White House photo
This line, from Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech this morning, just amazes me.
"I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure."
When pressed on this lie on the past, the Romney campaign has said the trade agreements under Obama were largely negotiated before the president took office. That's not a bad defense and there's a way to word the attack carefully so that it's at least technically accurate, albeit misleading.
But today, Romney, reading a prepared text from a teleprompter, didn't bother with the pretense. He said President Obama "has not signed one new free trade agreement," despite the fact that's blatantly, demonstrably untrue.
In reality, Obama has signed three trade agreements -- with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea -- despite the wishes of some of his own allies. This happened less than a year ago, so it's not as if the Republican candidate (or those who write his speeches for him) can claim to have forgotten. There were even pictures of the agreements' signing, one of which I've included above.
It appears, then, that Romney isn't just telling a lie; he's telling a lazy lie that's easy to refute. The Republican just doesn't seem to care whether he gets caught or not -- he's "not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers" -- in effect thumbing his nose at those who care about reality.
And in all likelihood, Romney will pay no price for this blatant dishonesty, which is why he tells these falsehoods in the first place.
Leave a Comment:
Has anybody checked and see if romney has Bipolar Disease cause he changes his mind like a baby changes diapers
A baby doesn't change his own diapers. It's always somebody else that has to clean up the mess, dispose of of the unpleasantness and make the baby presentable again.
Oh. Wait. You're right!
That is a perfect description of Romney.
Can you talk about the Gish Gallop debate tactic that robme used ! It describes exactly what happened ! Google it. Preferred style of liars, distortionists and charlatans. Rapid spewing of disputed facts or overt lying, leaving no time for a moderator or opponent to speak.
Why is this lie not news on the MSNBC page? Every single time Romney does this it seems to me that the only people that cover it on MSNBC is Rachel, Ed, and Chris Mathews. This blatant lie should be headline news, but instead most of the MSNBC staff is still talking about the debate. Obama lost Mitt won can we move on and can you please start making his lies news because they are news. This man is running for the office of the Unites States President.
Since he likes to fire people, I would suggest his fact checkers?? Just saying!
Rachel: did you miss getting the announcement about the Romney's team's new senior advisor?http://freecatholic808.com/2012/10/07/mark-twain-named-senior-advisor-to-romney/#comments
Edward Kenndy was right, to know Mitty is too dislike him.
You guys can post all your enlightened theories--pro or con--until you are blue in the face. The people who will take Romney's word for anything and everything do not read these posts, nor do they care to hear any other position except "one term for Obama." I will vote for Obama and every other Democrat in the running before I would help the likes of Romney, Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, Akin and all the Cheney clones or dolts get in office. Thanks.
expecting him to ever utter the truth is just a fool's wish
Critique of Obama from the left is valuable. Citing a disliked program,complaining about a promise unfulfilled, or a preference in direction brings to light to those who are lovers of the Liberal basics. But, who do not dig as deep into the policy decisions of Obama.
It would be great if when critiquing an Obama decision, if there could be some analysis as to why it was made or why it could not be made. I often hear the "should have been single payer" healthcare. It would be nice to know why that did not happen.
The intellectual left at times leaves out motivation and circumstnces.
I often hear very prominent Liberal intellectuals critique Obama, and hear their words repeated by the Right as Gospel and referred to as descent in the Liberal ranks. I have a more partisan drive. I don't find critique with out the reasons and circumstance behind the Presidents decision, that much help. So, he made a choice that does not sit well with the intellectual left. Why did he do it, and did he have another choice that was achievable? It would be a big help to have more clarity and depth of analysis when the Left criticizes the President. He is not perfect, and it would be nice to know, if some one has the info, why the choice was made and any extenuating circumstances that caused the choice t be made. To know these things would be great. There is a need from the intellectual Left, those who explore deeper into the actions of the President to a point of having license to criticism with authority, to expose the reasons and circumstances behind the decision of the POTUS. I like to have an understanding of the error in judgement by the POTUS, plus the motivating factors behind it.
Thank You