Just two weeks ago, Mitt Romney suggested attack ads rejected by "the various fact-checkers" shouldn't be on the air. Yesterday, the Republican added a caveat: when "the various fact-checkers" denounce his ads, they should be ignored as biased liberals.
To briefly recap, President Obama didn't weaken the work requirement in welfare law; Romney has lied nearly every day for two weeks, including more than once yesterday, saying the opposite of the truth. Literally every independent fact-checker that's looked at the claim has reached the same conclusion: Romney's smear has no basis in fact.
Yesterday, asked why he keeps repeating a claim disconnected from this plane of reality, Romney told the Des Moines Register he has no use for independent journalists who examine the issue "in the way they think is most consistent with their own views."
Yesterday, Romney campaign chairman John Sununu went a little further.
The full transcript of Sununu's interview with Wolf Blitzer is online, and I'll gladly give credit to the CNN host for pressing the Republican to defend his obvious falsehood. In fact, Blitzer literally read "the precise language from the Health and Human Services memo outlining what the states who seek this flexibility" can do.
And yet, the Romney campaign surrogate stuck to the lie anyway.
My favorite part came when Sununu explained what it would take for Team Romney to stop lying.
BLITZER: [E]very major fact checking organization out there says he has not -- has not gutted, has not gutted by any means the work requirements.
SUNUNU: All they need to do is have HHS send out a hard letter making sure that the only things that will qualify under the work requirement is hard training and the -- and the cooperative programs with employers and define it in such a way that what was allowed before is all that's allowed in the future.... That's all that's required.
Really, that's all that's required? Because that "hard letter" already exists -- the Obama administration published it (pdf) two months ago.
In it, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, "Our goal is to accelerate job placement by moving more Americans from welfare to work, and no policy which undercuts that goal or waters down work requirements will be considered."
There is no ambiguity.
Romney and his team know this, but they keep telling the same racially charged lie -- five videos, including three broadcast ads, in just two weeks -- because they just don't give a damn. Confronted with reality, they're not embarrassed or ashamed; they just stick to the lie, assuming voters won't know the difference.
It's the era of post-truth politics, and Romney wants to test what he can get away with.
* Postscript: A quick word about independent fact-checkers. To hear Romney tell it, they're reliable when they agree with him, and biased liberals when they disagree with him.
That's ridiculous. If he wants to argue that these fact-checkers aren't always great at their jobs, he'll get no argument from me. Indeed, I've expressed deep concerns with PolitiFact's poor work on more than a few occasions. If Romney wants to say, "I've seen the reports, and let me tell you why they're mistaken," I'd be all ears.
But that's not the case he's making. Romney's argument is that independent fact-checkers are to be taken seriously, so long as they agree with him. It's intellectually lazy and unserious, and speaks volumes about his commitment to honesty.
Leave a Comment:
Intellectually Lazy / Unserious 2012!
Mitt Romney: Gold Medal in Dishonesty
By Dr Brian Moench* - Truthout | News Analysis
Even as Mitt and Ann Romney were going for a gold medal with their dressage horse, Rafalca, in the London Summer Olympics, Mitt already - in my opinion - had a gold medal wrapped up. Maybe not for horse dancing, but for mental gymnastics, and by that I mean lying. And not just for lying about his Bain Capital tenure, or being deliberately deceitful about Obama. I think a serious fundamental defect in Mitt has been on display for a long time.
In 1969, at age 19, I went on a Mormon mission just like Mitt. I eventually supervised about 200 other missionaries. A few years later, while living in Boston during my medical residency, I also attended the same church as Mitt and Ann Romney. Mitt had several high callings from the Mormon Church hierarchy during his time in Boston, eventually supervising the ecclesiastic affairs of about 4,000 Boston Mormons, much like a shepherd watching over his flock. Ann and my wife shared positions of responsibility in our local "ward," and in that capacity, Ann was in our home several times.
My wife and I both thought highly of Ann and liked her as a friend and a fellow church member. We liked Mitt as well, in that he was married to Ann. Mitt would offer a firm, robotic handshake on Sunday mornings, but he managed to make his "Good morning, it's great to see you," feel condescending and superficial.
Mitt was distinctly impersonal and it seemed his interest in me was only to the degree that I could further his career, which I couldn't - I had no pedigree to enhance the value of my Harvard appointment. He was nakedly ambitious and it was widely assumed by fellow church members that he would eventually run for president.
Mitt climbed quickly up the Mormon Church ladder, becoming a "Stake President" at a very young age, while simultaneously laying the foundation of his high-profile political career. Within the Mormon faithful his ascendancy to the doorstep of the presidency is viewed with almost as much anticipation as the Second Coming of Jesus. They look to a Mitt presidency as validation of their belief system and a golden opportunity to disseminate it worldwide. To them, Mitt embodies simultaneous theological and political triumph.
In contrast to Mitt, I have distanced myself from the Mormon Church after a personal battle between critical thinking and the origins and doctrines of the Church. Nonetheless, I still respect and admire its culture and social strengths and most of my friends and family are active Mormons. But I will not be warmly regarded for divulging anything unflattering about Mitt.
Mitt's interaction with his religion is indeed a legitimate issue for voters, but not for the reasons that have been raised by evangelicals. It is not because Mormonism is a non-Christian cult. Mitt's significant leadership positions in the Mormon Church evokes a much deeper connection to his religion than any other presidential candidate in modern history has had to their religion. Reaching this rather exalted state within the church is supposed to manifest not just one's extraordinary commitment to the church, but also to behavior and a value system beyond reproach. A Mormon Stake President is expected to live an exemplary, Christ-like life. Therefore, it is not only fair, but important to ask: does Mitt's behavior and value system meet those lofty expectations?
As a Bishop and a Stake President in the Mormon Church, Mitt would have interviewed thousands of church members to sign off on their worthiness to attend ceremonies in the ultra-sacred and exclusive Mormon temples. One of the key questions he would have been required to ask in those interviews would have been, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" That question is intentionally vague, but is supposed to weed out people who tell lies, cheat on their taxes or are dishonest in business transactions. If Mitt would be unable to truthfully answer yes to that question of honesty, then he is not just someone who we would cynically write off as just another dishonest politician, but he would qualify also as an extraordinary hypocrite. It would be like John Edwards sitting in judgment on someone else's marital fidelity.
Even mainstream journalists have written about Mitt taking political lying and disdain for the facts to a new art form on campaign issues ranging from his tenure at Bain to blatantly dishonest ads about his opponents, first in the Republican primaries and now about President Obama. Michael Cohen of The Guardian UK typified many of these observations with the statement, "Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney." Jonathan Chait, columnist for New York Magazine says Mitt is "Just making stuff up now."
Even worse, Mitt repeats the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked. He appears completely unconcerned about being caught. That's a new level of mendacity. MSNBC's Steve Benen observed, "Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often." It reminds me of Linda Obst's book, "Hello, He Lied."
The most disturbing part of the story of Mitt, as a high school senior, assaulting a gay classmate and butchering his hair, is not the story itself - many responsible adults did regrettable things as teenagers - but it is the almost guaranteed lie last month that he couldn't remember ever having done it. His cohorts in crime remembered it vividly and later became deeply disturbed about taking part in it.
When Mitt was in Salt Lake City in 2002 managing the Olympics, he apparently told another whopper. During a traffic jam going to one of the Olympic events, Mitt was outraged at what he viewed as an incompetent volunteer directing traffic. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, during several articles that became a hot topic of conversation in Utah, the volunteer and several witnesses, including a captain in the Sheriff's department, said he let out a profanity-laced tirade directed at that volunteer that included dropping the "f-bomb." Use of that kind of language may not seem like much of an offense now, but for a high-ranking Mormon official to use that kind of language anywhere, let alone in a public venue, would be as shocking and disillusioning to the Mormon faithful as if it had been uttered by the prophet Joseph Smith himself. Never apologetic, Mitt vehemently denied that it ever happened.
But there is more dishonesty to Mitt than has been printed so far. There is a stark failure to live his religion, at least to the level of what should be expected of one who has risen to the upper echelons of Mormon ecclesiastical authority.
First, Mitt's recent statements about believing that marriage is "an enduring institution only between a man and a woman" is not what the Mormon Church believes. The history of the Mormon Church's practice of polygamy during the 19th century is well known (my great grandfather was a polygamist), slightly less well known is its official renouncement of the practice in 1890.
But what is not publicly known is that Mormon men can still marry, for "time and all eternity" in Mormon temples, sequentially more than one wife. If a Mormon male gets divorced or becomes a widower, he can marry another woman in the temple and be sealed for eternity to multiple wives. This option is available to males, Church leaders and laity alike, but not to women. Those subsequent "temple" marriages are considered as eternally binding as first marriages. In other words, the most sacred of Mormon rituals - holy, eternal marriage - implies that polygamy is still practiced in the highest stations of glory in heaven.
Mitt knows this very well. For obvious reasons he would be loathe to admit it publicly. But either he doesn't believe in this Mormon practice, which would contradict his high callings in the Church, which require strict adherence to its orthodoxy, or he doesn't believe what he proclaims publicly is his political position on who should be allowed to marry. Fundamental dishonesty in either case.
Second, contrary to pronouncements by many evangelicals that Mormons are not Christians, Mormons do consider the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to be the centerpiece of their spiritual beliefs. All of the purported teachings of Jesus described in the New Testament - the four Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. - are the heart and soul of Mormon theology and the standard by which they believe their behavior will be judged, from both a mortal and an eternal perspective.
Eschewing personal wealth and materialism and giving generously to the poor is a core tenet of New Testament theology. The hallmark of that tenet is Jesus comparing the difficulty of a rich man entering into the kingdom of God to the difficulty of a camel passing through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24). Everyone knows Mitt is extraordinarily wealthy, but, as is currently being heavily exploited by the Obama camp, he acquired at least some of his wealth in dubious ways. In fact, if the business model of Bain Capital were to be placed in a New Testament backdrop, the most obvious candidates to play the role of Bain would be the money changers in the temple that Jesus dispatched with an outburst of fury, or the robbers in the parable of the good Samaritan.
How does one coldly order the calculated financial demise of thousands of workers, pocket hundreds of millions of dollars in the process and walk away "on water," à la Jesus Christ?
One has to ask: if Mitt was a genuine "Christ-like" spiritual icon in the Mormon Church, just how many million-dollar dressage show horses would Jesus own? How many multimillion dollar estates with car elevators would Jesus need for his vacations? In which of the Cayman Islands would Jesus shield his wealth? There is little evidence that, beyond paying his Mormon tithe of 10 percent, he spent any significant percentage of his hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the hungry, helping the poor, ministering to the sick or visiting those in prison. Mitt certainly seems to be at odds with Luke 12:48: "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required."
Third, Bain reportedly would not invest in companies profiting from alcohol and tobacco, which violate Mormon behavioral standards, but Romney apparently has no problem accepting tens of millions of dollars from people like casino magnates Steven Wynn and Sheldon Adelson, despite the fact that Mormonism considers gambling a sin. I'm sure Romney hasn't asked either billionaire if any of the money they donated might have also come from the proceeds of any of other sins that go on in Las Vegas casinos, any of which would also violate Mormon standards.
As Mitt flies from one mega mansion to another, collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from the country's billionaires to put him in the driver's seat of a new government even more hostile to the less fortunate, one wonders where the scriptures are that suggest the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Billionaires are one and the same.
Mitt's now legendary and record-breaking flip-flopping is routinely written off as political pandering and insincerity. Those terms are too soft. It is another form of lying. It is simply not believable that a politician could so thoroughly change every one of his core beliefs over the short time that Mitt professes to have done so. That is unless he had no core beliefs, other than that he should be president. In that case, pretending that he has core beliefs is another manifestation of dishonesty.
Mitt has arrogantly dismissed criticism of his wealth as the ugly underbelly of envy. This will probably come as a genuine surprise to Mitt, but many of us, perhaps most of us, aren't envious at all. Most of us don't need a private jet, multiple Cadillacs, or horses with aristocratic names in order feel O.K. about ourselves. Many of us would feel embarrassed or ashamed allowing ourselves that much grotesque self-indulgence.
Mitt, many people's lives were ruined in building your pot of gold. Not everyone is willing to do that. My criticism of your wealth has nothing to do with envy, but everything to do with the dysfunctional moral compass you use to guide your life's work. Despite your high-profile position in the Mormon Church, it is a compass that seems grossly at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ. And your ambition has allowed you to rationalize that dishonesty as well.Tuesday, 07 August 2012
*Brian Moench MD is a member of Union of Concerned Scientists and an environmental/public health activist living in Salt Lake City, Utah.
________________________________________________
Thank you Dr. Moench. I have always known all of this to be true, although I am not to be considered intelligencia. If he does in fact get elected, all the people that thought President Obama needed to be a one term president, will now have to face the truth and it will be to late. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. I am totally convinced of that. I am from Berlin, and when the wall came down everyone was happy. But the rebuilding was slow and costly and is still ongoing and people are unhappy and frustrated to still have to pay for the rebuilding. One thing to remember is that it took 30 years to tear East Germany and East Berlin down, and it will take 30 years to rebuild it. The economy was torn down during at least the last 8 years and it will take just as long to rebuilt it. This country will go to hell in a handbasket for not wanting to HEAR the TRUTH and allowing their racist hatred prevail.
It was a little weird-at the end of the clip, Sununu was talking how the federal government should not run over the state governments; however he felt the states needed to stay within the strict guidelines of the original welfare agreement. Sununu wouldn't even concede flexibility to fellow Republican governors. It was kind of like saying, sure be flexible, just be flexible and do it as he tells you to do it.
W.r.t. Romney, if he wants to present himself as a unifying leader, it seems a weak position to willfully ignore fact based criticisms by saying that these issue are based solely in bias. If you criticize, then you must be a close-minded liberal? If people want a truly bipartisan government, how can you have it, if one side persistently, brazenly, blatantly lies about the other side?
How can you deal with another side or have an inclusive government if you willfully misrepresent the other side's views and refuse to acknowledge ... reality?
If you have a leader, who can tolerate no disagreement, who cannot admit when they make mistakes, cannot adjust to the facts... I don't believe that's an effective leader. I don't even think that makes for a strong business practice. It may be that voters will choose the person who says what they want to hear even if they know it's not true, but who is better equipped to really move the nation forward? The one who can navigate the facts and can make decisions based on them or the one who makes up his own stuff even if he drives you into a ditch?
If you have a leader of a group who puts forth their views as if it's doctrine: if you question what they say, they just say you're just biased, a non-believer. If you counter their doctrine with facts, then they keep clinging to the doctrine as if it's faith. This is *not* a comment about Mormonism, but as a political campaign it reminds me of how a cult would work: keep repeating the lies and eventually the people around you will believe. Surround yourself only with the people who reinforce this world view. In this world, we've already have had examples of countries where the government willfully spread lies through the media; those countries were not examples of strong democracies.
It's good to see Blitzer show he has done his research. One hopes that more and more will stand up for the facts. If the lying continues, journalists and citizens will have more opportunities to show a bias for the facts.
See the fire in his eyes as Wolf dares to question him. Brings back memories of 2010 and the way certain republicans not only avoided the press but in some cases actually physically attacked its members.
Why would any citizen vote for people who felt that they have no business questioning them? Do these slugs and their supporters not understand the terms "elected" and "representative"?
I cannot wait for the debates
Does anyone think Mr. Sununu realizes he has inadvertently admitted that nothing in the bill has actually changed by making this argument?
"It's the era of post-truth politics,...."
It is statements like this that destroy all of your other hard work. I don't know how old you are but this has been going on since Reagan on the part of the American Taliban. Too often Progressives like you simply reduce nonsense and out right lies to equivalence. Yet this year it is now the era of post truth politics.
If you really want to help change the situation you have to call out all of their nonsense not when it comes out of their mouths but by running independent fact pieces. I suggest you stop following the day to day to do this and start w/ the American Taliban party platform. Name names and forget about access and cocktail parties.Truth checking this alone will keep you busy till the election so you shouldn't have to time to go to cocktail hour
The lies are terrible I agree but what about the outrage of a woman that raises a child is indeed work-is that only for the rich-Ann Romney was so insulted that anyone would consider her being at home telling her maids and nannies what to do was work-why is it that with the poor it is not considered work?
Sununu is yet another barking stray dog like Preibus. They shamelessly bark regardless of attention. I guess NH residents are embarrassed that they elected this moron Sununu as a governor once. He needs help.
John Sununu failed with Soledad O'Brien, too. She had him biting his own tongue off in rage that she would contradict him with facts.
Sununu, I fear suffers from dementia, to say nothing of his delusions.
So they have no basis in fact any more? They lie about the lie to obscure their original lie? And Wolf needs a flipping backbone. Nail him and Romney on the lies. They are lying and they know it.
can someone please tell me what planet these people are from?
Uranus. Well, somebody's anus, at least.
I'm not surprised at Romney's refusing to accept truth and accusing any fact checking verification that contradicts him as 'liberal bias'. His supporters do the same thing. Anything they see/hear that contradicts the Fox Noise bubble is assumed to be on the 'libitard's payroll'. Puzzling to me, since it's the Repubs that have vastly more superpac cash flow. If I didn't have the desire or the mental ability to research and find the accurate information for myself, I would be much more jaded about what I heard from Captain Moneybag's team. I'm horrified that so many catagorically reject anything that doesn't fall neatly into their reconciliation to deny their vehement hate.
This is very funny, republicans complained because laws are too long for people to understand or take the time to read. Now that they got a memo, they complain that is not very specific. This is the party of ideas? or ignoramus!!!
I don't know what makes me more angry. The people who out this sheep dip or the sheep who eat this up.
They are only running this because it might be holding the president's numbers down, kind of like what they did by stopping all progress on the economy.
I hope they drown in Tampa.
Knowing plunty of people that have fallen on hard times and needed to go on welfare in my area in the last year. the work law wasnt waived even though our town of 5000 lost 700 jobs in 2 months and no one could find work they made people show up to welfare work classes from 8-5 even though their wasnt jobs to be had thanks to the repulicians in this country that have out sourced our economy. how about we fix the loop holes for the 1% on outsourcing our jobs before we bitch about the Work for welfare that is still in effect to this day nothing has changed OBAMA HASNT DONE ANYTHING TO THE WELFARE SYSTEM!!!
yup..the paper all Iowa depends upon..that used to be their slogan..now I just beg for some of the pages to line my bird cages...that's what it is good for anymore...
No truer words have been spoken. Throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. Presidential politics has just caught up with corporate America's agenda for the last few decades.
One can always boycott those businesses that don't "go your brand" politically. We used to say "vote with your feet." Time to do that again.
I liked Sununu a lot better when I thought he was dead.
Journalism is dead, real journalism. There are those like Blitzer, Maddow and maybe a few others that will call them out. Print journalism makes no effort. Local news does the same, although they are trying. But.....What I don't understand is this...they prove the ad is all lies, and the their station, network immediately runs the ad. The money is just too good. They can't scream and prove the ad false and then take the money and run.
What the f#ck is a "hard letter?"
My policy on going to places with Fox news on, if I can't get away from it I tell the manager and if it stays on Fox I leave. I have no idea why restaurants have TV's on anyway, maybe it is because the food is so bad that they try to distract you.