A campaign based almost entirely on lies

[knapplc]

Fred Clark is an evangelical blogger with some heavy-duty religious credentials, and that adds a particular gravitas to his August 29 blog detailing 533 lies told by Mitt Romney in 30 weeks. That’s right, 533 verifiable, checkable lies told by a candidate running for the top job in the country. To be fair, Mr. Clark isn’t the person who compiled the list. That task was accomplished by Steve Benen, and Benen is cited as the source in Clark’s blog. But Mr. Clark took the time to go through each of Mr. Benen’s articles, starting with the first salvo on January 6, 2012 in the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal Blog and wrapping up with the August 17, 2012 piece written for the Maddow Blog.

 

 

Here is the list provided in Clark’s article: 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.

 

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse famously proclaimed “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” This has proven to be true. Because even though Romney’s pants are ablaze, he continues to repeat and repeat and repeat the same lies over and over and over again. He and the Republican Party are counting on the until now proven fact that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Even when it’s still a lie. And they just don’t care.

 

LINK

[carlfense]

The conservative mainstream media won't focus much attention on this . . . so will Romney supporters know the truth or even care about Romney's lies?

[sd'sker]

a romney lie is better than an obama truth.

[BigRedBuster]

I didn't read the article. But, didn't the conventions prove that BOTH parties are full of crap and lie to get your vote?

[knapplc]

You should read the article.

[BigRedBuster]

Are you saying that Obambi doesn't do the same thing? I think you are falling into what is being discussed in the other thread.

[knapplc]

It's not OK for any candidate to lie.

 

It is worse for a candidate to base nearly the entirety of their campaign on lies.

 

Do you see the difference? Or is it a matter of, they all lie so an entire campaign of lies is perfectly acceptable?

 

This explains so much about why we're in the situation we're in today.

[carlfense]

Are you saying that Obambi doesn't do the same thing?

Why excuse it as "the other guy does it too!" Call it what it is.

 

Also: I have a serious side question. What's with all of the names that conservatives make up for Obama? Do they think they're funny or what?

[knapplc]

It goes back to "I'll show your president the same respect you showed mine."

[sd'sker]

It goes back to "I'll show your president the same respect you showed mine."

it is a constant race to the lowest common denominator, including excusing lies.

[zoogs]

It's a war of perception. I remember listening to the conservative radio hosts try to dismantle Hilary's campaign - successfully, I might argue - by attacking her personally. For no reason whatsoever, they repeatedly called her a bitch. She made them very, very angry.

 

Also, lies are not often caught, but they incite anger and shift opinion. I think aggressive manipulation of information - stretching the truth, misrepresenting stuff, etc - just works.

[BigRedBuster]

Are you saying that Obambi doesn't do the same thing?

Why excuse it as "the other guy does it too!" Call it what it is.

 

Also: I have a serious side question. What's with all of the names that conservatives make up for Obama? Do they think they're funny or what?

 

I don't like lies from anyone. Especially the media. This guy would gain a lot of credibility with me if he would do the same thing now with Obama. Their convention proved they tell their fair share of lies.

 

As for the name. Sorry, I hadn't used that one for a long time. I used it back when Obama claimed all we needed to do was sit down and talk to Iran and everything would be fine. Hmmm....when was he going to have that meeting after he was elected?

[808Husker in KCMO]

I didn't go through all 533. Is "God lives on a planet near the star called Kolob" on the list?

[Moiraine]

Are you saying that Obambi doesn't do the same thing?

Why excuse it as "the other guy does it too!" Call it what it is.

 

Also: I have a serious side question. What's with all of the names that conservatives make up for Obama? Do they think they're funny or what?

 

I've noticed that too. I guess his name is just easy to change to something stupid. I see Obummer the most.

[carlfense]

Note that Romney doesn’t even try to defend the $3,000 to $4,000 tax cut claim, which is ridiculous. Instead, he uses it as evidence that voters should ignore all of these claims. ”There are all these studies out there,” Romney says. Like, you’ve got your truth, and I’ve got mine, man. It’s the most postmodern thing I’ve seen since I was an undergraduate at UC Santa Cruz.

This is how the Romney campaign has treated numbers in general. The evidence behind their “12 million jobs” claim is a joke. Their white paper and subsequent op-ed on the economy misrepresented almost every economist it mentioned. Their tax and spending plans are missing pretty much all of the relevant information. The standards behind the talking points and policy proposals the campaign releases are insultingly low.

 

But the theory is clear. What matters isn’t whether the Romney campaign’s numbers add up. It’s whether they’ve got a bunch of numbers to throw at the Obama campaign’s numbers, and at the analyses from independent experts. “There are all these studies out there.” And who knows? Maybe they’re right. Maybe all voters take away is that there are all these studies out there, and the only ones you should trust are the ones you agree with. But I hope not. I really hope not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/the-romney-campaigns-postmodern-approach-to-policy/

 

I've seen this argument here a few times.