Thursday, August 2, 2012

Mendacious Mitt

Steve Benen, formerly of Washington Monthly, in what must be a full-time job, has been keeping track of The Rominee's lies. It's an impressive list, and makes my attempts at keeping up seem amateurish at best. Here's only a few of his latest. At the bottom of the linked article are links to his past lists, which are many, and overwhelming.

1. Romney claimed this week that President Obama was saying success "is the result of government," not "hard-working people," when Obama said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

That's as obvious a lie as Romney has told all year. It's not even close to what the president said.

2. Romney told CNBC's Larry Kudlow, in reference to last week's massacre, "There were, of course, very stringent laws which existed in Aurora, Colorado."

Actually, that's the opposite of the truth.

3. On a related note, Romney said "it was illegal" for the Aurora gunman to have his arsenal.

That's not true. The gunman in Aurora purchased his guns and ammunition legally.

4. Romney told donors this week that Ronald Reagan was so focused on the economy after taking office in 1981, he told his aides not to schedule any national security meetings in his first 100 days as president.

That's so ridiculously false it seemed to thoroughly annoy Republican media figures, including Bill Kristol and Marc Thiessen.

5. Romney told CNBC's Larry Kudlow, "I think the president made an error coming into office and deciding that the economy would take care of itself."

I don't know what planet Romney's on, but on this one, Obama came into office and immediately worked on a stimulus bill called the Recovery Act. Romney probably should have heard of it -- he's condemned it many times.

I read somewhere the other day a quote by a R strategist; it was after Mitt's European presidementia praecox tour. "Romney can't win," he said. "But Obama can lose." Therefrom ariseth the strategy: lie so much, so continuously and thoroughly, that people will stop trying to point it out (the media certainly have), and it'll stand. But it's unprecedented to have a candidate base his entire pitch on nothing else but lies about a sitting president. Afraid to commit to anything, or to reveal what little of the disastrous plans he has, Romney lets loose lies the way a malabsorber lets loose gas. And he's been gifted by the Foxorovians with an electorate fully softened into submission. The lies work. People actually believe Romney's blatant lies, and it speaks volumes about the state of our democracy.

If Mitt Romney wins, we'll deserve everything we get, awful as it'll be.


  1. Doc I have a little different take on this situation. First of all, Romney is in a difficult situation. Had he told the truth he could not have won the nomination and preserved ANY hope of attracting independent voters in the general election; he would have ridden the crazy train off the cliff. Such is the base of the Republican Party. Even so, now that he has the nomination (or will have shortly) he has to continue to lie to remain viable in the general election as well as keeping the base from turning on him as they did with McCain.
    God help us if he is elected because no matter which way he goes (policy wise) he will be a screwed monk.I think really what we need to concern ourselves with is make SURE the Dems hold the Senate which will force his hand to the left, preserve the AFA, and give him some cover with the batshit crazy's such as just won the Senate Republican nomination Texas. In short, I would hate to be in his position and be forced to lie in order to not be brought down in flames by his own party which is currently controlled by wacko ideologues rather than thoughtful pragmatic conservatives.

  2. Yeah, but he lies about everything. He says Obama never said every option is on the table for Iran; that Obama apologizes for America; that he's never signed a trade agreement, etc etc ad infinitum.

    It's one thing to lie about who he, Romney, is: I agree everyone has to lie to teabaggers, except tea baggers themselves. But to stay stuff, routinely, endlessly, that's demonstrably false, and to keep saying it after it's been shown to be false -- that's pathology, in my view.

  3. It doesn't matter, at this point, who the Rep candidate is. Elmer Fudd could run, and it'd be the same. The majority of people voting for Romney are just voting against Obama. The majority don't give a click as to who he is or what he has done or what he stands for--which he never divulges, except word soup and flip-flops. I hope they get disgusted enough about their candidate that they stay home, to offset voter suppression laws


  4. I agree, bl. What's especially frustrating is that of the people who'll be voting against Obama, it seems most will be doing so based on the falsehoods about him that are out there, and are reinforced every day by Romney, and Fox "news."

    If it were a realistic assessment of policies, and people were consciously choosing the Romney view of budgets and economic plans (vague as they are), it'd be one thing. But I don't think that's the way the election is headed.


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts