fighting global warming, increased spending on education, and more. But he also campaigned on changing the tone and ushering in a new era of post-partisan cooperation.

It seems unlikely that he will be able to keep both promises. Republicans will resist the Obama agenda fiercely, but Obama will have the clout and the Congressional support to fight back if he chooses to. This week’s question asks whether or not he should, and I’m curious to know what you think.

Do you think Obama should strive for bipartisan compromise and national unity, or should he use all of the powers and support at his disposal to advance a progressive agenda regardless of the opposition?

I know this blog has been overly focused on politics lately, but I’m really bothered and I need to vent yet again.

I’m not bothered that the President failed to disclose a serious medical condition to the American people for a year. If that was the worst thing he did as President, he’d be Jed Bartlet.

I’m not bothered when right-wing commentators call for another 9/11 to “save America” from spirited debate over policy issues and return to a more unified time when everyone was crazed with fear and ready to do whatever the President wanted. Fear is what these people do best.

I’m not bothered by a member of the current administration’s Civil Rights Commission pondering a return to Korematsu. It’s not like he was advocating it, after all.

I’m not bothered that the Secretary of Education would rather read Harry Potter than Shakespeare. Shakespeare can be difficult, and I’ve heard good things about the Harry Potter books. Even the Shakespeare Teacher likes to relax with some lighter fare every now and then.

No, gentle readers, the Republicans aren’t bothering me so much anymore. I think by now we all pretty much know what to expect from them.

It’s the Democrats who totally caved on warrantless wiretapping that are bothering me:

Buckling in the face of familiar scare tactics – and looking to go on vacation – Congress caved on domestic surveillance this past weekend. It handed the White House temporary authority to monitor, without warrants, Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail.

Which brings me to Al Gore. In my opinion, Al Gore is the only person in the country who 1) gets it, and 2) has a strong chance of winning the Presidency.

Because of this, he has a moral obligation to run. He has laid out the most serious challenges facing us today and we have listened. But he may be the only person who can be the change he wants to see in the world. He can’t honestly think that giving a Keynote presentation on climate change can compare to actually being the President. So what’s going on? Is he biding his time, allowing all of us to beg him to run, rather than entering the race now and becoming a target? Or is honestly not planning to run?

I’m bothered by the current state of politics in this country. I’m bothered by the abusive Republicans and the enabling Democrats. And you know what? So is he. So I’ll wrap up this post by linking to rundammit.com, because I’m sick and tired of being bothered by this sorry excuse for a government we have failing to run this country.

It’s time, Al. Step up.

In a poll taken over a decade ago, 96% of Canadians said they preferred their health care system to ours.

A more recent poll indicates that 64% of Americans think “the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes”.

Michael Moore’s film Sicko is the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time.

And millions of Americans have no health insurance at all.

What specifically is it going to take to get Universal Health Care in this country?

Al Gore has written a new book. Go buy it.

What do you mean, “What’s it about”? Go buy it.

Okay, if you insist. He describes it himself on his blog:

When George Bush launched his preemptive war in Iraq, more than 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorists who caused 9-11. After the 2004 election, when asked what stuck in their minds about the campaign, voters in Ohio named two ads playing to the fears of terrorism paid for by the Bush Campaign. One pattern that has held true since 2001 is that this White House is less interested in openness and truth than any previous administration.

We are facing so many long-term challenges, from the climate crisis and the war in Iraq to health care and social welfare. To solve these problems and move forward we need to reverse the damage done to our democracy. We have little time to waste.

My goal in The Assault on Reason is to explore why our public forum now welcomes the enemies of reason. More importantly, the book focuses on what we can do together, individually and collectively, to restore the rule of reason to our democracy.

Is that enough? Okay, now go buy it.

By the way, how cool is it that Al Gore has a blog? From all appearances, it’s really his blog, and not written by staff members.

While we’re here, I’m going to throw in a prediction: Al Gore will eventually throw his hat in the ring for President in the 2008 election. I still think he’d have a good chance of winning, and he’d almost certainly have the endorsement of ShakespeareTeacher.com. I think he’ll do it.

If he really wants to fight for the causes that are so important to him, how can he possibly walk away from a chance at the position where he’d have the most power to enact the changes he wants to see in the world?

At the recent Republican debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo all raised their hands.

And this is America, where people are free to believe anything they like. But these are people who are running to be the president of the most powerful nation on earth. The next president must be able to lead the world in dealing with the crisis of global climate change. The next president will probably have to revisit stem cell research. The next president will possibly have to deal with another epidemic. All of these things are difficult to do when you don’t believe in science. Just ask President Bush.

But these three guys raise their hands, and it’s buried in the middle of the story, after we finish talking about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Why is this not the top story? If they had said they were athiests, it would be the top story. If they had said they were atheists, that would be the end of their careers in American politics. If they had said they were agnostic, that would be the end of their careers in American politics.

So many of our most celebrated figures are openly athiest, from scientists to artists, from business leaders to Karl Rove. But not one of the candidates running for president.

Why is disbelief in evolution more acceptable in American politics today than disbelief in God?

Hey, it’s one of those wacky Internet polls! I’ve never taken one of these before. This should be fun. Okay, first question…

Do you favor personal savings accounts as a voluntary part of Social Security Reform?

Oh, wow. I was expecting an easier first question. But, okay. Well, I guess I already have all of the voluntary personal savings accounts I need. That’s what makes them voluntary. Maybe a more productive discussion would be whether or not Social Security needs reform before we start talking about what should be a voluntary part of it. I’ve been involuntarily paying into it my entire working life, so I think I’d like to voluntarily receive the benefits when I retire. So I worry, when the Grover Norquists of the world start talking about personal savings accounts, that I won’t get my benefits.

There is a small group of people who have a whole lot of influence whose solution to everything is lower taxes on the rich, privatize everything, and let the free market sort it out. Sometimes that works better than other times. Markets are really good at picking winners and losers, but when it comes to our senior citizens, I’d prefer to stick with our current system, since it benefits everyone. It’s also why I support public education over a voucher system. I think I’d like to move on to the next question now, if that’s okay.

Do you favor an increase in retirement age as part of Medicare reform?

There’s that “reform” word again. With one word you’ve implied into existence a problem that may or may not have a basis in reality. Could the problem be that the idea of a government actually taking care of its citizens is somehow repulsive to you, Mr. Internet Poll Writer? What is that dark place inside you that makes you turn a blind eye to the suffering of your neighbors? And how can we help you?

It’s true that people are living longer and at some point we may wish to raise the retirement age. I wouldn’t even consider it, though, until every American has health care. If we’re going to ask our citizens to stay in the workforce longer, we have to help them stay healthy longer, and that means affordable well-care visits for everyone. Who’s with me?

Should Medicare have an element of means testing?

I don’t know; what kind of Internet poll is this? I’ve known enough people who are relatively comfortable financially, who have been knocked completely out of the box by an unexpected illness, so I’m going to give a preliminary answer of no. I’d be interested in hearing the counter arguments, though.

Do you favor opening up Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration?

If by “exploration” you mean “drilling,” then no, I do not favor it. If you just want to explore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, feel free! I’ve heard it’s magnificent. Perhaps I will explore it myself if I should happen to visit Alaska for next year’s Bard-a-thon. (I have no idea how close ANWR is to Fairbanks, but Alaska being huge, that may have read as very funny to my new friends and readers up north.) But I’m starting to sense where you’re coming from, oh sneaky, sneaky Internet poll, and I’m pretty sure you mean “drilling.”

How do you propose expanding Health Savings Accounts?

I’m sorry, what? I’m new to this whole Internet poll thing. I have no proposal for expanding Health Savings Accounts, nor do I necessarily think they should be expanded. As I said above, I’m in favor of a universal health care system, perhaps a single-payer system. But making all health care costs tax deductible might be a nice interim compromise. What do you say?

Do you favor giving citizenship to those who are in this country illegally?

Oh, that’s a good question. In principle, I do, but I would want to hear non-partisan expert opinions about the practical ramifications of doing such a thing. Regardless, I do believe that whatever decision we make should apply to immigrants of all nations, not just North American ones. This is not an easy question, and it doesn’t have easy answers, but I’m proud to live in a country that is a melting pot of cultures, and I think it would be the American thing to do to find a way to work this out.

Should the United States send troops to stop the genocide in Darfur?

Well, I worry that our military is already overextended in Iraq. But yes, if it’s possible for us to do so, we should do what it takes to stop the genocide in Darfur. If that means sending troops, then so be it, but there are other resources and methods available to the world’s lone remaining superpower. What has the President done? What is he willing to do? Where is his plan?

Will you make the Presidents tax cuts permanent?

Will I make them permanent? This is a very strange Internet poll indeed. I do not expect to have the power to do that, but if I did, I would not. They favor the wealthy to such an extreme that it makes me wonder if the President is really in touch with the working man. There has been some improvement in the economy, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that the improvement is a direct result of the tax cuts, and I don’t believe it is. But even if you believe that, there’s no reason to believe that making them permanent would continue to have the same effect.

Would you favor elimination of the death tax?

I would not favor the elimination of the estate tax, no.

Would you support a flat tax?

No. Is anyone seriously proposing this?

Do you support President Bush’s plan for Iraq?

The troop surge? I support his plan in that I hope it’s successful. I don’t know if it’s the right thing to do, but I do like it better than “stay the course.” I was against this war from the beginning, but since we’ve invaded, I’ve been rooting for victory. I think this war has been conducted with a great deal of incompetence, but I like a lot of the changes in direction that the Bush administration has put into place since the midterm elections, maybe as a result of them, maybe not.

I do think we’d be much, much better off today if we had never gone into Iraq. That’s a position that’s starting to gain some support. I basically said what I needed to say in an earlier post and I still think the idea of strategic redeployment has promise.

Will you seek to meet with the leaders of Syria or North Korea or Iran?

While I am quite the autograph hound, I don’t think I will seek to add those names to my collection, no. I have to say, I’ve never seen an Internet poll quite like this.

Should the United States end the embargo of Cuba?

Yes, absolutely. I never understood the embargo, and – as always – it’s the people who suffer, not the leaders. With Fidel Castro stepping down, we should take advantage of the opportunity to end the pointless embargo.

Well, as Internet polls go, that one certainly was … oh, wait a minute. That wasn’t an Internet poll at all! That was a list of questions that Senator Bill Frist posed to Senator Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat running for President. He’s trying to trap her into publicly taking unpopular positions! And in doing so, he’s trapped me into doing just that!

Oh, well played, Senator Frist. Well played, indeed.

Feel free to use the comments thread to answer any of Senator Frist’s gotcha questions, or to respond to any of my (or someone else’s) answers. Unless, of course, you’re running for president, or ever plan to. In that case, you may quickly navigate away from this page, and don’t forget to clear your cache!