In his first television ad in the wake of the three debates, President Obama unveiled a minute-long spot, highlighting his first-term accomplishments and noting several second-term goals. It's a positive, issue-focused ad, which mentions his opponent only in passing.
In his first television ad in the wake of the three debates, Mitt Romney is going in a different direction.
For those who can't watch clips online, the 30-second spot is yet another attack ad, accusing Obama of having gone on an "apology tour" and failing to visit Israel in his first term.
In some ways, I suppose it's fitting. Romney, before even launching his 2012 presidential campaign, based much of his national ambitions on the "apology tour" -- it was the basis for the title of his 2007 "memoir" -- and he included the falsehood in his kick-off speech in June 2011. It stands to reason, then, that the same lie would provide a bookend, bringing the Republican's ridiculous smear full circle.
But for those who still care about facts and reality, Romney really is lying. Obama has never apologized for America. The Republican knows this, but keeps repeating the claim anyway, hoping voters won't know the difference.
And what about Obama not having visited Israel in his first term?
As we talked about in July, the attack at least has the benefit of being partially accurate -- Obama visited Israel as a candidate, but has not been back during his first term. If Republicans choose to find that outrageous, their complaints are grounded in fact.
The problem, however, is the selective nature of their disgust. George W. Bush didn't visit Israel at any point during his first term, and neither did Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush didn't travel to Israel during their respective terms in office at all.
Is there any record of Romney ever condemning any of these other presidents for the same reason? Nope.
Moreover, Obama did visit Israel as a candidate, and as he explained last night, he did so the right way.
"You know, if we're going to talk about trips that we've taken, you know, when I was a candidate for office, first trip I took was to visit our troops. And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors, I didn't attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.
"And then I went down to the border towns of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms, and I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.
"So that's how I've used my travels when I travel to Israel and when I travel to the region."
When Romney visited Israel over the summer, he brought donors, held a fundraiser, brought his teleprompter, and made every effort to make his trip as campaign-oriented as humanly possible.
Leave a Comment:
Conservative insult to Liberal injury - the footage this Romney ad uses to fabricate its points oh-so-just-happens to come from PBS' broadcast of the debate. So it always has the PBS logo as a bug on the lower third of the screen.
And as we all know, PBS is one of America's TRULY most-trusted sources of information.
If it had a Fox News logo on it, it would have the veneer of liberal bias.
But the PBS logo?
By George, this whole apology tour story just might be true after all.
Evil turds.
Good eye...spotting that. that's the same as me getting a hand shake from a politician and then saying he supports my position on my rights for "shaking babies". Dont'cha just love slight of hand????
Kind of reminds you of Obama hypocritically praising free enterprise at the end of the second debate despite the "FACT" he condemns it in health care, education, the housing market, and all the other places that Big Government under Obama limits or eliminates free enterprise.
Kinda like that.
Andujar, How does Obama "condemn" free enterprise in health care? The only big innovation in the Affordable Care Act is the creation of an insurance exchange that will allow people previously unable to buy health insurance to buy it now from PRIVATE insurers, in order to obtain medical care from PRIVATE health care providers. That Act includes some regulation of health care insurers: for example, they cannot refuse to insure you because of any preexisting conditions, and they cannot drop you when you develop serious medical problems. The private insurance companies agreed to accept these limitations in return for the huge new pool of customers that will be available to them through the insurance exchange. How any of this constitutes a "condemnation" of free enterprise is beyond me.
Stick a fork in OBAMA,HE IS DONE... :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57856066@N02/8084698785/in/photostream
Obama is like Viagra to a eunuch.........................useless
Jessie,
Really, OCARE does not affect business???? Go find Mort Zuckerman's column's on this piece of crap. Remember something, HHS Sec. wrote a reg inside the healthcare bill that allows for the Govt. to demand that all companies provide contraceptatives. Before you get them in a wad, My wife and I used contraceptives, they were paid at 9.00 dollars per month from our local pharmacy. Now back to HHS Sec. writing a reg on this, read that again, she wrote a reg insided the shell called OCARE. The bill is not finished because the un-elected govt. bureaucrats are writing what the regs should be. Remember the Congress passed a bill that called for OCARE, but left it to the bureaucrats to write the law.
If you have 50 or more employees, you are demanded to supply healthcare. Now you have 48 employees, life is good, making good money as the owner, putting a few bucks in your pocket, but not enough to provide full coverage on healthcare. Now, do you think they are going to add 2, 4, 15 more employees and then be responsible to add healtcare? Worse yet, you have 54 employees, and all 54 are wondering, which 5 of us are going to be laid off?
That is reality folks, you have to figure this. Zuckerberg is a DEM, and feels that this is the worst piece of legislation ever signed into law. Cost 1.81 per employee per hour. 50 employees equals 175K per year in extra costs to an employer of 50 people. You would have to increase your sales by 1MM at a 20% margin to just pay this, not counting all the other costs it takes to get to another 1mm in sales---Mrkting, advertising, another truck, more sales people, etc.
Rush Limbaugh has printed the actual transcripts and videos of Obama's speeches and apologies from 2009.
Sorry, Libs, but there is plenty of evidence about Obama and his apology for America, and for us
Given all the evidence, the vehemence of your denials is astonishing.
Just fantastic someone finally puts in his lying face
I see that Malicious Malkin and/or other right-wing propagandists has/have sent their knuckle-dragging True Believers over to this site.
Geez. It's not like the Apology Tour was caught on videotape or anything.
http://freebeacon.com/five-times-obama-has-apologized-for-america/
Keep spinning, moonbats.
"...notoriously liberal "fact-check" websites..." ? The act of fact-checking in and of itself suggests impartiality. The GOP has your psyche twisted in knots. I have to say it...You're the spinning moonbat, dude.
"But for those who still care about facts and reality . . . "
Those folks aren't Romney voters. Period.
Don't mean to be glib about this, but it's true. If you're a Romney voter at this point, you either don't know or don't care. Scary that seems to include so much of the country.
What a pompous LIE this ARTICLE is. Mitt and we conservatives have defined what we call the "apology tour" and saying that it was an apology tour is being VERY kind to the President.
What the President ACTUALLY did is go overseas and CONDEMN America.
Only you ignorant liberals are the ones who don't care about the truth.
So perhaps it IS a misnomer to call it an "apology" tour. Instead we should take off the kid gloves and call it Obama's "I hate America tour" instead.
Try informing yourself and listen to the clips of this - there is no debate that he did indeed say the things he is accused of saying, and characterizing them as an apology is being VERY kind.
Sparkle, you used 0 facts to support your statement. You are disqualified.
Romney's the liar??? Are you KIDDING me? I've got one word for you: Benghazi. (You should probably read some real news once in a while.)
wow, another article on semantics. how desperate are you when you defend your actions with semantics. its an old game, acts of terror in the white house now mean terrorist attack, never mind the two weeks of video (semantics). or "you didn't build that" he didn't mean what he said more semantics now no apology tour again more semantics, the american people are not stupid we remember those speeches we remember how they made us feel about america. we see through this mask to the incompetence, the always blaming someone else or blaming those that heard it. whose fault will his defeat be, I bet he blames George Bush. but at the very least he will have been misunderstood, maybe its his incredible command of english.
I guess since the "Apology Tour" remains an enigma to the democrats, we can accurately call it the "Treason Tour" and they should understand that.
The problem for Romney and his supporters is that there's a record of what Obama actually said, and it doesn't support their story. Here's the quotation, in full:
"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
Of course, you may disagree with Obama's assessment that America has, on occasion, been arrogant and dismissive in its foreign policy (perhaps you just slept through the reign of King George the Shrub), but it takes a special brand of right-wing dishonesty to label this statement, when read in context, as an "apology," let alone a "condemnation" of America. So it really doesn't matter whether you brand it an "apology tour" or an "I hate America" tour. Either way, Mitt Romney is a liar, as are the people defending his lies.
No, this is what O does all the time. I call it the "on one hand, but on the other hand" technique which he uses virtually all the time to never take a definitive stand, to be able to say he said something, or say that he didn't say something. He could just as easily take this entire statement to say, "for God's sake, look at the first part, I clearly criticize America for it's dismissiveness, etc. Never mind the second part, just look at the first". He's just doing the opposite, saying just look at the second part libs, not the first one. It is a clever speechwriting way to try to have it both ways. Good for his speechwriters. They deserve a raise. Bad for America. He starts out apologizing so they'll think he's cool.
And this is what Republicans do all the time; they deliberate pull stuff out of context, and then when their distortions are pointed out to them, they claim that the context doesn't matter. Oh, and nice job of moving the goal posts -- I believe the original claim was that Obama was apologizing for America, not criticizing it. No one here is disputing that he did the latter, but criticism of the behavior of a prior administration is neither an apology nor "America-bashing," and no one who read this quote in its full context could honestly claim otherwise. The whole "Apology Tour" meme is still nothing but a tired Republican lie.
Let's see, hmmm, lying. "I'm going to close Gitmo ..." Was that a lie? Democrats are doing mental gymnastics and a game of Twister to try and take up the line that Mr Romney is lying, but Mr Obama said in "black and white" (no pun intended), "I'm going to close Gitmo." Now that is a real lie. So, maybe that line of Democratic attack against Mr Romney might need to be rethought. I know that Mr Romney is a man of character, conviction, integrity, and will do everything with the good of the nation in mind. Enough said.
So you're saying that Obama criticized America but he wasn't sorry we acted this way, thus it wasn't an apology? What was the purpose of his comment then, was he just rubbing it in to the Europeans?
You need to see this from Mitt's angle, Mitt has bought Companies up at discount prices using other peoples money then obtained government money as he bankrupted the business or outsourced the jobs. He does have an interest in Staples where employees are paid poor wages and given only the required benefits.
If Mitt feels no need to apologize for his own behavior then of course he sees no need to be civil or diplomatic if you are in charge. Civility is nice but greed serves his kind better.
Civil and diplomatic? You mean like being the leader of the free world and using your opportunity in front of your nation to be condescending and childish? Obama, a group of Jr. High kids called, they want their sense of humor back. You can deliver it on one of the few aircraft carriers we have left. Those are the ones you can land planes on.
One guy looked presidential last night, and it wasn't the president.
yabut yabut He killed the welfare work rule ..oh wait that was a lie
yabut yabut He said You didn't build that to businessmen ..oh wait that was a lie
Willard ya got nothing , and we know that you are hoping the low info voters won't notice.
But look at the bright side . If you win You will be able to say " I lied and cheated my way into the white house and proved , truth does not matter any more .
Truthiness , the new standard for accountability , able to ignore " Pants On Fire" ratings with a single shrug.
What a POS
Are talking about the accusation that Mitt wants the Autocompanies to be dissolved? Or perhaps you are talking about Mitt murdering that man's wife - or harrassing gay people. Oh I know!!! You must be talking about Mitt closing all of those plants and shipping those jobs overseas! Maybe it was that Mitt didn't pay taxes for the last umpteen years?
Oh, you aren't? Then just what lie are you guys talking about?
Right so you use robmes lies to dispute the fact that robme lies. Boy with that kind of spin no wonder tea bagged republicans still believe that any day now WMD's will be found in Iraq.
Const Speak---
No Romney said to let Detroit go Bankrupt....I don't recall anyone ever using the term 'dissolve'
It was the TITLE of an Op-Ed article he wrote in the NYTimes...not just an off hand comment. IE he had time to think it, write it, consider it, edit it and revise it. Totally unambiguous. This is NO democrat 'lie'
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
Filing for bankruptcy protection, and restructuring is a normal thing that business do all the time. If you give something the title "too big to fail", you're essentially allowing them to live like they can not die. If you know the country has your back no matter what, you can be reckless. That is not a good value to infuse. This country became great because success was earned, not awarded. If something fails, let it fail. It will learn. Now, many of the biggest entities in America know they are "too big to fail". A recipe for laziness and recklessness.
Frankly True, If you've done any research, you will have found that Romney did not title that article... the NYTimes in fact wrote the title... What A Surprise! However, Romney did in fact advocate for a managed bankruptcy which is in fact what happened under Obama's direction. Might be hard for a Liberal to understand, but that is what happens when you manage your business irresponsibly and run it into the ground... you have to either close up shop or go through a formal re=structuring process. Only in Liberal-Land... and only if you are a big Democratic contributor... would you assume that the American taxpayers should swoop in and put themselves in debt so you can continue on your merry way.
Imb123- I wonder how you apply that argument to the bailout of the financial sector that occurred under Bush (2). Wasn't it the same situation. Well, almost, anyway. The financial sector brought its problems on through greed while the American auto industry developed problems from a failure to adjust to globalization, sort of.
Now, had your approach been followed in that instance it might well have been the end of Western civilization. But, hey, you run your business into the ground you either have to fold up or go through a managed bankruptcy.
So, why didn't you mention both when they are so similar? Or, just the finacial bailout because it was first and biggest?
To lmb123: The Times may have titled the article, but the message was 100% Mitt Romney's. Besides the usual Republican solution of screwing the automobile workers (including slashing salaries and raiding their pension funds), the sort of "managed bankruptcy" prescription that Romney advocated was for private financing, which no lenders were willing to underwrite at that point -- which means that the Romney solution was no solution at all.
While this might be difficult for Ayn Rand acolytes to understand, the market can't fix everything all by itself, and allowing the automobile industry to collapse in on itself would have been devastating to the economy and to national morale. But of course, with a Democrat about to assume the Presidency, those probably weren't too high on the priority list for Mr. Romney.
You have no clue if there was any underwriting. You've just listened to Rachel and the NYT. If there are guarantees backed by the US government, there would be at minimum a consortium of investors willing to take on the risk, particularly at a price point that made sense (don't know what that would have been). One of the reasons higher education is so expensive is that the US government keeps guaranteeing to students loans for tuition, causing the price to rise higher still. Government doesn't give a rat's ass, they're not the one paying it back. Sure they give a 3.4% interest rate for part of the debt (subsidized vs. unsubsidized debt), but the principal amount itself is devastating for a lot of parents and kids. I know, I'm right in the middle of it. I'm in the real estate business. If you have a government lease, you can sell it at an extremely low rate of return because of the credit of the U.S. That means a high price. If the government had provided guarantees on some or all of the debt, a managed bankruptcy would have occurred. As it stands, that's what Obama did, except he screwed the non-union pensions, the first in line secured bondholders. and we're still down something like $27 billion. And I don't know about you, but i don't know a single person that drives a Chrysler, and very few that drive GM's.
And you apparently have no clue about what Romney actually said in that editorial. He didn't propose government guarantees on debtor-in-possession financing; he merely talked about guaranteeing about guaranteeing financing and consumer warranties post-bankruptcy. The problem, however, was that Detroit was in dire need of a cash influx immediately, and couldn't afford to wait to undergo a restructuring. Without DIP financing, those companies would have gone into bankruptcy but never would have re-emerged. And given the precarious state of the financial industry at that point, the chances of any consortium of banks being willing to underwrite a loan without some sort of guarantee was next to nil. And we'd have lost over 1.4 million jobs as a result.
Oh, and since you asked, the person in the parking space next to mine at work drives a Chrysler 300, and I know plenty of folks who drive GM cars as well.
Every time I think we have escaped the Romney generated gravitational pull of the 19th Century we end up whipping around and back again.
This "Add" is nothing but Jingoist chest thumping with a slapdash covering of yellow journalism designed especially for the Fox News audience.
The real tragedy is that there are a lot of people who willfully make themselves believe things like this simply because they are unwilling to accept the fact that Romney has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about.
It is a tragedy, but volume works and if the mainstream media isn't willing to speak out with greater volume than the conservative news stereo surround sound speakers, than those who don't dig a little deeper will once again follow the lies right off the cliff. We need to try and cover this difference by shouting as loud as we can about what Pres. Obama pointed out pretty well last night, that during his visit to Israel he went to the Holocaust Museum and the homes of terrorist victims, while Mitt Romney went to fund raisers. The same so-called apology tour included a major speech about bringing democracy to the Middle East that he had the foresight to realize would be best given in Cairo.
From all I can tell, Obama has out fund raised Romney by a 2-1 margin. Are you telling me that Romney is the one abusing his "volume"? Obama moved the opening day of the NFL season so he could be on TV without competition. This is a baby step towards him being the only thing you see on every channel. Kidding of course, but only kind of kidding.
I heard alot of complaining about POTUS's attack on Mitt during the debate. Tell Mitt to stop whining, this was a debate not a little girl's pillow fight!
Good point... is it ok that Mitt has an attack commercial? Or would you rather he only be issued a pillow?
Romney voters will let him say anything as long as he defeats the evil black man in Whitey's House.
Congrats on playing the Democrat's favorite card....race. When all else fails...throw that one out.
just saying...
Not our fault the shoes fit...
You have to forgive capt re reg he believes inner cities were created by black welfare mothers and not businesses moving away leaving workers without jobs. That is always the problem with conservatives they see symptoms and believe they found the problem and try to cure symptoms using policies that does nothing to cure the disease, pretty much as doctors using sugar pills to cure cancer.
whomitmay
From where I'm standing. Your Obama cures aren't working.
Well that is because you are kneeling in front of robme. But then seeing as the GOP house and senate have pretty much filibustered or ignored Obama's plans really you can't blame Obama for not getting things fixed fast enough from the last time morons put a republican clown into the white house. After all no matter how many times robme lies he will never be king anymore then Obama was elected king, presidents are not all powerful no matter how many times you tea bagged republicans pretend they are.
yes i agree with you...@whomitmay...the right wing has amnesia at least and is just too simple to process thoughts that are multi-dimensional...
bronzestar77
Check out the Mendacity of Mitt on this blog. I think there are a few entries on the topic.
And because I am in a mood. Before you ask.
Mendacity = an instance of lying; falsehood.
Have fun!
tea bagged republicans believe any lie told more then 3 times magically becomes unquestionable truth no matter how many facts show that its a lie. It's beat into them from birth.
whomitmay, what do you think about the deficit? Is it awesome to have a president who overspent by 1 Trillion dollars every year? I don't want to go any deeper for fear of giving you a point you could semantically argue with me, so I'll stop there.
Where was the Tea Party when the Republicans were starting two wars off the books (2001 Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq)? Where was the Tea Party when GW Bush and Cheney let out no bid contracts to Cheney's firm for "security" in Iraq? Where was the Tea Party when Bush gave a big wet kiss to the pharmaceutical industry (no bid contracts again!) when he expanded Medicaid? Where was the Tea Party when Bush erased the Clinton budget surpluses and left office in 2009 with a national debt of $10 trillion? Oh, wait...I get it. There was a Republican in the White House, so he got a pass. But when a black Democrat got elected President, it was time to ramp up the outrage. You are so obvious its comical. Same goes for the "conservative" Republicans "concerned" about the debt. Phonies to the core.
Yesterday's headlines, "Dupont cuts 1,500 workers due to worsening economy". Tell those workers how great Obama is doing. Both candidates have stretched the truth, I agree. Neither is as evil as the other would like you to believe. Just because I don't agree with Obama's policies, doesn't make me a racist. I would be glad to discuss facts with anyone but in the end, it just gets down to name calling. I do like Romney's statement, "An attack on me does not count as an agenda".
In the debate last night Romney said attacking him isn't a plan for the future but the very next morning Pres. Obama's first ad is about his plan for the future and Romney's is attacking Pres. Obama. I'm tired of hearing this argument that President Obama still hasn't laid out his plans for the future. He is continually contrasting his plans for the 99% with Mitt Romney's plans for the 1%. I realized the only difference is in how they say it. Mitt Romney always talks about “his plan for…” because he's not doing anything right now but designing plans for. President Obama is always saying, “what I'm doing is…” because he's already working to fix the future. If you simply state, “the plan I am offering is…” it becomes clear there are two very different plans for the future. Mitt Romney is offering a jobs plan that largely consists of trillions of dollars in tax cuts for everyone, without offering specifics on how he will pay for it. Because the only way to pay for it, is by cutting programs that give the middle class more money than the tax breaks would, so we end up paying for. A plan that has proven to create deficits not jobs, because it takes money away from customers that businesses need to create jobs. President Obama is offering a jobs plan that largely consists of tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, construction and manufacturing jobs, and investments in education that are paid for by $3 trillion in government cuts that strengthen programs and $1 trillion in small tax increases on those who can afford it, so we don't add to the deficit. A plan that has proven to create 5.2 million more jobs and would continue to create more jobs if we did more of it.
Totally agree.
Since the first debate the beltway has been essentially a PR firm for Team Romney.
The beltway spin has consistently been what the Romney campaign would like it to be, from Benghazi to Obama's second term "vision".
A consistent feature of the Romney campaign from the beginning (but which curiously has never made the mendacity list) is saying that "Obama can't defend his record so he attacks me" and "Obama is just talking about the past, not presenting a plan for the future." In addition to the fact that these two attacks contradict each other, the truth is that Obama talks about his record and his plans for a second term in every campaign appearance.
Obama's criticisms of Romney encourage voters to take a closer look at what he's actually saying (or failing to), Romney's criticisms depend on voters <em>not</em> taking a closer look at what Obama is actually saying.
If Obama's record was really that bad, you'd think they'd actually be talking about it, instead of just making stuff up.
I think what Obama should have said and which is true, is that he isn't attacking Willard, he's attacking his policies. Then maybe all these teapots wouldn't have to cry crocodile tears for that nasty black man picking on that nice smile implanted white man.
Obama's record is this. He holds the record for overspending the most of any president EVER. This record could only possibly be broken by him over the next four years. There, now everyone knows his record.
He also says he has a plan to reduce the country's debt. Question, why should we trust him to do it? He said he would cut it in half in his first term but it has tripled. He has plans to put the military to work when they come home. Doing what, building roads? So we have computer specialist, medical personel, etc building roads? His plans seem to be projects, not long term fixes. Projects end. A fix doesn't. And before you start name calling, just answer the questions.
The left making fun of Romney for taking a teleprompter is the height of hypocrisy. Thanks for providing me with a good laugh...
just saying...
Please explain how it was hypocritical to point out that Romney brought his teleprompter with him to Israel, since he considered it a campaign stop and therefore would need his teleprompter. LOL.
The hypocrisy is when the Mitt-iot uses a teleprompter. Only Kenyans are supposed to be addicted to teleprompter use.
Alpha male CEO's are supposed to be able to memorize lies and talking points like they were educated in the best madrassas. And what better madrassas are there than the Right Wing Noise Machine and its echo chamber?
As Patty said, the teleprompter mention was to further illustrate the point that going to Israel was purely a political campaign stop for Romney.
DisgustedWithItAlll--- Why don't you share with the audience, What are the lies?
...bronze apparently can't read the articles to the blogs he comments on...
Just because tea bagged republicans believe robme only means they can't tell the difference between lies and reality. Here is a clue, when robme opens his mouth a lie comes out. How do we know this, well rather simple, you are either for something or against something you can't be both at the same time. robme is for everything while he is against everything so reality is robme lies a lot, in fact he has only told the truth when he says he is wealthy, his dad was governor and he is married, everything else robme lies about.
bronzestar77
Why don't you check out the Mendacity of Mitt on this blog.
And before you ask:
Mendacity = an instance of lying; falsehood.
Have fun.
(Apologies to all if this is a double post.)
Why don't you return your Thesaurus to the library. Its overdue. Or how about this one. "CaptVic, here, you dropped this $5 word in this last post, I thought I'd pick it up for you."
Big vocabularies are nice, but not when you swing them around like a prick.
Alliteration is not inherently cool. You can't simply use the same letter on each word and have it be cool. Doesn't work that way.
So now "mendacity" is a five-dollar word? You must have been home-schooled by chimpanzees.
Thanks shamsky24, that made me laugh.
@ObiviousFactGuy
I was referring to the 39 seperate blog entries made on this blog that list out Mitt Romneys lies.
The last entry had 49 lies listed in it and links to sources to refute the lies.
Here is a link to number 39, and at the bottom of the blog entry are links to the other 38 entries.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/19/14561528-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxix?lite
I would hope that you or bronzestar would go look and study the information that has been posted.
I think that because you attacked my use of the word, which I was only repeating the name of the blog entries, shows me that you like to shoot from the hip without thinking. I assumed that anybody coming here and trolling, may do a little reading. But I am starting to think that the trolls just come and start posting in comments. If you had been a regular troll, you would know about the Chronicling Mitts Mendacity series.
This is aimed squarely at the low-mentality voter. It should be a smashing success as there are so many of them!
Maybe Elton John can revisit his Lion King song redubbed the "Circle of Lies" for an Rmoney spoof-mercial!
I think the thing aimed at the low mentality voter is the billions and billions of dollars in social welfare that the president has been promising and implementing in order to purchase his power.
Here's how it works, buy over 50% of the class a candy bar, and you get elected class president. Well, the best way to do that on a budget is to start with the poorest kids in class, because they'll vote for you if you buy them a snack size bar.
That's low mentality folks. Selling the future of your country for a snack size candy bar wrapped in a food stamp or an unemployment check.
How could a memoir written in 2007 be based on the Apology Tour that didn't take place until 2008 or 2009
I think the more appropriate question is how Obama's European trip could be labeled an "apology tour" when no apologies of any sort were actually made.
Rachel hit the nail on the head when she said that Mitt Romney's Afghanistan reversal is a disqualifying character issue. Mr. Romney, in my mind, disqualified himself a long time ago not only on the Afghanistan issue, but every impoant issue he has flip flopped on. At this point there is absolutely nothing Mitt Romney or his surrogates can say or do to make me want use my time and energy to even consider voting for him. I cannot TRUST this candidate for office. Also, as an American, I am DEEPLY offended that Mitt Romney and the gang still think it is OK to straight up lie like this. Really, what are they thinking about? What are they REALLY thinking about? It's Mitt Romney who needs to go on an apology tour after Nov 6th.
I think Mitt is use to doing back room deals. Where he is meeting with different people in different rooms and he tells each one exactly what they want to hear so that he can seal the deal.
He is not use to being in the public eye with cameras watching and recording him.
And then the information is available to all on the Internet.
Not a good venue for a liar.
Just wanting to point out an obvious fact. It was Obama who made a back room deal with Russia. This was brought to light last night by Mitt, and even though it was the "zinger" of the debate, all anyone wants to talk about are horses and bayonets. You can take the man out of Chicago, but you can't take the Chicago/corruption out of the man. Don't bother replying, just accept what I'm saying and be smarter for it.
I just want to point out that Obama's world record over-spending is WAAAAAAAY more of a dis qualifier than the pulled out of context information about Romney's Afghanistan policy.
Mr Romney's method of debating is to play holdem poker with President Obama, using as
cards recent events, with the prize being the credibility of the voters. Because elements of
the Republican party have claimed to be preventing voter fraud while themselves committing voter fraud, it seems suitable that they have a candidate who is trying to
bluff his way into the office of the Presidency.
Mr Romney's debating method is to play holdem poker with President Obama, using as
his cards recent events, with the prize the credibility of the voters. Inasmuch as elements
of the Republican party are claiming to be preventing voter fraud while they actually try
to commit it, it is appropriate that they have a candidate who is trying to bluff his way
into the Presidency!
Voter fraud was invented in Chicago by democrats. Look in a mirror. This is exhausting.
Despite all of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching from the far right, in-person voter fraud remains a virtually non-existent phenomenon in this country. Meanwhile, where's the outrage from the GOP about the Republican operative in Virginia who was caught trying to toss thousands of Democratic voter registration forms into a dumpster? That is voter fraud, and on a far more massive scale than anything James O'Keefe ever claimed to have exposed.
Just because there there may (or may not) be only a few examples of voter fraud does not mean therefore we should have no standards or laws or procedures common to all Americans (or establish some). Maybe not this election, but figure out over the next 4 years how to get everyone who is a legal resident and qualified voter an identification card for free or with absolutely minimal cost (like $2 or something). If they bitch about paying $2, tell them they don't deserve to vote. If they can buy booze or cigarettes or drive a car, they can save $2 over 4 years to get the thing that is the most important responsibility they have as a citizen.
I'd have no problem with that, but for the fact that many of the states that have enacted voter ID laws don't seem interested in actually providing those IDs to voters, and have in many instances provided confusing and contradictory information as to how to obtain them. A number of states require the production of birth certificates, which can be time-consuming and costly to obtain, and some require multiple forms of ID in addition to photo identification.
If there were a way to ensure that every person who needs a voter ID card had easy access to one, I'd have no objection to an ID requirement. But I have yet to hear a viable proposal on that front, and until I do, I'm not at all convinced that the whole "voter fraud prevention" movement has any interest in providing such assurance.
And just who is manufacturing this latest outrage?
The I -don't-want-a-black-president crowd! How else would the discrepancy be accounted for since it wasn't an issue for President Obama's predecessors! -Kevo
Right, must be because he's black. Oh, and also because none of his predecessors went to all the surrounding countries and called his own country dismissive of other countries beliefs, or derisive, essentially agreeing with the idea that radical muslims have championed, that America is partly to blame for their feelings of oppression.
You don't have to use the words apology, or I'm sorry for something to be an apology.
There still has to be an actual apology, however. There wasn't one, and no matter how many times you and Mitt Romney repeat this lie, you still can't make it true.
Republican = Hypocrisy. Romney/Lyin Ryan = no integrity possible.
I'll be what ever will get me to be president and will do anything to accomplish this desire. Sorry Romney but even your supporters are realizing even holding their noses won't help.
What's with democrats and catchy name calling? Always rhyming names with insults. Its kinda lame. Or the pithy one liners. Sound like they're ripped straight out of those local attack ads where a city councilman has a mean womans voice saying things like "even holding your nose won't help" when referring to his opponent. Just lame and low rent.
BTW, a ton of integrity points to the president last night for his insults and condescending nature towards Mitt Romney. Always good to see the leader of the free world acting like a middle schooler.
I'm wondering what kind of Revenge Tour Romney will embark on after the election?
Romney is such an idiot. Must be the only businessman in America who hasn't read- 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu.
Apparently, Pres. Obama has read it, a lot. Might have had something to do with visiting our "enemies" on his 'tour'. Gee, Romney must think HE is some sort of special overlord who doesn't 'need to' engage with an enemy in an attempt to solve issues. Seems Romney is stuck on - 'attack those who annoy you'....
From an early translation:
"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
Funny how an ancient Chinese tactician understands reality better than an average Republican.
House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets
Obama's budget got 0 votes in the House and in the Senate; guess he doesn't know his enemies or his friends. Romney was able to accomplish a significant agenda in Mass. by working across the aisle with Democrats. Sun Tzu would have found that commendable, as well as the truth of peace through strength.
Cookie cutter democrat post. Here are the ingredients.
1. Site a fancy reference to draw from (this makes you look smart).
2. Completely fabricate ideas (knowing Obama has read the art of war, a lot), (Romney thinking he's above foreign interaction)
3. Insult the republican subject of your post.
See here's the thing, both Obama and Romney are waaaaaay smarter than both you or I, or anyone reading this. The difference is their motivation, morality, and ethics. Obama is furthering the interests of democratic power at the expense of our nations prosperity. His motivation is immoral and unethical. I want someone to re-establish America as the financially healthy leader of the free world. Mitt may not be perfect, but Obama is the opposite of what we need. We need surplus not deficit.
@Betatarheel: First of all, the events you're reporting on actually happened five months ago. Second of all, the proposed budget was rejected by Democrats precisely because it wasn't what the President had proposed. This was the quote from Kent Conrad, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee:
"I think it's readily apparent there is a big difference between the president's budget, which I hold in my hands, and what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the president's budget. This is not the president's budget. So, of course, we're not going to support it. It's not what the president proposed."
So no, Democrats did NOT reject Obama's budget; they rejected a fraudulent document that Republicans attempted to pass off as the President's budget. As for Romney, the reason he was able to "reach across the aisle" in Massachusetts was because, at that time, he was still posing as a moderate. This new, rebooted version of Mitt Romney has no intention of doing the same, and even if he did, the radical right-wingers and teabaggers who control the GOP on a national level would never allow it.
beautifully written, much more concise than I could ever put it. I've tried.
What's with this new love affair Romney has with Israel? He must have promised or made some business propositions with them and the right extremists in Israel..Maybe he promised them Anne's horse. Probably just some more Bain Capitol business.
Sheldon Adelson + $ 100,000,000.00
Makes Israel very interesting
Angel, great speculation. I get the feeling that you've got a ton of facts to back that up, but just don't feel like sharing.
I went and grabbed the little prayer note that he stuck in the wall.
On this issue and many more the GOP/RNC "Pathological Liar and Chief" did not do his research. The GOP/RNC "Intervert and Chief" must have thought he was in one of his very quiet rooms or elevators. The President was totally on task last night! No one knows what Romulian Romney was doing there last night, and it was not a debate. It was the GOP/RNC "Intervert and Chief" saying all night long. "I agree with the President." That is not a debate America.
Oh, damn. I forgot "Forward". Wrote a very long diatribe about the left's messaging, groupthink, catch words like "fact checking", "reality" or "reality-based", "progressive" instead of just saying liberal, "climate change" because "global warming" was debunked, and I forgoty "forward".
"Forward" fits right into the cultish message that MSNBC, the Obama campaign, places like Dkos like to put forward. What do you think of when someone commands you, "Forward"! First things that come to my mind are high stepping communist armies parading in front of Mao or Stalin, or possibly a group of lemmings following each other "forward" off a cliff.
Did anyone notice that in an ad about Obama's "apology tour," they just played tape of Mitt speaking?
They couldn't come up with a single instance of Obama actually saying something that could be construed as an apology.
Rush wouldn't give up the rights -
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/23/it_wasn_t_just_an_apology_tour_it_was_a_condemnation_tour_and_we_have_all_the_evidence_to_prove_it_right_here
The State Department historian’s office maintains a list of presidential foreign travels, so we can quickly see which presidents have visited Israel — and when. Here’s the list since Israel’s founding:
Harry Truman: no visit
Dwight Eisenhower: no visit
John Kennedy: no visit
Lyndon Johnson: no visit
Richard Nixon: sixth year of presidency
Gerald Ford: no visit
Jimmy Carter: third year of presidency
Ronald Reagan: no visit
George H.W. Bush: no visit
Bill Clinton: 4 visits—in the second, third, fourth and sixth years of his presidency
George W. Bush: 2 visits—in the eighth year of his presidency
"Independent fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and FactCheck.org are disputing Romney’s claim as an empty attempt to paint Obama as unpatriotic and weak on foreign policy. While the president did indeed give numerous speeches in the Middle East and elsewhere early in his term, he did not apologize to those nations -- nor mention the word “apology” -- according to fact-checking reports on CNN, Washington Post and elsewhere." http://www.ibtimes.com/did-obamas-apology-tour-really-happen-facts-dispute-romneys-post-debate-potshots-852347
And the difference is, drumroll, Obama embarked on a mid-east tour and went all around Israel. He was right there and didn't stop. THat is what has mad folks mad. No that he didn't go there in his first term but to embark on a mid-east tour and not visit our biggest ally, just doesn't seem right. If you disagree, tell me why but please give a better reason than I am a racist.
He'd already been there once during his campaign. Why did he need to go a second time? And by what measure is Israel our biggest ally -- besides the unprecedented sums of cash we shower upon them every year, that is?
Full debate fact-check here: http://www.pollheadlines.com/news-feeds.php?feed=final-debate-fact-check
Treating other countries with respect appears to have some benefits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687
Could this comment be a veiled attempt to key into the racist sentiment expressed openly in conjunction with the "birther" garbage? I recall some, a talk show host in particular, referring to the President by using his middle name in an attempt (I assume, since this is no longer being done) to emphasize his alleged family association with Islam at a time when many Americans had formed some very misguided and misinformed opinions about that culture.
I can't understand how that could be a debate when Willard was agreeing with most of Obama's policies.