I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
Did you read through these? I saw "The President lost our AAA rating" followed by "Nu-uh it was GOP congress!" something like 3 or 4 times just randomly clicking on 5 links. Most of these are really weak and tenuous and come down to interpretation or semantics. Here's an example:
"At an event in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Romney said Obama falsely claimed four years ago that 'he was going to help create more jobs.' "
Obama has helped create more jobs -- over 4.4 million of them in the private sector.
Well of course some job creation has happened in the past 4 years, but more has a the meaning of "in greater quantity," which is much more likely what Romney meant, more than he has created.
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
It doesn't matter, really. People will hear what they want to hear, and dismiss the rest, reliably. If you point out that Romney/Ryan lies a lot, the counter is that all politicians lie a lot. Point out specific things that Romney/Ryan have lied (or are lying) about, the counter is a list of things that Obama lied about, regardless of whether or not you're actually a supporter. Produce a list, or inquire as to why Romney/Ryan would lie about insignificant things, you're trying to distract people from what really matters.
Which is not the truth, apparently.
Did you look through these? Most of them that I've seen are at worst exaggerations on Romney's part. The high level of scrutiny available in this election is artificially inflating the "lie count" of both candidates by making these exaggerations more easily check-able. Yeah, it sucks that our leaders do that, but they're human just like us. I'd be a liar if I said that I didn't stretch the truth to make myself look better to others from time to time.
Also, all politicians lie a lot; especially President Obama. Stop trying to distract from what really matters!
Of course politicians spin the truth a lot, and there are a lot of those spins in that article. I don't think Romney "lied" 533 times, but most of the links have a few outright lies in them. Even then, we had the RNC Ryan speech that was nothing but rewriting truths into lies. Also, the mere fact that a Romney aide specifically touted, "We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," should raise all kinds of red flags.
On September 04 2012 23:23 xDaunt wrote: From The Hill:
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
Notwithstanding the arbitrariness of a start of a presidential term, voters honestly believe that things are worse now then when the country was in a recession, when there were bank runs and unemployment was moving from around 6% to eventually around 10%, when the financial sector was on the verge of collapse?
Yep, that's what the poll says. I saw another one over the weekend where the break down was something like 36% worse, 36% same, and 26% better. That result isn't really much better if you're in favor of Obama. There's a large majority of people out there who, at best, think things have not gotten better under his watch. This really isn't surprising.
Well worth a read for entertainment purposes. Basically it sarcastically describes Mitt Romney's life via his political pandering. David Brooks was never a Mitt Romney fan, and obviously doesn't at all care to see him get elected.
Is anyone else curious about this business of Clinton refusing to share his convention speech with anyone? Man, I'll be laughing for weeks if he throws Obama under the bus in prime time.
On September 05 2012 02:28 xDaunt wrote: Is anyone else curious about this business of Clinton refusing to share his convention speech with anyone? Man, I'll be laughing for weeks if he throws Obama under the bus in prime time.
The chance of that is literally zero, although maybe there might be a few controversial remarks in there. But this is the first I've heard of it. Sounds interesting.
On September 05 2012 02:28 xDaunt wrote: Is anyone else curious about this business of Clinton refusing to share his convention speech with anyone? Man, I'll be laughing for weeks if he throws Obama under the bus in prime time.
I think there's higher chances of something big coming out of the Obama campaign than there is of Clinton backstabbing.
On September 05 2012 02:28 xDaunt wrote: Is anyone else curious about this business of Clinton refusing to share his convention speech with anyone? Man, I'll be laughing for weeks if he throws Obama under the bus in prime time.
It wouldn't happen. Would pretty much kill his wife's chances at being President if she runs.
Its about alleged sham RNC 2012. I don't want to say Ron Paul was shammed blabla fake elections. I want to ask anyone if they have a clue if this is legit or not, and since I won't open a thread for it, neither is one active about it, I'm just leaving it here.
I know it's against "topic rule", but this is where it would get most atention I guess....And I want to know if it TLers approve or dissaprove of it.
Yeah, I don't think that Clinton will trash Obama during the speech. However, it is well-documented that there is no love lost between those two. I can't say that I'd be surprised if he at least slipped in some remarks that raise a few eyebrows.
On September 05 2012 03:02 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, I don't think that Clinton will trash Obama during the speech. However, it is well-documented that there is no love lost between those two. I can't say that I'd be surprised if he at least slipped in some remarks that raise a few eyebrows.
I think he'll do the same thing as Chris Christie, which is a great speech that is more about staking his place in the party than helping the candidate. If he does a good job, it will brighten up people's attitudes about Democratic leadership and remind them voters they may not want to forgive Republicans quite yet, which is what Obama needs anyways.
On September 05 2012 02:28 xDaunt wrote: Is anyone else curious about this business of Clinton refusing to share his convention speech with anyone? Man, I'll be laughing for weeks if he throws Obama under the bus in prime time.
Maybe it will be like Hulk hogan and the NWO and he will join the GOP
Its about alleged sham RNC 2012. I don't want to say Ron Paul was shammed blabla fake elections. I want to ask anyone if they have a clue if this is legit or not, and since I won't open a thread for it, neither is one active about it, I'm just leaving it here.
I know it's against "topic rule", but this is where it would get most atention I guess....And I want to know if it TLers approve or dissaprove of it.
it's legit. the RNC was gaming the situation, although tbh, it makes no difference either way. There was a lot of contention on the new rule. It's kind of a shame they didn't actually put it up to vote like they should have.
Seems to me that parties want to use conventions as a big media launching pad, rah rah session. Actually following through with procedure on voting for a nominee other than the presumptive nominee seems incidental. They almost need a pre-convention, convention to do the actual deciding on the nominee. Because right now, it seems they're hoping to present an entirely united front. Getting a significant number of votes for another candidate (irrespective of whether they can win or not) that has an enthusiastic backing is contrary to this united front.
However, it seems a party can ill afford to present anything but a united front by the time it hits the convention. Maybe it's how drawn out the primaries are compared to the actual run between the president and the nominee. Primaries are a full year to bloody each other on national television over and and over. And then you have 2 months to turn around and try to pretend you were totally united all along. Cutting the primary in half could probably solve a lot of problems. How many youtube and twitter submitted debates do you actually need anyways? That or having a pre-convention, convention and shrinking the time frame when all the states are supposed to vote. I'm not exactly sure why the vote is so drawn out. By the time it get's to the end, who really cares about the last states (Unless Texas, Florida, California, and NY were all last.)
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum.
On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote: I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum.
Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be.
On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote: I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum.
Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be.
Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing.
On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote: I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum.
Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be.
Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing.
I get where you are coming from, but you are essentially saying "Not Ron Paul? Democrat.". Gotta realize most people are using different definitions than you are.
EPT
