Associated Press
Mitt Romney said Thursday that President Obama and his allies should be embarrassed over a controversial ad from a super-PAC supporting the president that links the death of a cancer patient to the GOP contender's tenure at Bain Capital.
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said on Bill Bennett's radio show. "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact-checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them."
Look, I know the Priorities USA Action spot is provocative. The spot, which hasn't actually aired anywhere, is borderline on the fairness scale (even if the ad's detractors haven't pointed to specific inaccuracies). I get it.
But the ad was released the same day as Romney's welfare smear, which was as dishonest a national ad you'll see in this campaign cycle or any other. Paul Waldman wrote this week, "I've been paying very, very close attention to political ads for a long time. In my former career as an academic I did a lot of research on political ads. I've watched literally every single presidential general election campaign ad ever aired since the first ones in 1952.... But I cannot recall a single presidential campaign ad in the history of American politics that lied more blatantly than this one."
Romney wants to talk about politicians who'd get "embarrassed" when "people pointed out that something was inaccurate"? He wants to talk about "the various fact-checkers"? As Greg Sargent noted, "[I]t remains puzzling that Romney would go here. After all, fact checkers have called out his ads as wrong, inaccurate, misleading or false again and again and again and again and again and again and again. If Romney pulled any of those ads, I'm not aware of it."
Ultimately, I'm having a hard time understanding how Romney's brain works. When he gets caught lying, he brazenly repeats the lie. When he runs dishonest ads, and gets called out by fact-checkers, he keeps airing them. And yet, Romney then whines in Republican media about his amazement that Democrats aren't "embarrassed" by "inaccurate" claims.
I want to understand the mindset that makes such cognitive dissonance possible, but I'm coming up empty.
Consider another example from yesterday.
"I am seeing some of the ads out there. I don't know whatever happened to a campaign of hope and change. I thought he was a new kind of politician. But instead, his campaign and the people working with him have focused almost exclusively on personal attacks."
Right. Mitt Romney has spent the last several months arguing that President Obama is a corrupt liar, who hates free enterprise and religion, and who's driven by an ideology that's "foreign to the American experience." One of Romney's chief surrogates has said the president should "learn how to be an American," and "has no idea how the American system functions," in part because "he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something."
But Obama, we're told who is "focused almost exclusively on personal attacks," despite the inconvenient reality that the president has yet to attack Romney personally in any way.
I'm not sure which thought is more disconcerting: the notion that Romney believes what he's saying (in which case he's burdened by deeply strange delusions) or he doesn't (in which case he's a profound cynic who perceives Americans are uninformed fools).
Either way, I'm left with the same question: if the president were as awful as Romney says he is, shouldn't the Republican candidate be able to stick to the facts?
Leave a Comment:
I vote for the profound cynic who perceives Americans are uninformed fools option who understands that a large percentage of ameriKans are uninformed fools and tools of the corporate and wealthy owners of our country. Sort of like the Corporately Owned Media.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
- Carl Sagan
Another one that needs to go into your list of Romney's lies is the one endlessly repeated by Romney and all of his surrogates, that the president "just attacks because he can't talk about the economy or defend his record."
In fact, the president talks extensively about both the economy and his record at every campaign appearance. And Romney is the one who attacks constantly, and refuses to talk about his record beyond vague platitudes about his business experience and dubious claims of job creation.
"I know you are but what am I?" should be his campaign slogan. It would even fit on a bumper sticker.
This is a laugher...
"Romneyhood" ring a bell?
shooting blanks again...
<sigh>
Ah look, here's Pooper242 marking fire hydrants again.
The Romney ad that twisted around what John McCain said and made it look like Obama was talking about his own campaign was in your face dishonesty. "If we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose" the President said. Why doesn't Romney start using the Conan O'Brien fake ad bit (which was funny) as a real ad? It is the same thing they do all the time.
They cry about how low Bill Burton's cancer ad is but it is fine for Fox to have Brian Terry's parents on and accuse Eric Holder of murdering their son.
The next time Jay Carney is asked about when He will renounce the Super Pac he should talk about Karma and how payback's a bi*ch.
Romneyhood is a descriptor of Willard's tax policy( e.g. Romneycare); while calling him a bigot and a liar,while true, would be a "personal attack". STFU TROLL...see personal attack, you are a troll so it's true, but still "personal".
See, the problem with people like Shooter is that they just don't know the difference between a personal attack or an attack on the person's policies. And no matter how many times you explain it to him, he'll never get it. No incentive to learn the truth exists for Shooter.
and yet that librul media is all over Obama like white on rice. Nary a whisper about Mitts mendacity.
My theory :
The horse race is not close enough with Obama leading in the polls .
"We better start trashing him quick , to even things out. We need eyeballs until the election. We're trying to make money here for Pete's sake."
Yes, but that noted 'librul' Chuckie Todd on that noted 'librul' network MSNBC told me this morning that Obama has to be held to a higher standard for any ads concerning his candidacy than Romney. Probably all about 'Freedom of $peech'.
Sad Old Vet,
You have to be kidding, Chuck Todd actually said that? Another reason not to pay any attention to him.
Chuck Todd is a dick statistician, who lucked out with the untimely demise of Tim Russert.
Seriously he was a thirty second spot number cruncher , who brings oh I don't know....ZERO personality to the TEEVEE screen.
While I 'm at it - ditto for Russert's kid who has no business being on TEEVEE
And yet....you don't use the argument that this was a SUPER PAC ad and Romney HIMSELF has already said he can't call out ads or be embarrassed because 'THERE IS NO COLLUSION' between the campaigns and the PACS...uh huh.
The mindset isn't hard to understand. Romney has been raised to think he'll get a magical planet to rule over when he's dead. If someone actually believes this, any lies he tells, any hypocrisy is nothing to him; indeed it's God's will. He thinks he deserves to say and do whatever he thinks convenient in order to get what he wants.
Sociopathy.
Pathological liar.
The Romney/Republican act over the last two years is essentially a brazen and intentional irony deficiency one.
I'm strangely getting the feeling that even the irresponsibly inattentive are starting to get that the Republicans are just full of it. I don't know why I'm getting these vibes, but I am.
I am, too.... It's all kind of refreshing, don't you think? It's kinda fun watching heads beginning to explode...
I guess we'll see. Hopefully it's not just me engaging in self-deception, wishful thinking, or inability to deal with the reality of a "1984" Romney/Republicans are attempting to create. I can tell you though, I'm rarely accused of wishful thinking.
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell - "Politics and the English Language,"
For all Republicans, everywhere, at all times, everything is viewed or portrayed through one of two frames:
1. Those so-called "victims" you bleeding-hearts keep mewling about had it comin.'
2. Hey, I/we am/are the real victims here.
Okay, there is third frame. The Palin varient: "Those so-called 'victims' you bleeding-hearts keep mewling about had it comin.' I'm the real victim here."
Every day Romney whines about the "unfairness" of an Obama attack is a great day for Obama.
Whine on, Mittens, whine on!
Every time he squeals like a piggie, you know the target has been hit.
"I want to understand the mindset that makes such cognitive dissonance possible, but I'm coming up empty."
Then by all means let me help you it's called:
sociopathic: of, relating to or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or a psychopathic personality.
Mittens was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has lived his life of privilege, he can no more understanding "working people" than I can understand "killer whales"! He's already said he likes firing people - what kind of character and personality is that - twisted!
OBAMA 2012!!
I go with schizophrenia as being dead-on. Number 2 seals it for me:
schizophrenia [ˌskɪtsəʊˈfriːnɪə]
n
1. (Psychiatry) any of a group of psychotic disorders characterized by progressive deterioration of the personality, withdrawal from reality, hallucinations, delusions, social apathy, emotional instability, etc. See catatonia, hebephrenia,paranoia
2. Informal behaviour that appears to be motivated by contradictory or conflicting principles
[from schizo- + Greek phrēn mind + -ia]
Hey blue, I think schizophrenia applies to "the base" esp. "withdrawal from reality" - that's dead on!
Close, the proper term is Authoritarian Personality Syndrome.
Authoritarians are made of two main camps, Social Dominators (SDO) the clever, sociopathic leaders, and the Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) the submissive, Machiavellian followers.
Altemeyers research showed only a 20% correlation in attitudes between the two, but that small % results in such behavior as the Holocaust, or the Killing Fields.
an exerpt from the introduction to his book "The Authoritarians"-
"The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?"
This research is real, the findings empirical.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It is SO easy to imagine Mitt at some point blurting out something like:
"We're at sea - and I'm a GOD at sea!"
(Grant Stayton III, in Overboard)
Al: I understand a characteristic of APS subjects is charisma, also the leadership characteristic I am most afraid of, and one I don't see in Romney but as may be anthropomorphic. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, that a schizophrenic can have APS.
Is this the ad where the guy says his wife died right after he was laid off? And it turns out that wasn't true, right? If so, the ad should be removed. Why am I seeing it on tv? Maybe I'm just missing something.
Why not go watch the ad. No, he doesn't say his wife was died right after he was laid off. That's what you're missing.
Besides, if he had moved to MA, his wife would have had medical insurance!
I see you got your GOP talking points this morning.
The ad never actually "ran" on television. You're seeing it because mass media has picked it up due to the so-called controversy.
Steve, you keep forgetting a couple of fundemental things. First, elections are not about the truth, they are about getting elected. Second, it doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what people THINK the truth is.
Romney want's people to THINK that Obama wants to gut the welfare-to-work requirement, so that what he states, over and over again.
The real question is how many people really THINK that what Romney says is true.
The scray part is that if Romney succeeds in getting elected, future presidential elections will likely be made up almost entirely of falsehoods advanced by all candidates, which means that the truth would be the casulty.
"I want to understand the mindset that makes such cognitive dissonance possible, but I'm coming up empty."
Beyond definition, here is the research you have been looking for, Steve.
A 30- year empirical study into the mind of the Authoritarian Personality, who they are, what they do, how they think, how they act.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Dr. Bob Altemeyer has released a book, "The Authoritarian Specter" and his research has been highlighted by John Dean in his book, "Conservatives Without Conscience".
He also has a question and answer dialog at the above link, so you can ask the good Dr. about his research, and it's implications.
the game doesn't have any rules anymore
I know PolitiFact has some problems, but it is well-known and provides a fairly consistent record. And the math is pretty simple. As a percentage of claims checked, Romney has 3x the "Pants on Fire" as Obama. Comparing all three levels of "truth" to all three levels of "false," Obama has a "truth ratio" of 71-29. Romney is at 57-43.
Pretty clear who is the more honest of the candidates. It really isn't even close. I agree with Mitt -- too bad such liars aren't more embarrassed about it.
Bull.
The numbers are mine. Regarding the truthiness of these accusations, I'll agree with the first but none of the rest.
So yes Obama should be embarrassed, but he isn't. It isn't the Chicago way. Benen should be embarrassed too, but that's obviously not happening either.
Feigned outrage! Indignant speculation about your reading ability! Refutation of your claims with links you'll choose not to read! Questions that, if you answer, will prove you wrong so you'll pretend that you never saw the question which will only drive me more insane! Argh!
15-Love. Your serve, jackass.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Heh. Come back when you have a point. Or are you just looking for censorship of some sort?
I'm just giving you the attention you need to keep you from killing yourself.
You're welcome.
I know that you think if you repeat it over and over and over again (politely of course) that you will sway some minds. The problem is that you don't cite anyone credible and you LIE. With the 'you didn't build it' meme that you say 'he said it, he meant it' I guess you missed the wrapup of that paragraph where the President said '
Barack Obama July 13, 2012
Generally speaking, when someone says 'the point is' that is the point.
Mego is now paying attention to you too, Shooter. Try not to let the excitement cause your nipples to poke out of your hairshirt.
Hahahahahaha..., babies try to get their diaper changed any way they can.
Don't you ever get tired of marking fire hydrants, Pooper?
TC in LA, no. No he doesn't. It's what he lives for. Which says more about him than it does those of us who feed him the attention he craves like a heroin addict craves chocolate.
as helpfully posted to the MaddowBlog on a number of occasions by Rollo-5302374 (and big thanks to Rollo for tracking this down):
And that is the only reason needed to ignore Shooter.
"Ultimately, I'm having a hard time understanding how Romney's brain works. . .. I want to understand the mindset that makes such cognitive dissonance possible, but I'm coming up empty."
Try this: At the outset of the campaign, the Romney team ran a bogus ad claiming the President had said, "If we talk about the economy, we'll lose," and using a 4-year-old clip of candidate Obama quoting candidate McCain in 2008. From this, we can infer that Romney campaign made an early decision not to be limited by conventional views of truth.
That decision carries an inherent risk: The public might begin to believe that the candidate who makes it is a liar.
One simple way to mitigate that risk is to begin declaring that the other candidate is a liar. By taking the initiative on the issue of truthfulness, the campaign turns the issue into so much noise, with attacks coming from both sides and the press adopting a predictable pox-on-both-your-houses stance. Consequently, Romney surrogates like Sununu have been calling the President a liar for weeks.
I believe this is a deliberate strategy, and, what's more, I believe it's sensible:
-- Romney looked foolish when he demanded that the President apologize for discussing the possibility that he might have made false statements in SEC filings; the President would be making the same mistake if he focused on his opponent's lack of character, rather than on refuting the charges against him.
-- Romney's phony welfare ad was running the day Reince Priebus discussed Harry Reid in an interview, yet no reporter asked the RNC Chair to explain the criteria under which Reid is a "dirty liar," while Romney is fit to be President.
-- And Romney made his own amazing declaration about fact checkers during an interview with a professional journalist who turned out to be incapable of asking the obvious follow-up question.
This strategy could fail only if Romney's dishonesty were reported by a press corp whom the public believed to be independent and credible. But Walter Cronkite is dead. Who could deliver this message now?
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said on Bill Bennett's radio show. "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact-checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them."
HaHaHaHaHa-- Just a bit of political humor this morning. He is such a comedian.
For years, I have viewed the GOP leaders as being out-of-touch (Reagan), dishonest (Bush the second) and political prostitutes (Palin-her recent description of other media individuals, Coulter and Bill O).
Now, I have come to believe they are also POOR LOSERS and WHINE-BUCKETS.
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said
And Romoney will be pulling all his ads in 5.. 4... 3... 2... 1... You mean he isn't?
Another case of Republican "do as I say, not as I do."
Can't someone put him out of our misery?
By Romney complaining about the supposed dishonesty of the Priorities USA ad, he's implying that HIS campaign has thus far been clean...
And yet, when Romney is caught lying in an ad (the one where Obama is quoting a McCain staffer during the 2008 campaign - "if we talk about the economy, we're going to lose" - and attributing as an actual Obama quote - and Romney laughs it off with a comment like "what's sauce for the goose is saucer for the gander," he's implying that Obama's been lying in his ads all along.
So "dishonest" ads (that Romney can't/won't prove are dishonest) should always be taken off the air, except when Romney's the one being dishonest because he's only doing what Obama did (that he can't/won't prove).
I will give Romney one ounce of credit in one respect - when he closes businesses and lays off workers and takes away their insurance and/or their pensions/401(k) plans...there is no rule that says he has to give those poor sons of bitches a second thought. He is a businessman (as he is so fond of reminding us) and he is only beholden to his business partners or his stockholders and of course the almighty Bottom Line...
But when you consider the sheer amount of wealth he has, and how he acquired it...at one point does a wealthy man not just supposedly "tithe" to his church, but offer some measure of compensation to the people whose lives he is displacing? Instead of getting ridiculously wealthy, could he have perhaps become only moderately ridiculously wealthy and offered to help people who lost their jobs due to Bain's business dealings keep benefits, for at least a little while? Offer job training so they're not just cut loose? Have a job placement staff that could help those laid-off workers find something new? On those years where Romney made 20 million dollars, could he have instead made 19 or 18 and used that money to help the people he effed over?
I'm not saying he HAD to do any of this. I'm just wondering why he didn't.
I'd love Romney's wealth, but quite frankly I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night if I made it as he did. There's always "collateral damage" in business as companies merge, or downsize, cut costs. But that seems to be how Bain made almost all it's money, and I don't think it reflects well on a man who claims he can run the country as he ran his business, because what's he going to strip of value as President?
The problem with the argument that the law doesn't REQUIRE him to worry about the workers or fund their pensions/unemployment prior to extracting every drop of blood from the company and walking away is that Romney wants to MAKE the laws, and agrees with these laws.
He's spent millions of dollars campaigning and lobbying to make the laws the way they are today, and even worse tomorrow.
This is why it is crucial that we don't simply ask that our politicians follow the letter of the law, but tell us what they believe the letter of the law should be. This makes all of Mitt Romney's behavior and tax evasion relevant, because he agrees with these laws, will keep them in place if elected, and has pledged to further reduce regulations and his own tax rate.
Ultimately, I'm having a hard time understanding how Romney's brain works.
Well, that's because you make the mistake of thinking Republicans have one. How else can they be stupid enough to be stupid enough to be Republicans?
Steve, you have trouble understanding how Romney's brain works? You can't be serious. You know perfectly well how it works: he's a liar, plain and simple. And he'll say absolutely anything if he thinks it will help him win the election.
This is difficult? I don't think so.
I'm a recovering alcoholic (almost 16yrs) and when I was drinking and got caught doing something I wasn't supposed to be doing , I would look my accuser (often my wife) right in the eye and lie! I would tell her I wasn't drunk when I could hardly stand up or speak. I would tell her I had no idea where all the money weht from the checking acct even though I had taken it to buy booze.
The amazing thing was, at first it worked. I got my accuser to doubt themselves. It was only in the last, desparate days that they understood that I was not only lying but actually insane!
MR may not be a drinking alcoholic, but he is exhibiting the exact same behavior!
First, congratulations! 16 years is AWESOME!
Second, I have to disagree. Alcohol "takes over". It makes you do things you wouldn't ordinarily do and Mr Romney doesn't have that controlling him so he can't fall back on it as a reason for his unacceptable behaviour. You beat a monster, Mitt Romney IS the monster!
Radical suggestion: Priorities USA could kill this whole thing - instantly.
Run an actual ad, saying the other (which has never been aired) was "over the line".
OK, Mitt, ball is in your court. "PUT UP OR SHUT UP"
Side note: to understand the right wing better, read Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" (GIYF) (OK, Google is not your friend, but some search engine)