Getty Images
I thought many months ago that it was at least possible that Mitt Romney would be more cautious about telling falsehoods as the election drew closer. After all, candidates can get away with more in, say, April than in September -- there's far more scrutiny now.
Alas, Romney seems unfazed, both by the calendar and by life under a microscope -- he keeps repeating falsehoods without any real concern for consequences. In case there were any doubts about his worst habit, consider the 35th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.
1. At an event in Sarasota yesterday, Romney said, in reference to President Obama's comments about engaged citizens changing politics, "The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again."
That's not only a lie; it's also one of the dumbest things Romney has ever said in public.
2. At a Univision town-hall event in Miami, Romney said he opposes an economic model in which we "take from some to give to others."
Actually, Romney's preferred budget plan redistributes wealth at a level unseen in modern American history.
3. Romney also said, several times, "[T]his is a campaign about the 100 percent.... My campaign is about the 100 percent of America."
I seem to recall watching a video in which Romney said it's not his "job" to "worry about" 47 percent of the population.
4. At the same event, Romney boasted, "When I was governor of my state, the state of Massachusetts ... we brought unemployment down to 4.7 percent."
Well, in reality, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts dropped because so many people dropped out of the state's workforce. The fact of the matter is Massachusetts' job creation record during Romney's term was "one of the worst in the country," ranking 47th out of 50 states.
5. In response to a student's question about federal aid, Romney said, "We're going to continue a Pell Grant program.... So I care. I care about your education and helping people of modest means get a good education and we'll continue a Pell Grant program."
That's not what he said during the primaries.
6. On health care, Romney said at the same forum, "The government is going to ultimately have a board that tells you what kind of care you can receive."
This is in apparent reference to the Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAB), and what Romney's saying isn't even close to being accurate.
7. In a Fox News interview, Romney said, "I have got great support from seniors, because they are unhappy with the fact that President Obama's Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion."
Sigh.
8. In the same interview, Romney insisted that the Affordable Care Act "tells us what kind of health insurance we have to have."
As Romney surely knows -- his state-based policy works the same way -- the whole point of the Affordable Care Act is to provide consumers with choices of private plans, made available through regulated exchanges. Giving people choices and telling people "what kind of health insurance we have to have" are opposites.
9. Asked about his affiliation with Kris Koback, Romney said this week, "He may well be part of a policy team [but] I have not met with him yet."
As his campaign later admitted, this wasn't true.
10. Speaking to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce this week, Romney said, "The administration promised us that its policies would have brought unemployment down to 5.4% by now."
11. Romney added, "[M]y Plan for a Stronger Middle Class will create 12 million jobs by the end of my first term."
Putting aside the pesky detail that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the fact remains that if we do nothing, we're on track to create 12 million new American jobs over the next four years anyway.
12. In the same speech, Romney said, "President Obama has not initiated a single new trade agreement with Latin America. I will."
He's trying to slice the truth in a way that misleads. In reality, Obama finalized three separate trade deals in his first term: Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
13. In reference to China, Romney argued, "President Obama may think that announcing new trade cases less than two months from Election Day will distract from his record, but the American businesses and workers struggling on an uneven playing field know better."
This just isn't true. Obama just didn't bring a new case at the WTO against China "less than two months from Election Day," he's been bringing these cases throughout his term.
14. Romney also said, "Many Hispanics have sacrificed greatly to help build our country and our economy, and to leave for their children a brighter future. Today, those sacrifices are being put at risk by a president who cannot stop spending."
Government spending is down, not up, under President Obama.
15. Romney went on to boast, "I know how to balance budgets. We balanced our budget in my business, at the Olympics, and every year in my state."
He balanced his budget at the Olympics thanks to a taxpayer bailout, and in Massachusetts, Romney left his successor with a deficit.
16. On federal spending, Romney said, "[M]y test is this: is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"
The implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this isn't true -- China only holds about 8% of the nation's debt.
17. Romney added, "The president has put us on the road to Greece."
18. Romney also argued, "No wonder business start-ups are at a 30-year low."
19. Romney went on to say Obama "plans to raise the federal income tax on small business even more."
In reality, Obama has repeatedly cut taxes on small businesses -- by some counts, 18 times -- and if given a second term, his tax plan would have no effect on 97% of small businesses.
20. Referencing the Affordable Care Act, Romney said, "The Chamber of Commerce surveyed 1,300 of its members. It found that three-quarters of them said they are less likely to hire people because of Obamacare."
The "survey" is a joke. The Chamber, a pro-Republican lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is fundamentally dishonest.
21. Romeny added, "Obamacare ... is already depressing job creation."
There's literally no evidence to support this, but let's also note that Romney created a nearly identical policy at the state level, and it didn't depress job creation at all.
22. On immigration policy, Romney said, "Despite his party having majorities in both houses of Congress, the president never even offered up a bill."
First, the president has endorsed all kinds of immigration bills. Second, having majorities in both chambers doesn't change the fact that Senate Republican filibusters blocked immigration policymaking.
23. In his weekly podcast, Romney said, "President Obama has imposed major new federal regulations at an unprecedented rate."
Well, it depends on what Romney means by "unprecedented." He may be surprised to learn that Obama approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Bush did in his first three years.
24. At a campaign event in Painesville, Ohio, Romney suggested it's Obama's fault that the price of "gasoline has doubled."
To call this comically misleading would be an understatement.
25. In the same speech, "I've got a [jobs] plan, all right. Unlike the president, I have a plan."
Romney doesn't have to like the American Jobs Act, but he shouldn't get away with brazenly lying about its existence.
26. Romney also argued, "The president believes in having a government put money out into companies. He put $90 billion into solar and wind, and green-energy companies. He's picking winners and losers.... He doesn't understand that the market where free people pursuing dreams and working to take their ideas to the marketplace, that's what makes America go; not a government that tries to pick investments, and guide the market for us."
What an interesting choice of misleading words. Because whether he likes it or not, if Obama "doesn't understand" free people in a free market, then Romney "doesn't understand" this, either.
27. Mitt Romney says "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America."
Redistribution has always been a characteristic of America.
28. In an ad unveiled by his campaign this week, Romney argues, "Dear Daughter. Welcome to America. Your share of Obama's debt is over $50,000."
That's only true if you attribute Bush's debts to Obama, which is ridiculous.
Previous editions of Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity: Vol. 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, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV
Leave a Comment:
The only board I know telling you what kind of care you can receive and have paid for by your insurance company - is the Insurance Companies.
Please read the article at the link provided below.
excerpt: "...is the fact that as a Mormon, Romney may have been taught to lie because he would be"Lying for the Lord."
“Lying for the Lord” is not only condoned, but part of the Mormon faith."
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/mitt-romney-isnt-a-flip-flopper-romneys-lying-for-the-lord/
God doesn't really allow that either.
Unless he thinks he is the white horse prophecy of Mormon history. If that's the case, he's definitely not going to do our country any good at all. Because while the white horse prophecy sounds good, it actually is a bad thing.
I'm just wondering why he gets away with this. Are they going to have fact checkers at the debates? that would be great. Because Mittens lies and lies and lies. I'm glad that TRMS is following this, but the greatest % of people in this country do not have a clue about his lying. This needs to be known. Once in awhile, any politician will have a gaffe, just like Hillary landing in Bosnia. but Mittens has gone way far past that.
3. Romney also said, several times, "[T]his is a campaign about the 100 percent.... My campaign is about the 100 percent of America."
Does this mean that after 'the campaign' he goes back to not worrying about the 47%?
S.Thomason - Is that Molly I see
?
It sure is! Our most beloved, world famous barn owl!
The answer, S. Thomason, is YES, most obviously YES!
For him, this is as close as he gets to truth. (e.g.,foreign trade agreements; the unemployment rate in Mass. while he was governor). At other times, he repeats outright lies (Pres. Obama as apologist, the price of gasoline, his 100% campaign).
My guess is that he doesn't even expect anyone to believe him anymore. He's only trying to give the RWNJs something they can use to convince themselves that they sincerely support him, and that they're not merely gun tottin' racist, religious fanatic, RWNJ Obama haters.
The scary thing is, that may be all he needs.
Be careful when you read the statement, "My campaign is about 100% of America." That is very different than my campaign is about 100% of Americans. Read the Art of War and you will understand that words can easily deceive if not read correctly, and can trick people into believing your saying something that you are not actually saying.
Raziel J...my point exactly! I think everything that comes out of his mouth is carefully measured to allow him to say words in a way that is very deceitful. A lot of folks don't listen closely enough to pick that up. That's why I like to hear him speak off the cuff, off script. He doesn't have time to evaluate the effects of every word before he says them. We hear a much 'truer' Mitt and that will be his downfall. He only has his best interests, and that of his billionaire buddies, on his mind. It is scary that he has gotten this close to becoming POTUS.
When he talks 100%, he's talking about voters. When he talks about 47% he's talking about half the people he is way above in this world. The other half, he doesn't even bring up. Thus leaving 6% that he actually might like.
yes it does mean after the election, should he be elected, it goes back to the rich will get richer and the poor will pay dearly for it!
I promise to stop lying if elected. Obama continues to use facts to try to steal my base like a crack addict in the dark if you know what I mean. Just ask Ann, if you are not already tired of her like I am. I am a smart man. Did you see how I gave 4mil to charity to get a 2.5mil tax break.. Everybody wins except the dependent scabs that Obama bought. Sarcasm now off. Mitt needs a job.
And I strongly believe that more than half of those donations will go to put SOME FOLKS' religious beliefs into U.S. laws or other states' laws. Like those ads in CA for prop 8 full of lies to scare voters.
I really hope after Mittens loses this election, he drops out of public life and rides his jet skis and watches the dancing horses more. I am so sick of him now, I hope I can make it another forty some days. I really don't want to hear anything out of him after he gives his concession speech.
"Romney also argued, "The president believes in having a government put money out into companies. He put $90 billion into solar and wind, and green-energy companies. He's picking winners and losers.... He doesn't understand that the market where free people pursuing dreams and working to take their ideas to the marketplace, that's what makes America go; not a government that tries to pick investments, and guide the market for us."
Uh Wall Street anyone?
How much does the govt give to oil and gas companies?
So call me a socialist, but it really galls me to see gas and oil subsidies going to these oil companies that are making billions every year in profit. And its OUR oil and gas. They pump their gas and oil out of OUR land, and they sell OUR gas and oil and they pocket the change. I realize that in a socialist country mineral rights are belonging to the country. But it galls me to see it going to these rich so and sos, when its coming out of our land. We should be paying THEM to drill it and frack it, then its ours.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to Super Bull XXXV!
Romney is on the Magical Thinking Tour - just by being elected he would solve everything. He thinks the markets will go up and rich people will start hiring unemployed people - not because he does anything - just because he becomes president.
And just by being president, Obama is ruining the country - without having done anything ruinous. In fact, Obama has done a lot of things to rescue the economy and help most people out. But Romney and his supposedly hard-headed business backers have their heads stuck in Magic Land.
magic land being of course where the sun don't shine
and don't forget that he ALSO imagines in his land of rainbows (uh not those rainbows) that the foreign leaders wouldn't DREAM of opposing the USA because he, Mitt Romney, is their leader. Although I agree this is a scary thought for us, probably not scary enough to scare our enemies into subservience.
Some voters believe in that magical thinking. They have so much anxiety about all the lies spread about Obama that they think will "feel better" by having a caucasian president. Others will "feel better" and magically hire Americans.
Well, has been starting to slowly click again.
People have allowed the media and opposition to Obama to determine their happiness. There may be something to that idea that your own thought patterns determine your reality. I recall reading somewhere "your faith (belief) has made you whole". And there is scientific theory that studies the "placebo effect".
The collective of Tibetan monks focus their energies toward peace, faced with China taking their country and ousting their leader may yet pan out. But until then, their hearts are happy, as the Dalai Lama.
Just thinking.
This may be off-topic, but WHY aren't more of the "librul media" calling Robme on his lies? The corporate owned lame-stream media is pandering and worse yet parroting the propaganda/misinformation/lies and the citizenry are certainly NOT informed! I get it, Robme contrary to being a moral, upright, G-d fearing man with character is a LIAR, what I have a problem with is that the "media" doesn't call him out on his lies, nor do they print what the truth is!
What you don't think the media isn't run by corporations who have a steak in this election? That's why the try and stay impartial.
Zora...,
Unfortunately, the MSM is infested with corporate whores and moral cowards.
I agree. For all the shouting they do about the "lame-stream media", there definitely is not enough being done to call Romney out. I believe one of, if not THE most important part of having a free press, is that it's their job to keep the people informed, and to report accurately to the American citizens.
The media thinks it is unseemly, or makes them appear partisan, to call a candidate's deliberately, knowingly false statement a lie. (OK, the truth is that they're scared right-wingers will get mad at them.) But because Romney has been so brazen about it, and because he has slowly revealed himself to be an arrogant jerk, and because journalists like Steve Benen are doing their job, this is beginning to change. As even the high mucky-mucks of the Republican party stick their knives into Romney, the media will smell blood in the water. By November 6th the press will display as much contempt for Romney as he has for them.
Thank you all who responded, I know the media is corporate owned - but you have raised my hope - at least for today. :-)
Zora..The media is ruled by very rich people like Murdoch etc etc and the reporters work for them. So, Rich boss says do not print and it doesn't get printed. I'm just throwing this theory out there. If anyone has another theory, please share.
They as much as said on Mourning Joe this AM that they need the horse race or they will lose viewers. Nobody tunes in to a blowout . It is in their best interest to keep it even , so they can sell pharmaceuticals and corn flakes.
sick-n-effin-tired: And on 11/7 the news story will be: The Blowout. How Did It Happen?
Talking about MSM, here is a headline from FoxNation:
http://nation.foxnews.com/liberal-media/2012/09/21/who-needs-elections-when-we-have-sellout-media
If Fox had a sense of humor, they'd see the irony.....
That Faux opinion piece was amazing ... as were the idiots commenting. They really, really believe that Mittens is speaking the truth!
pharmaceuticals? Like my ativan I take whenever Robme gets a lot of publicity? lol
Coupled with Romney's disgraceful behavior around the events in Libya last week, is it any wonder that his persistent lying has garnered him a result of having a 25% chance of winning or so? It was also good to see the other half of the ticket, Paul Ryan, getting his ass handed to him by seniors at his AARP appearance. They were having none of his patented B.S.
Ryan should have learned the last time he tangled with seniors that they are both informed and intelligent. Charm doesn't work on them. Respect does, but I don't think he can muster it. Seniors are immune to BS and highly sensitive to condescension.
I have a bone to pick with MSNBC on their new article. They state that Mitt Romney 'keeps his pledge' by releasing his tax returns. No, he did not 'keep' his pledge. He had to be goaded into releasing his tax returns after months and months of refusing to do so like the whiny little child he is.
His tax return rate is around the same- just under 14%. Which means Romney, like everyone has been saying on the Democratic side, pays a net effective less tax rate than the majority of middle-class Americans. And if the Ryan budget is put into effect this means that his 14% would drop to less than 1%. Wealthy people get to pay almost nothing in taxes and middle-class and poor people have to make up the difference. And when we have a huge deficit and national debt as the result of this negligence we will, of course, go after the money the peasants have claiming they were too spoiled and took too much home with them. Give me that last widowdime, lady, I've got me another merchant ship to christen! Don't worry- when our merchants return from the Indies they'll bring with them spices the likes of which you've never tasted and I promise we'll soak the mutton to the bone, thus leaving you something to lick and gnaw on once we've had our fill. Just remember how luck you truly are to have us as your lords!!!!
I thought he didn't pay any taxes....Harry Reid said so more than once. I thought his source was very reliable :)
@9.1
Reid said he has it on good authority that Romney didn't pay any taxes for ten years. He did not say it was the most recent ten years. This isn't parsing either, because, as you're well aware, Reid's comments came well after Romney had released his 2010 return and his 2011 summary. In context (which I understand is something many Republicans/Conservatives/GOP members/right-leaning pundits don't care for or understand) it's rather clear that Reid wasn't referencing a period that would include the last two tax years.
@skip:
I am not sure what your comment has to do with mine? Harry Reid stated that he had it on "good authority" that Romney hadn't paid taxes in around 10 years. I do not know that this is true or false. You do not know that this is true or false. Releasing another year doesn't prove this true or false (and technically speaking he didn't release another year- he just gave the full documents to a brief estimate he had released earlier).
Now my assumption is that Harry Reid was just grabbing at the low hanging fruit and taking advantage of the current political situation. More than likely he stepped in it just like Romney did with the Libya/Egypt thing, or with the 47% thing, or with the dozens of other times Romney has stepped in it. In both cases it's someone just reacting to the situation and saying whatever stupid, asinine thing that comes to mind ignoring the consequences. It's bad leadership, to say the least. I don't believe that's the right thing to do and I thought it was stupid then and I think it's stupid now. With that said no one can state that what he said is true or false unless they can see the 10 years to which he was referring. And in order to do that Romney would have to release more tax records. It maintains the paradox and will do so until Romney addressing it directly (or subsequently until he ignores it long enough that he and the rest of the world has forgotten).
I did hear in the past hour that his tax firm, PriceWaterhouse released a summary of the last 20 years and that summary shows he did pay taxes during that time. So I guess you could say Reid was talking about the years before that. The info is still just getting released out there, but I am guessing it will show that his rate is/was around the 14% already stated for all those years. And yes, that is low in my opinion, but it is mainly because most of his income is capital gains and they have a lower rate - which anyone with capital gains can use and it is legal. Just because most wealthly people use that rate, it does not make them bad. They are taking advantage of the rates on the books. Even middle class people try to pay the least amount of tax they can. That is why firms like H & R Block exist - "to give you the biggest tax refund available". We all try to minimize our taxes.
We have now seen ONE year's worth of taxes from Romney (and please don't pull the 2010 ones out, because they are missing perhaps the most critical document, his FBAR, which deals with his overseas accounts). So, we have no clue whatsoever what they have or haven't paid, nor whether they took the amnesty back in 2009 (regarding the Swiss account, for example) or didn't - either way, it doesn't look good for him.
How can you tell from that summary whether or not Willard paid taxes RETROACTIVELY, after getting busted in 2009 as a tax cheat? If that were the case, he could now claim to have paid taxes for those years - it doesn't mean he paid those taxes in those years.
Reid could still have been correct all along - we can't know unless Willard releases his tax returns, which he obviously could do, but for some reason just refuses... hmm?
I demand to see the long-form worth certificates!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
No, a summary is not the actual tax return. It's a statement asserting that X is true. This is what he released with his 2011 taxes (now, today, he released the actual, physical form for us to look at). This doesn't confirm or deny anything until you actually see the return itself. With that said I am more than sure he did pay taxes. But, again, I have no idea what this has to do with my comment? At this point in time it seems like you're de-railing the conversation in order to talk about Harry Reid and not Mitt Romney. If this is the case then please go troll somewhere else.
No one knows what time period Reid was talking about or if Reid is just pulling it out of his arse (my assumption is the latter, but I digress). Until the actual returns are released no one can make the assertion that X is true or Y is true. Until then we are assuming.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. First you are assuming that people are accusing Romney of violating the law. No one is accusing Romney of having violated the law. If this is what you took away from my post then you misread what I wrote. Romney pays a lower tax rate than the average American which fits into the narrative Democrats have been presenting that says that there is one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for the middle-class and poor. The narrative isn't that the wealthy are breaking the law (although many will argue that what many wealthy individuals have gotten away with should be illegal, but that's another conversation), but that the law itself is written to favor one or the other. In other words we've made legal what should be illegal or we've made legal practices that disproportionately favor those who don't need more favorability from the government. This is especially obnoxious when coupled with arguments like the "47% of Americans are lazy" argument given by Romney. Essentially all Romney ends up proving by releasing his returns (and I believe he knew this from the start which is why he resisted releasing his returns (in true reactionary fashion)) is that the Democratic "narrative" is in fact truth and that Romney, not the working class, represents the entitled population.
I have no idea where you got this from. I never implied this or stated this. I do not believe there are good or bad people- I believe there are good or bad acts. The wealthiest Americans in the US have a disproportionate advantage to that of the poor and middle-class. The wealthiest Americans are asking the rest of the nation to carry them while simultaneously in 1984 fashion claiming that really it's because those doing the heavy lifting are just ungrateful slobs. No one gets wealthy on their own and monopolies of all kinds should be resisted in order to have a free society and economy. Right now we have an oligarchy- laws and privileges are oriented towards those who already have privileged and are written either to expressly oppress those who are not privileged or indirectly oppress those who are not privileged and this is wrong. This is the narrative Obama and the Democratic Party has been pushing and Romney's already released tax returns prove that this narrative is correct (along with his many blundering statements). Does this make him a bad person? No- he is neither good or bad. But it does mean that the actions surrounding his existence have been unethical and that problem needs correcting.
Speak for yourself. I own my own entertainment company and aside from benefits and salary I take no deductions- not even for business expenses. I file the maximum amount that I can file on my return every time and I refuse my refunds. But this is a personal choice that I make and is irrelevant to the point. The conversation here has been that the system is rigged against those who are middle-class and poor. Nothing you've presented counters this or justifies it.
french revolution anyone?
bluefirewolf, I was just about to say that. I am teaching the French Rev to my sophomores this week, and one of them made the comment today about how the middle class in this country pay more in taxes than the 1%, just like the peasants and commoners in France in the 18th century.
I agree, what is relevant about Mitt's tax returns is in the years he refuses to release.... because in his mind "you people" have all you need to know (what he wants you to see & believe so he gets what he wants) The sanitized
information he has released, for the period of time that he was running for office, is nowhere near enough.
OK from the posts I see that this is going the way of the birthers. When Obama finally released his birth certificate, the birthers asked for the real birth certificate. So now with Ronmey, he releases his tax return (yeah, I know ONLY one year) and his tax firm also releases a 20 year summary - "BUT tha't not his REAL returns for those 20 years". Oh well, it is expected in this polarized campaign.
To me if he broke a law tax wise, then bust him already. But I think he (and the people he pays to prepare his taxes - like most wealthy people do) did take every deduction allowed by law - like we ALL do. The man is running for President. I highly doubt he would be running if he was committing tax fraud.
And cartoon, YES there is two sets of rules it seems for the wealthy and the rest of us - but that are the rules for now. We should change them...on this I think we can agree. I was not trying to defend the rates... just stating that they are the rates. I don't like them either. Also, good for you on paying the max with not deductions or refunds. You are the exception and not the rule (pun intended) in that category.
It doesn't matter if he broke the law or not. Americans want to see what he paid. Mitt Romney doesn't want Americans to see what he paid. And we all know why. End of discussion.
There is no comparison here between the two. Do you understand what a tax summary is Skip? Please explain what one is. It is a summary of what was paid- it is not an actual review. The firm could be lying, but it likely isn't. How you ignored that part of the statement from me is just incredible. You're accusing other people of partisanship when you're clearly only looking for statements you can twist to better serve your own political views. Projection much? My belief is that you are correct that he has likely paid 10-15% most of his working life. I stated this above (why you chose to ignore it to make up a fake argument is up to you- I guess because responding to cogent arguments is too hard???). A summary does not mean anything- and for the record, nothing has been released. What has been released is a statement that in the future something will be released which is even more ambiguous. In the case of Obama's birth certificate he released a certificate of live birth in the short form and people wanted to bitch that this wasn't a valid copy. I am OK with a valid copy of Romney's tax returns being released- that is what it means to release your tax returns. That is not a written statement by an accounting firm saying we attest that X is true. Let's use the academic standard here and maybe that will make sense: there are primary sources and secondary sources. A primary source is the information itself or the item itself or whatever it is you're talking about itself. Obama's birth certificate is the primary source of his birth. Romney's tax returns are the primary source of his tax returns. A secondary source is a 3rd party giving a review or summary about what they believe the primary source to be. The summary is a secondary source. I do not want the secondary source I want the primary source. Until I see the primary source I am not satisfied.
NO ONE in response to my post OR MYSELF has stated that he broke the law. You are presenting here a fake argument (again) that NO ONE else is claiming BUT YOU. Do not put words in my mouth and do not put words in the mouths of other people. NO ONE is claiming that he broke the law. This is a complete straw man argument- rather than discuss what we're ACTUALLY talking about you're misrepresenting the argument and then denouncing the fake argument YOU just made up. I specifically stated above that I was not saying Romney falsified his tax forms. You completely ignore this and just re-assert that he lied on his tax returns to refute a FAKE argument because, as you say, at least one of us is being partisan as hell.
Which is the argument that the Democratic Party has been making and the argument that Romney, if I had to guess, does not want to be pinned down on. If I had to guess he has not released his returns because he knows that this will solidify the argument that he has been given special treatment and I don't think he can argue well no the middle-class should pay more (which his budget will make them do) and have their benefits cut while simultaneously arguing that he should be able to pay less than everyone else. It just won't work and I think he knows this and I think he was attempting to avoid the issue by not releasing the returns. But by doing so he only made it worse. Of course this is a guess as to what is going on- only he actually knows and I'm not representing this as fact. This is just what I assume is going on based on the statements Romney has given.
YOU made the choice to bring this up. NO ONE ELSE made the argument that he wasn't paying what he legally owned. In fact you were told by MULTIPLE posters that this isn't the point of argument, yet you keep insisting that it is. Partisanship indeed.
Do not piggyback on my posts simply to troll. If you have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation then do not contribute to the conversation. It's a waste of my time and yours and I have to say is rather obnoxious. Scapegoating to Harry Reid doesn't change the situation facing Romney nor does it make the arguments against Romney less valid. It's a pathetic way of throwing a bone with the hopes that stupid people will chase after it and drop the conversation from your candidate. Accusing people of partisanship when you are clearly posting with a partisan agenda is also a. insulting and b. condescending as hell. Making the false comparison goes right along with this. Not only is it one of many logical fallacies you've employed, but it's an obnoxious one at that attempting to lie about what other people have said and put blame on people who do not deserve it.
In addition to my first paragraph:
Sorry to be so flippant here, but last time I checked the reason why Obama was asked for his birth certificate was because a bunch of bigoted white people didn't want to believe that he was born in America. Racism was at the root of asking for Obama's birth certificate- something that no other presidential candidate has had to release publicly (same goes with his college records). Tax returns, on the other hand, have been released by every single presidential candidate (including both hopefuls and the final candidates) every single election cycle since Mitt Romney's father ran for office. That is a precedent set into place that was established on neutral grounds. Asking Romney to show his tax returns is staying in line with precedent; asking Obama to release his birth certificate is breaking from precedent and quite honestly is an asinine roundabout way of saying he's black so therefore he can't be president. Seriously the fact that you'd even make a comparison here is just infuriating.
Cartoon & skip, It pretty much does sum it up.
The only time I was asked for my ID was when I registered and when I mistakenly went to the wrong precinct after they changed the location. I am caucasian, I have a pass.
I believe that is the case, that old invisible knapsack that people of color don't carry. All this show your ID is in selected districts in some case. I suspect the groups trying to intervene into voter rolls are selectively choosing districts and such.
As far as the birther equivalence… I don't agree. The tax return for 2011 was estimated at 20.9 million, but now it's 13.X? The numbers didn't change and add to that, the refusal to show the rest of the recent years, like MOST candidates do. But Rmoney and Ryan are Entitled/Privileged, they carry their invisible knapsack, so they are not questioned in the same manner.
http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html
So by leaving 2011 "estimated", he was abled to make it a certain number. It's not illegal, but it seems pretty creepy and if folks want equivalence, how about if Obama only gave 2 years, he would be accused by all those Rmoney defenders.
It's not a problem with all wealthy people, just those that seem to think they are entitled" and they just can say "I'm going to tell you my plan after the election" and call non taxpayers "dependent". What chutzpah, then Ann says "Stop it" to the interviewer, they are not to be subjected to questions for electorate, they are to be coronated.
There's no plague of in person voter fraud tainting elections. When do we all have to subject to DNA banks for absentee voting? Would that be repugnant to these voter ID advocates?
FWIW - I am willing to say Willard did something illegal. From the preponderance of the evidence I've been able to see, it looks like he's been "sheltering" his wealth in overseas accounts, and being a damned TAX CHEAT.
Most likely, he took advantage of the IRS "tax amnesty" program in 2009, which would explain why he hasn't released the earlier returns, and only partially released the returns from the years since then (the parts conspicuously absent being forms like the FBAR, etc. that would show evidence of the payments made pursuant to the tax amnesty).
If Willard feels that I've reached an unfair conclusion and am baselessly slandering his "good reputation" he can get the apology he might deserve simply by releasing the actual tax returns, like every Presidential candidate since his daddy first ran for the office! It's obviously not like they aren't easily available - we know that McCain (or at least his VP-vetting team) saw them, and Willard's accountants at PriceWaterhouseCoopers have evidently seen them even more recently, SO WHY WON'T HE SHOW THEM TO THE VOTERS WHOSE SUPPORT HE SEEKS? BECAUSE HE'S A DAMNED TAX CHEAT - AN UNPROSECUTED FELON!
I don't even know that I'm willing to accept that Willard paid his taxes RETROACTIVELY - he's a demonstrable liar (see all XXXV installments of the Chronicle for details) - and it's not as if PriceWaterhouseCoopers hasn't had their own "brushes with mendacity" over the years, as well. I'm not taking Willard's word for it, nor theirs.
I don't care if it sounds "birthery" - I demand to see the long-form worth certificates!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Didn't he say before that blind trusts were a ruse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjWoIr8eXAQ&feature=endscreen
Yes, I think he is cheating by offshoring, etc. but it's somehow OKIYARmoney?
I am not justifying offshore accounts and that is a legitimate concern to bring up. I just have a feeling that he's not going to have committed anything illegal considering that the national attention his tax returns have gotten hasn't prompted a major investigation by the IRS. He does own companies and other assets overseas and unfortunately our current tax code does allow you to invest in those assets without having to pay taxes here at home. There are also other entirely legal means of offshoring your money without either having to pay taxes or to pay a huge amount in taxes (meaning the full rate that you otherwise would have paid in the US). I do agree entirely with you sandy that these tax practices are wrong and that the Democratic Party has the compelling argument on this issue. I thought I had made that evident from the disdain I expressed in my earlier posts.
My point was simply that I believe Romney doesn't want to show his tax returns because he will then have to face the equality issue. The reason why I talked about monopolies is because monopolies are anti-capitalism and against the US constitution. Yet we seem to be pushing more and more towards re-establishing monopolies in industry. We've already created a system where new businesses cannot compete for various reasons against international corporations like Wal Mart for reasons that far exceed the basic competition that would exist with supply and demand. Our government, for example, has no qualms insuring Wal Mart employees under Medicaid or Medicare, providing them food stamps, and footing the bill to construct the Wal Mart super-center in your local town and it's subsequent infrastructure (parking lot, roads to get to and from, lights, water pipelines, etc). A small business attempting to start up on it's own could never get this type of specialized treatment. This makes it more likely that a new business will fail while insulating already established businesses from bankruptcies even though those companies would otherwise do so if left up to the markets (the bailouts are a perfect example of this).
Likewise we have established a monopoly as it's related to wealthy individuals like Mitt Romney. He has an entirely different government structure- established so that he can maintain his wealth- built to keep him wealthy and pampered that you and I either a. only have limited access to or b. have no access to (depending on what privilege we're talking about and to what extent). This is the argument Obama has been pushing forward and personally I think it's about damn time, but I digress. The point I was making is that this is why I believe Romney doesn't want to address the taxation issue because it puts him in a corner where he has to admit that a. he does take advantage of government benefits b. those benefits are what allow him to be insulated from failure in a way that no other person (such as a poor person) would be and c. that his blaming the poor is simply a form of class warfare meant to maintain his privilege while the rest of us serfs fight amongst ourselves. Quite honestly whether or not he paid more in taxes is so irrelevant to this larger message.
As for the issue of skip saying that people are accusing Romney of committing an illegal act: yes I am quite sure that there are Democrats who believe so (since we just discussed that let's just say it's an established fact). However the point was at the time skip was making the comment no one had made this argument. I am not going to allow a person to piggyback off my conversation by creating fantasies and then railing against them. I am sincerely concerned and quite honestly disgusted with this phenomenon that I have found existent on the right from blogging here: they create a fake universe and then project that fake realm onto our real, actual realm of existence. No. You don't get to make up that there's a mandate and then act shocked and dismayed and confused when the Supreme Court of the US says yeah there's no mandate. No, you don't get to accuse the President of the United States of being foreign born and therefore he's secretly not really your president. No, you don't get to make up lies about social security and medicare solvency. No, you don't get to make up lies about what debt and deficits are and how they work. No, you don't get to have an entire campaign established on as many lies as you can possibly squeeze into such an ordeal. No, no no. Republicans want to be the party of personal responsibility? OK. Then grow the bleep up instead of staying stuck in your adolescent fantasies.
End of rant.
Good one Cartoon. I get it.
Cartoon - I get what you're saying, but for once I just can't quite agree with you here. It's not as if he's avoiding the "equality issue" this way - if anything, his stubborn refusal to condescend to let the public see his tax returns (the way every other Presidential candidate since his daddy ran for the office has) has only served to draw even more attention to it!
There has to be something more... something he desperately doesn't want us to see. Remember, if he had participated in the 2009 "tax amnesty" program, that would already have been "adjudicated" - i.e. the IRS would already know about it and wouldn't have to initiate a fresh investigation.
Even if a new investigation were started, at the height of a Presidential election campaign, I don't know that this information would be made public - I'm not sure that the IRS would be legally permitted to disclose something like that, and certainly nothing would delight the Rape-Public-CONs more than creating the "issue" of the IRS allegedly being "used for partisan purposes".
"Equality" already is an issue. If what was in those earlier returns, not to mention the forms glaringly missing from the still-amendable returns he has condescended to release, was all completely legal, he could just release them. I think the problem is that whatever it was WASN'T LEGAL. "Hidden" funds in UBS Bank. "Son of BOSS" avoidance scams. Probably even more nefarious stuff we haven't begun to guess at.
I will be delighted (well, at least willing) to offer Willard a great big public apology as soon as he shows that all my suspicions are unfounded by releasing his tax returns. I'm not worried that I'll actually have to do so...
I demand to see the long-form worth certificates!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2010
;-)
No disgreement here! I thought I had expressed this sentiment, but if I hadn't let me: he is such a reactionary idiot that when someone said I want to see your taxes he shouted 'no!' (now what I believe and I think we disagree on is the motivation as to why, but putting that aside) and then, of course, when someone said 'why not?' he became all flustered and dunderheaded. I swear this guy is George W. Bush but on steroids.
To your second and 3rd paragraphs- when you say it I can't necessarily disagree. I do think the media would be howling over the issue 24/7. And any time the government targets a person who labels himself or herself it immediately plays into the narrative that so and so is being victimized by the big bad liberals. Just like they do whenever someone is asked a question like how can you see Russia from your house? Immediately it turns into that was a gotcha question! designed specifically to make me appear like a fool! the fact that I said thus prompting the inquiry is entirely irrelevant!!!!
On the other hand I do think that if the IRS thought Romney was up to no good they'd be investigating it. However you are correct that while an investigation is on going they likely wouldn't be talking to the public. The only time that would happen would be if a. someone leaked it (against the rules) or b. the investigation had been completed and something were to be found. I had not thought of this.
His history with tax avoidance scandals does create some pause for me and he has already stated publicly that he has money overseas in investments and assets- hell he even owns a slave labor factory in China. The thing is I am not sure that it's against the law. Now as far as UBS banks and Camen Island banks I've never had to deal with that. But I do know that when I got into the entertainment business I had the opportunity to sign with a company in South Korea to do some of the animation work for our advertising. It would've been cheaper and from doing that I could've put something like 25 people to work instead of the 4 people (myself included) that I currently employ at full salary (except myself who takes no direct earnings from the business). I not only could've deducted the cost I would've paid the 3rd party company from my taxes, but I could've then deducted transportation costs even though what I was transferring was digital and over the web. That's how messed up it is. I could have even gone a step further and deducted the cost of the equipment to record the voice actors (since technically I would've been hiring the actors and using the equipment) and the computers and other equipment needed for the design and animation process. That is so f'd up it's unbelievable. But it would've been perfectly legal. I didn't do it, obviously. I don't care that we're a small as hell company that only advertises on local radio and the Internet. We do so by hiring Americans and giving Americans health insurance and giving them a salary that they work for. It isn't a situation where my employees are working to make me wealthy while I sit on my fat arse picking my nose. That is why I'm not all that convinced that Romney broke the law- because if the laws are that ridiculous for my industry wouldn't they be the same for WALL FREAKING STREET? But you are correct that I presented this as fact when in reality I'm making an assumption on the basis of a similar, but not exact situation. That was wrong for me to assert it as much and I do apologize.
Ultimately I agree with you that he should release his tax returns. I was just saying that the overall narrative by Democrats does not get negated on the basis of whether or not he presents this information. I don't want the narrative to be lost because conservatives are fixated on literalism (like they do with "global warming" and "hate crimes") instead of what the message actually is about.
On a sillier note - I just noticed that I've had a typo running in my sig line all day. D'oh! Spell check can't catch everything.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote - 2012
;-)
If it were such an honest summary of the past 20 years, why not just release the tax forms? If the summary is the same, why does he not want us to see his legitimate tax information?
Didn't he start that blind trust when he became Governor? That's not 20 years, that was what? About 12 or so? And he continues to say he does not know what is in his blind trust. I would really have grave doubts about putting millions of dollars into an accountant's hands. Sure, i realize Mittens probably pays the accountant's mortgage on his mansion, but I really would not entrust millions to anyone else. i would look them over carefully every year.
There is a lot of talk about Romney paying his taxes for the 20 year summary. It was very carefully pointed out that the summaries stated that he "owed" x amount of taxes. It never stated that those "owed" taxes were paid. It also didn't specify if the taxes were paid on time or retroactively. Mr. Romney seems to do a lot of things with his taxes retroactively. Is it possible at all that the taxes he "owed" were paid in the amnesty settlement?
I'm just askin'.
Like I said, when Romney speaks he's a Democrats best friend!
VOTE straight blue....
But as the West Wing cast points out, don't overlook the non-partisan issues/elections on the ballot.
I voted mail in in Iowa day before yesterday! I feel good! I voted a full Dem ticket and since Vanderplaats wants to get rid of our activist judges that voted for marriage equality, I VOTED yes for all of them. My job is done! lol
Is it just me, or does Mitt Romney remiind you of the George Orwell book, Animal Farm? I specifically hear the quote in my head, when the pigs post a new list once they have taken over the government of the farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
I am sure that some of Romney's whoppers are going to make it in to the debates. If the media won't take him to task, Obama will and in front of millions of people watching. This is going to drive the radical right and Fox News crazy. They can't gloss over the lies.
The problem with trying to bring the lies up during the debates is that people will find the truth to be tedious and nuanced. Take, for instance, the 'eight percent unemployment promise' statement. If Mitt looks at the president and says "You said that you would have unemployment below eight percent by now, and instead it's at fourteen percent," the rebuttal will take a long time to deliver. Try it yourself:
"Now, Mitt, you know that's not true. At the time, we released an estimate projecting the rate of unemployment after enacting the stimulus package that worked from an estimate of the economic contraction from the financial crisis, but it turns out that the economy really shrank almost three times as much as we had first thought. It would have been nice if the recession had been as mild as initially estimated, but we weren't that lucky, so you can't really hold me to that initial projection. Not only that, but it is the standard practice to cite current unemployment levels <according to this method>, which would have it at 8.4 percent. The fourteen percent number that you are using isn't how the BLS or CBO make their comparisons from month to month, and so it's not really the valid statistic to use here."
See? You're either bored by now, or are thinking that the president is blowing a smoke screen.
Still, I hope Obama's team has worked hard to phrase some snappy and effective rebuttals to Mitt's inevitable lies. I hope they will also endeavor to keep their side scrupulously true to the facts, to avoid right-wing 'fact checkers'.
I found the response very entertaining.
But then again, I read this blog as often as I can. :)
Short and snappy?
How about "Prove that statement. Where and when was it reported or documented?"
There is already a campaign of turning the accusations (and actual lies) of lying against Obama. They believe their old faithful ploy of turning your weakness or flaw into the Democratic opponent's weakness or flaw.
It's really wearing thin for many, but some folks buy it, so they figure, what the heck, go ahead and use that ploy. They are all about chipping off hunks, as we see they have just about put off everyone.
When Romney speaks, he consistently says what he thinks the people in front of him want to hear. The facts and what he has said in the past, don't seem relevant to him. This has got to be costing him votes. It's no wonder leading republicans are upset with him. He's got to be radioactive to other republicans running for office.
All of "Mitt's Mendacity" collected into a downloadable ebook.
http://readlists.com/3bc093f6/
Cool!
Shared!
step right up folks, spin the wheel to see who Mitt lies to next!
He lies to all the people all of the time. He lost on his first run for President and I predict he'll lose again.
Any way I hope so .
Let's hope so, but we have to do whatever we can to make sure people can vote and do vote. Register, help get I.D. in case people ask/require, let folks know not to accept provisional ballot if they can get the needed stuff to vote as everyone else votes.
Just Dave speaking..........Baracky has won this election..............The GOP is just deciding which bozo to start running the day after the election.............GOP is afraid of Baracky, Hillary and everyone that won't follow the TEA party rhetoric, speaking of which, if you TRULY hold to the constitution, then give up ALL weapons that aren't single shot muzzle loaders, as the origional constitution intended.
Romney is against the 47%, then he wants to take care of the 100% the problem isn't that he lies (which he does), he has a problem with Math.
What is not to love about a guy who can live in the moment?
Lets be kind to the guy he obviously has problems with short term memory
Or: How can you hate a person whose mind is as plastic as his face?
Note: Mitt said they'd continue a Pell Grant program, not the Pell Grant program. I can't help but think the choice of words was deliberate.
Nice catch. Maybe it's a Medicare program they also want to continue.
Exactly true, Disgusted. They want a voucher program with the name Medicare, not a guaranteed benefit program.
Very good points by both of you. Very important distinction between "a" program and "the" program. We need to listen very carefully.
"The fact of the matter is Massachusetts' job creation record during Romney's term was "one of the worst in the country," ranking 47th out of 50 states"
Hasn't Romney done enough damage to himself that you don't have to make stuff up? Those numbers are not accurate. It went from 50th to 26th during his term. (Massachusetts is apparently an awful state to do business in, no matter whose in charge)
"Massachusetts is the 47th Best State for Business 2012"
http://chiefexecutive.net/massachusetts-is-the-47th-best-state-for-business-2012
"Job creation went from 50th to 26th during his term."
while this is true, comparing the job creation during romney's four years with the other states, massachusettes ranked 47th
factcheck.org 1/5/12
Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3 percent. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.
Mass is a hell hole for business, which explains the 3 billion dollar deficit he inheirited.
If we rightly give Obama a break because of Bush, why not do the same for Romney's term as governor?
Because that's a false comparison fallacy?
BAM! Good job, Cartoon!!!
'Romney went on to boast, "I know how to balance budgets. We balanced our budget in my business, at the Olympics, and every year in my state."
He balanced his budget at the Olympics thanks to a taxpayer bailout, and in Massachusetts, Romney left his successor with a deficit."
C'mon Steve, he actually DID balance his budget as you well know. That's why he started out with a projected 3 billion dollar deficit and left office with about a one billion dollar deficit.
Throw the guy a bone as you wave goodbye, won't you?
I see. So, Obama inherited a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit, and now has a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, and so he can claim to have balanced the federal budget?
On BOTH counts a deficit is still a deficit AND that adds to the cumulative debt. And on the national side that debt is now 16 Trillion (that's 16,000 Billion). EVEN if we balanced the budget from here foward, that would not make a dent in the debt. We have to have pretty big surpluses every year for many years to knock it down, let alone eliminate it. And I don't care who's fault it is at this point - it is what it is - a HUGE debt....HUGE.
....no this would mean that he REDUCED the deficit, not BALANCED the budget. What are you even talking about here?! I really hope this was sarcasm.
"Romney took office in 2003, in the midst of one of the state’s deepest recessions since World War II. More than 200,000 jobs disappeared in Massachusetts after the dot-com bubble burst -- 45 percent, more than the state lost during the recent “Great Recession.”
At the time, no one could foresee how deep the damage would run or how long it would take for the state to regain its economic footing.
“It was clear the state was having significant difficulties and that what had been a boom period had come to an end,” Eric A. Kriss, a former Bain Capital colleague of Romney’s who later became the state’s chief fiscal officer. “As you dip into the details you are amazed and astounded and depressed all at the same time.”
Kriss and a small coterie of aides holed up in a borrowed State House office and began pouring over the state’s balance sheets shortly after Romney’s election. Kriss quickly discovered that the state’s annual budget, set to run out in June of the following year, was dangerously out of balance and likely to yield a budget gap of $3 billion during the fiscal year to come.
Romney spent much of his first two years in office focusing on the state’s budget crisis. Romney succeeded in closing the budget shortfall without raising the state sales or income tax -- a notable accomplishment. Yet his approach triggered criticism.
Romney largely balanced the budget by cutting state aid to cities and towns, many of which responded by raising property taxes. In his first two years in office, Romney presided over a 15 percent cut in spending on unrestricted aid to cities and towns; he also cut more than 4 percent of funding for local schools.
Largely as a result, the average local property tax bill jumped more than $700 a year, or about 24 percent, to $3,962 from $3,206. By the end of Romney’s term, the combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts grew to 10.6 percent of income from 10 percent, according to the Taxpayers Foundation, a Washington think tank.
Michael C. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded research group, said the magnitude of the deficit required the cuts in local aid, which he described as a fair, if not dynamic, strategy deployed by most governors in times of crisis.
“In broad strokes, he did pretty much what every other governor has done -- he raised revenues and cut spending,” Widmer said. “It’s probably the right thing to do, to have a balanced approach.”
Romney also took on natural allies in the business community when he undertook an effort to change the business tax code by closing what he called “loopholes.” It was a controversial step, but Romney said the rules allowed many companies to avoid paying taxes at a time when the state could hardly afford it. Some banks, for example, avoided taxes by sheltering holdings in Real Estate Investment Trusts.
Business leaders opposed the effort, viewing it as a tax increase. One revision, for example, required large retailers to pay sales taxes on the printing costs of direct mail promotional advertising, a move that increased their taxes by about $15 million annually.
Romney supporters, such as David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank, said the strategy was ill-conceived and at odds with efforts to change Massachusetts’ reputation as a state with a high business costs.
“It impacted the state’s competitiveness negatively,” Tuerck said recently. “Higher taxes discourage corporations from investing in the state and creating jobs.”
Romney also increased government fees on a host of services, from marriage licenses to property deeds, raising another $375 million annually.
Kriss defended the move, arguing that many fees had not been adjusted for inflation in decades. And, he said, closing the so-called loopholes affected a relatively small number of companies that were eluding the original intent of the tax laws.
“It was not in any way a tax increase,” he said. “It was a clarification of what you could do and what you couldn’t do.”
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/09/05/governor-romney-faced-similar-economic-situation-obama-with-similar-results/S2cHk3JRGn0hHRnbEFuh2M/story.html
What does #21 have to do with #21.4????
Cartoon, I can answer that one for you: absolutely nothing! But I am sure bb will have some sort of trollish response for you soon! LOL!!!!
Romney's scheming just never ends. His 2011 income was $13.7 million as opposed to the $21 million estimated by his campaign earlier this year. He also did not claim legitimate deductions in order to show he paid a "whopping" 14% tax rate in 2011.
I don't believe any of his numbers. IMO, they're completed fabricated. I'm reminded of his 2001 tax return where he claimed he filed as a Mass. resident when he did not. The man is an inveterate liar.
An invertebrate one, too!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
"The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again."
That's not only a lie; it's also one of the dumbest things Romney has ever said in public.
It's also a mixed metaphor... Don't you throw in the towel and wave a white flag?
Good point, K. Made me laugh this morning. Seems the panic has turned flag-wearing and flag-waving into a flag-throwing contest.
Let me suggest two reasons the "lame-stream media" interviewers don't challenge Romney - or anyone, really - on the lies and half-truths and misrepresentations of the facts he spews forth regularly: first, they come so fast and furious that they boggle the mind, and the interviewers can't get past their own initial reactions of "I can't believe he just said that!" to challenge what they've just heard (especially since their directors and producers have told them they're under time constraints and can't go beyond a certain limit); and second, most of the interviewers, though they once may have been reporters - and even may have done some investigative reporting - are struggling so hard to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle that they simply can't catalog and keep straight all the facts of any particular issue; and they're afraid that, if they contradict a candidate on a particular claim they believe to be less than the truth, that they will actually be the ones in error, or that they will be only partially correct in their critique; so, rather than risking error, they just let the lie/half-truth/misrepresentation stand without rebuttal. The effect of these two things are compounded by the desire of interviewers not to seem "partisan" (other than Faux News interviewers, who don't care, and Stewart/Colbert, who thrive on partisanship, and yet can be - and often are - more even-handed - and challenging - than most) and by their responsiveness to their directors and producers, who mostly seem satisfied with mediocre performance (possibly due, as some claim, to the influence of corporate ownership of media and the influence of advertising dollars).
Chris Hayes had one of Mitten's advisors on his show. As the advisor was doing his great speech based on lies, Chris Hayes, interrupted him, "That's not true. That is a lie." surprised the advisor, that's for sure. So they went to break, and when they came back, they tried to discuss it and Chris told him it was a lie. And they gently disengaged and Chris Hayes went to another piece of news.
I have noticed, however, that some of them have started to challenge some of the patent lies. Sadly not David Gregory - who should be the first to do so.