Associated Press
Nearly three weeks ago, Mitt Romney suggested attack ads rejected by "the various fact-checkers" shouldn't be on the air. Candidates exposed by the fact-checkers should feel "embarrassed" and pull the falsehoods from the air.
Last week, Romney switched gears. Told that "the various fact-checkers" consider his ridiculous welfare smear to be a blatant lie, the Republican said fact-checkers are fine, so long as they agree with him. If not, they must be biased.
Today, Team Romney abandoned the pretense of caring about honesty altogether.
Mitt Romney's aides explained with unusual political bluntness today why they are spending heavily -- and ignoring media criticism -- to air an add accusing President Barack Obama of "gutting" the work requirement for welfare, a marginal political issue since the mid-1990s that Romney pushed back to center stage.
"Our most effective ad is our welfare ad," a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O'Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. "It's new information."
The claims are "new," of course, because the Romney campaign made them up. Sure, it's "new information," in the same way it would be "new information" if Obama said Mitt Romney sold heroin to children -- when one invents a lie, its "newness" is self-evident.
Romney pollster Neil Newhouse added, "[W]e're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
Right. So, in early August, Team Romney believed "the various fact-checkers" should be the arbiters of rhetorical propriety, but in late August, Team Romney believes they're irrelevant.
It's important to realize there is no modern precedent for a presidential candidate rejecting the premise that facts matter. Mitt Romney is trying something no one has ever seen -- he's deemed the truth to be an inconvenient nuisance, which Romney will ignore, without shame, to advance his ambitions for vast power.
If you don't find that frightening, you're not paying close enough attention.
I loved Greg Sargent's take on this, because Greg's question is so terribly important.
In this sense, the Romney campaign continues to pose a test to the news media and our political system. What happens when one campaign has decided there is literally no set of boundaries that it needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of its assertions? The Romney campaign is betting that the press simply won't be able to keep voters informed about the disputes that are central to the campaign, in the face of the sheer scope and volume of dishonesty it uncorks daily.
The quotes in the BuzzFeed piece should send a shiver down the spines of the political world. Forget parties and ideologies, put aside agendas and values, and just consider what Team Romney is saying: they can lie with impunity and they don't give a damn who disapproves. So long as it leads to more power in Romney's hands, anything goes.
Romney is, in effect, issuing something of a dare -- he will ignore facts, thumb his nose at reality, and taunt truths with a childish question: What are you going to do about it?
E. J. Dionne Jr. had a column way back in September 2004 that's always stuck with me. He noted, in the midst of the Bush-Kerry campaign, that Republicans are not above lying, but Dems seem to be squeamish about it. "A very intelligent political reporter I know said the other night that Republicans simply run better campaigns than Democrats," Dionne noted. "If I were given a free pass to stretch the truth to the breaking point, I could run a pretty good campaign, too."
That was nearly eight years ago. It was hard to predict at the time that a candidate would stop trying to "stretch the truth to the breaking point," and start telling bald-faced lies, confident he could get away with it.
I was always taught that campaigns can spin, slice, fudge, and distort the truth, but they couldn't literally make stuff up. The political fabric of our democracy tolerates a generous amount of duplicity -- so long as there's at least a kernel of truth in the claim somewhere -- but demonstrable lies are unacceptable.
Romney believes the old norms are irrelevant. I wonder if he's right.
If Romney wins, make no mistake, it will establish a new precedent, and campaigns will receive an unmistakable lesson -- go ahead and lie; you'll be rewarded for it.
Leave a Comment:
The last time a political party ran a campaign completely based on lies and said "so what are you going to do about it?" when called on them was 79 years ago in a certain central European country. We all know how that turned out.
Romney is talking with his supporters in the language they know and understand best ............. insanity. The GOP is fundamentally insane.
I actually blame the media for this. They are allowing him to LIE. They are not calling him on his LIES! They are agreeing to interviews with him and letting him dictate what he will and will NOT discuss. They are NOT correcting his surrogates when they LIE. This is the media's fault. They need a lesson in journalism. They need to watch the Newsroom and learn something. They need to take a good look at the video of Chris Matthews on "Morning Joe" yesterday and get a grip! Its sickening and the media is sickening for letting it happen!!
We're on the same wavelength.
I concur fully with everything you have said. Chris Matthews was right on target with that interview. I do wish more reporters and journalists would take a lesson from him. I see so many interviews where the journalist is squeamish about asking the tough questions. This was even evident with an NPR NewsHour piece last evening. These people need to grow some and let us know what is really going on with the lies and misrepresentations.
Well, like Mr. Mencken said all those years ago, the voters deserve to get what they vote for, and they deserve to get it good and hard.
It's already hard enough for most of us. What about those of us who don't vote for these dismal replicas of human beings? Do we deserve it too? What do we do about that?
Which is why anyone not one of these fascists who doesn't get out and vote is an idiot. You don't have to like Obama or Democrats, all you have to want to do is save our constitutional republic. This is the time for a Popular Front against fascism. The fact they are admitting things like this is proof they think they can pull this off. This is the most dangerous election in the history of the country.
I tell as many people as I can & will continue to until after the election & then began again after the election. THE SUPREME COURT. It is almost without a doubt the most important reason for voting. Imagine two or more far right judges in the next four years.
" . . . Romney pollster Neil Newhouse added, "[W]e're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
A slight change would put the entire Romney campaign in clearer perspective: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by facts."
There. Doesn't that make things clearer?
Here we go again. The fact is, that HHS is illegally claiming the power to grant waivers from work rules, even as an entire section of the law disallows it. That's step one. Step two will be changing the work rules to dispense with actual work.
Romney isn't wrong, he's just early. What is undeniable is that HHS is doing something illegal. Of course to have the memo challenged would require Holder do his job. That's not happening.
Poopypants242 knows all about not being dictated to by facts.
Those who are Ideologically Sound/Theologically Correct, like The Blank, openly scorn mere objective reality. They just know that they are entitled to create their own reality.
I'm sorry, which part of my comment do you find unreal?
I'll just repeat what I said down below, since it is appropriate here too. "I know the type. I've seen them on the internet for years. They clearly think they are entitled to lie to your face and have you accept the lies even though you know they are lies."
??? That doesn't answer the question.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Keep in mind, folks, that the person calling him/her/itself "Shooter242" is just a bratty troll who does not actually believe the bull@!$%# he/she/it shovels. It is best not to reply to his/her/its lies and distortions.
Well, you shouldn't jump through the hoops he wants you to, but you should smack him down (figuratively speaking) whenever necessary, until the people who run this site do their job and get rid of him.
What, the best you can do when pressed is cry 'run away, run away'? Gad.
Lol! You really need to get over yourself, kid.
Ok shooter, I'll bite.
Obama offered a waiver that states may apply for so that they can structure their own work-for-welfare program to better fit the needs of their state. They are allowed to do this explicitly: Section 1115 of the 1996 law allows executive adjustment of the rules stipulated in Section 402 of the original social security law, in particular to
"[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407." (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html)
Furthermore, this action was done in response to a 2005 request by the Republican Governer's Association in a letter that bears Romney's signature.
Because I can't add .pdf to my post, the following link contains a link to the stored request with Romney's sig on it:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/18/542121/romney-walfare-waivers-2005/
The debunking of Romney's claim that it guts the work requirement, its legality under the modified law, and proof that Romney supported (and even requested) the measure have been available for over a week.
Now, you can reject facts and assume that Romney is telling the truth, or you can ask yourself why he is lying about the intent, legality, and his support for the changes instituted.
New Romney/Ryan slogan unveiled, too: Romney/Ryan '12 - Because The Truth Just Isn't Good Enough.
Hee hee. it's funny... 'cause it's true! :D
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
Political media is absolutely complicit in each and every lie the Republicans tell. The broadcast television networks also don't care about the truth, they'll broadcast any lie, as long as they get paid for their collusion. Then they'll get up on their fake high horses and profess indignation at the lies, as they line their pockets with the gold paid to broadcast the lies. The fix is in. American media is corrupt, and Americans know it. It's all a sham and the political media is now trusted and approved by ... 10% ... of Americans, while 80% disapprove. Media is bought off and pundits and news folks salaries are paid by the same folks who buy off the GOP. That's reality.
To go along with that , you can not convince me that people like Rove , doling out billions to these networks ,does not influence what the media owners dictate to their subordinates, what to broadcast , and not broadcast , the ussc never considered that part of the equation
Abandoning the Pretense About Caring About Facts - this should be the new tagline for MSNBC, instead of forward. I suspect when you wrote this post you were quoting from the MSNBC policy playbook
Go stick your head back where the sun doesn't shine, you ignorant piece of something I scrape off my shoe.
eCarl . . . I see you're into ignoring reality today.
No it is and has been the tagline for Fox News the Public Relations Firm for the Republican Party.
So . . . MSNBC is also telling lies? I'd love to see some links to back this up. I don't get cable, and so this blog is about the most exposure I have to MSNBC. Please give me something to work with here.
They can never back it up , they are cowards who just lie , run and hide
I know the type. I've seen them on the internet for years. They clearly think they are entitled to lie to your face and have you accept the lies even though you know they are lies.
To provide an example. The "gutting of the work requirement". Obama's HHS secretary has asserted authority to grant waivers to this requirement. The specifics of the waivers are irrelevant as HHS can change its mind anytime it wants, if its assertion of this authority is constitutional. HHS, under Obama's direction has ignored the US Constitution and exercised authority it does not have. HHS is aware, of course, that the court challenges to this directive will play out after the election. Thus, either the administration has knowingly acted in an unconstitional manner, or if its directive passes court muster, the work requirement is effectively gutted. In either case, the ads are valid. One of the problems with the fact checkers is that they do not apply common sense. This is similar to CBO estimates which everyone knows are wrong because they are required to accept assumptions provided by Congress and the administration which are clearly nonsense. A second example relates to Medicare. Everyone know the current system is not sustainable but only the Republicans are acting like adults and putting a plan on the table. Where was Obama and the dems when they controlled everything for 2 years. It is the Democrats that are letting Medicare's future be destroyed.
Thanks, eCarl, for answering. I appreciate your effort. Still, you're saying that MSNBC is being deceptive and ignoring the facts about its debunking the Romney campaign's claim that the Obama administration is eliminating the TANF "work requirement?"
Governors, including several Republican governors, requested modification of the work requirement. Obama complied with their request. Blame them.
The claim that Obama is 'gutting the work requirement' is one of the most widely disputed of many dubious Romney campaign assertions. This one example is not really a good one. It may be one of the worst.
Disagreements about the validity of analyses by the Congressional Budget Office are not the responsibility of MSNBC. They just report what the CBO is saying. I'm not seeing a lie here when MSNBC reports on figures released by a highly-placed government agency. If you disagree with the CBO, then call them liars, but not MSNBC.
Has MSNBC misrepresented the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare or the Romney plan for Medicare? Did they publish numbers that are not found in the released plans, or otherwise fabricate what they report? I have found good agreement between MSNBC's reportage and that of other news organizations on this subject.
Daniel, I also appreciate your thoughtful response and willingness to engage in a meaningful dialog. MSNBC has cast the Republican ads on the workfare as an outright lie. This is not appropriate. Reasonable people can disagree (as you and I do) on the impact of the HHS directive. The fact that Republican governors sought flexibility is not an excuse for unconstitutional activity. MSNBC has also applied a double standard on ads run for Obama. For example the ad showing grandma going over a cliff. This ad is significantly more dishonest than the ads regarding the work requirement. Where was MSNBC then? Unfortunately, the political discourse has become so polarized that people do not take the time to understand the roots of their disagreement with mutual respect. It is only this kind of discourse that can lead to compromise. I watch MSNBC, Fox and CNN, all in large amounts so that I am aware the thought process of those who might disagree with me on a specific issue. I find MSNBC the least objective, almost never saying anything positive about Romney. I understand why someone can assert that they don't think the HHS directive guts workfare, but I would hope you understand why I think that it effectively does gut the workfare requirement. In any case, describing it as a malicious lie is valid, supported or useful.
If there are no consequences to lying then why should it just be expected that they wouldn't?
Um . . . because of personal integrity and honor? Because it's the right thing to do? For the sake of character? Because the God of his fathers demands such? Because one of the commandments, written on stone by the finger of God, says not to bear false witness?
There are all kinds of reasons to adhere to the truth.
Perhaps a question to be asked of Romney, and of all Republicans, is: "Do you not fear God?"
Right so like I said, if there are no consequences........
Romney does not fear the afterlife because he has tithed millions to the Mormon church. This guarantees him a spot in the upper echelon of eternity - because, you know, God is all about money.
Just like conservative christians , they are lying for the greater good of
godand his plan , just like the nazi'sThe Romney camp made it clear early on that they planned to simply try the opposite of whatever John McCain did. I think all of us respected Sen. McCain a little more the day he took the microphone from a woman who had just called Barack Obama an "Arab" at a rally and publicly corrected her.
So what's the opposite of that? It's what we've seen for the past few weeks. It's lying about Medicare, and lying about welfare and lying about things the President has said. It's not caring about whether the campaign's statements are accurate or even defensible. It's purposefully disconnecting the campaign from the truth. And it's a scary preview of what a Romney administration would look like.
As I recall, and I recall being pretty damn exorcised about it, the McCain campaign actually pioneered the 100% lies campaign model Romney is employing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/mcgamble_n_126308.html
It was so bad, even the AP was forced to take note of it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-09-12-4179351518_x.htm
The difference between 2008 and 2012 is that in 2008 it was sufficiently novel to draw coverage from the MSM rather than just being internalized and lauded as The Way to Win.
Or when the truth is treated as just "the other side of the story." Grow a set, journalists!
(G)o ahead and lie; you'll be rewarded for it.
This promises to be a successful strategy so long as the mainstream media allows it. My guess, the feckless clowns running the major media outlets will allow the blatant lying to go unchallenged so long as the networks rake in their Koch money.
Did anybody watch Mika Brzezinski yesterday? It was clear that she is really down with all the Romney lying and she is supposed to be the Democrat on Morning Joe.
Mika does all self-respecting women a disservice with her kowing down and deferring to Scarborough. I'm sure her father is horrified with some of her behavior on the air. I've stopped watching MJ altogether, not because Scarborough is so annoying and won't let anyone get a word in, but because Mika has no spine.
Me too. If I wanted to listen to people arguing and insulting each other first thing in the morning, I would have stayed married! They all talk at the same time until it gives me a headache and/or a bad attitude. Better to watch the local news.
KJ, you're so right. Mika sits there like a little girl at the breakfast table who requires her father's permission to speak. And God forbid the guests are all men - she sits there mute, eyes downward, clutching herself.... just extremely strange to behold in these days and times.
What scares me more than the potential for future campaigns is the likelihood that a Romney presidency would operate with complete disregard for the truth. I expect that the corporately owned media would not call him on that either.
Other than my visceral dislike for Romney, there are two reasons I really hope he doesn't win. The first is what Steve is talking about. It will be bad for democracy if the Romney "no truth" strategy works.
The other is that I don't want to see the Republicans rewarded for their behavior in Congress the past four years. It's like rewarding your child for trying to get what he/she wants by both yelling loudly and inappropriately, and by holding his/her breath.
Republicans haven't held back on the invective since Obama took office, if not before.
They've also stood there defiantly, with their metaphorical arms crossed, refusing to work toward compromises that would have made things better for millions of Americans. The job of those in the House and Senate is supposed to be to solve problems and improve the lot of our citizens. Republicans have completely ignored that responsibility. If our electoral system is working correctly, their reward for that bad behavior should be heavy electoral losses this November.
And the Republicans are aided in their crime by accusing the President of dishonesty, pushing away the fact that it's actually them doing all of the lying.
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up. I don't believe factcheckers are the best arbiters of the facts because they often do not know what the facts are. Facts are the enemy of the Limbaugh Hannity agenda. Deny the truth or at least distort it. That will work, they think. The strategy of the Koch-driven Romney campaign is: Put it out there and at least we will get the support of the fair and balanced "why don't they have to work when I have to" constituents." The Koch Rove Ryan Romney crowd are only concerned about motivating enough of their "anti" constituents to get that 51% needed to get control of the government. They did it in 2010 and they think they can do it again in 2012. By the way, did you note that the welfare without work ads are paid for by Americans for Prosperity i. e. by the Koch brothers?
When I look at the photo with this article, Chris Christie does not seem happy and he is looking directly at Mitt Romney.
The Romney ads may be effective in another way that the campaign hasn't taken into account. I've been surprised lately that a few people I've known for years who couldn't care less about the details of politics have started up recent conversations with, "Romney is such a liar, can you believe what he's trying to get away with!" Romney/Ryan's disgraceful campaign is serving as a wake up call, and there are those who do not like what they're seeing.
June , I hope you are right
Unfortunately the response from the Romney campaign when called on the lying has been along the lines of, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Mitt Romney's campaign is "A Profile in Corruption."
If Romney's like this now, imagine what he'd be like in office.
We know our government is not completely transparent; however imagine how much less transparent it will be when he is in office. Of most modern governments, how would we characterize those that would mislead the press this much? Imagine how much Romney, as president, could institute measures to spread disinformation.
How much damage could he do in misleading the public? Given his current ease with disinformation if it suits his goals, would he have a problem using the power of the presidency for spreading disinformation?
It is scary.
You look at the political non-profits/super PACs, which represent unbridled financial resources. I know Republicans who kind of shrug about this, but they're not that concerned because their side has the money. So I ask myself, all right, if the Democrats have those resources, would I feel it was all right? Are my political preferences that important to me that I'd overlook what I consider an unfair advantage?
The blatant fabrication worries me the most, because I can imagine such a person taking office and then stripping our democracy and country of principles and rights which we have held dear for centuries. We don't think things can get that bad, but we also don't think people would go to the lengths Romney already has in making things up. Accurate information is the foundation for a functioning democracy. How can you hold people accountable if you don't have good information? How can you make good decisions if you don't know the truth?
I ask myself, if a Democrat were lying like this, would I vote for them, even if I agreed with their positions? It would be really hard, because I know the stakes are high. But at a certain point, what good is if they take away the foundation of our democracy? Democracy is about everyone having a voice. It's about people having the freedom to each vote according to what is best for them. Manipulating their vote through disinformation is undermining their freedom.
And yeah, right now Romney's only doing it as part of a campaign. Imagine what he'd do if he really had power. It is scary.
I suspect it would likely be the most corrupt in our nation's history. Besides all the harm he would be doing in all other realms.
A Romney administration would almost certainly be very corrupt. Judging from the things Romney and his associates do and say, I think they are all operating at the pre-conventional, self-interested stage of moral development. That is, they judge good and evil based on whether or not a course of action will benefit themselves. Conformity with the law or social conventions isn't taken into consideration, much less more abstract or universal notions of morality.
Lies, damn lies and Romney.
New Romney bumper sticker: "Unencumbered by the Truth"
Mitt has a record of doing well by not doing good. 88% annual returns to investors while he was at Bain! Come on folks. It was a freaking racket.
Untouchable.
I think the debates could wind up being the great equalizer. People tune into these debates, and Romney is going to have to answer for his mendacity in front of a nationwide audience.
The networks will have no control over the message.
My fear is that Romney will find an excuse to back out of the debates.
He will agree to one fox news biased debate , just like his single phony tax return
This is what the Greeks called hubris. You start thinking you can get away with absolutely anything, the gods--or fate, or reality, or whatever--will set you straight sooner or later.
Of course, all of Thebes had to suffer for Oedipus's hubris. I hope we don't all have to suffer for Romney's.
Every time that Romney repeats a proven lie a bell rings and an Independent Voter gets their wings.....THEN the fly over to the Democratic Party..
This Place is starting to look like an Air port.
I thought there HAS to be truth in advertising. These are advertisements, how is it that they are not held to the same standard?
Straight out of the Joseph Goebbels propaganda handbook...
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Observing the Republican Party evolve over the past few years, I have learned much more about 1930's Nazi Germany and the startling similarities with the GOP.