Who is a third-party libertarian, and therefore pretty much ineligible. Also, he has campaign ads? 
And lastly, yeah, both sides have lied. But here’s the thing: Romney’s entire campaign has been based on those lies. Obama has some real meat to grab on to against Romney– his refusal to release his tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, his lack of anything that isn’t just GWB 2.0, and of course his budget plans, which are so full of holes that it’s rather embarrassing. Romney? For some reason, he’s staked his campaign almost entirely upon lie after lie – lies about the deficit, lies about the debt, lies about what “you didn’t build that” is referring to, lies about Obama’s welfare plans… Has he ever even offered one honest criticism of the Obama administration?
That’s just wrong. Romney has been running ads touting what he would do on his 1st day, and his business and Olympics experience, as well as his governors’ experience. He has also run ads attacking the President’s economic record.
Yes, there have been lies and low blows to go along with that. The President’s campaign has followed the same template. There is no difference between the two campaigns that I can see. Both are about 10% positive, 40% negative and truthful, and 40% negative and dishonest.
In other words, only the government is allowed to lie.
Really? Let’s see 'em.
If you round carefully, and ignore the content and gravity of the individual statements, then yes, you could come to this conclusion.
(To explain, the Truth-O-Meter counts " Says Mitt Romney opposes requiring employers to cover contraception and would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. " and “As president, Barack Obama has never visited Israel.” as equally valid truths – however, the former is far more damning and meaningful than the latter.)
Which ads do you want to see of Romney’s? And how are Romney’s lies of greater gravity than Obama’s?
It would be easier for you to point to a single truthful statement by Romney.
Remember, there are also separation of powers/political question issues here. Citizens United notwithstanding, the courts are not keen on getting involved in election law unless voters are being disenfranchised - and often not even then.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign gets busted in a really dirty, nasty lie:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-camp-acknowledges-knowing-mans-story-131577.html
Tell me again about the greater gravity of Romney’s lying?
What “dirty, nasty lie”? They were caught lying about whether they knew anything about the ad. There’s no indication that anything in the ad wasn’t true.
That’s a garden variety lie. Not at all dirty or nasty. And not made by Obama himself. The problem with Romney is that he states the lies himself, and does nothing to correct them. Quite the opposite he addresses one lie with another.
That’s a good question:
(a) Claiming you don’t know the details of somebody’s story in an ad you didn’t create when it turns out he told the same story on a call 4 months ago, which fact, once pointed out, you readily agree with. Also, lets note that none of these claims were made by Obama himself.
(b) Claiming the President of the United States doesn’t have a plan for the job growth (he does), gutted Welfare Reform (he didn’t), went on an “apology tour” (he didn’t), and took military action off the table wrt Iranian nukes (he didn’t). All of these claims were made directly by the candidate and none have been corrected by him or the campaign.
I’ll get back to you on which list I find contains more gravity…
All the story says is the campaign denied knowing the man’s story. Nothing about his wife dying of cancer after being laid off being untrue.
The things being cited are pretty poor examples of lies. The statements could be more precise. For example, Obama isn’t “gutting” welfare reform, but he has certainly loosened the work requirement and put a major foe of welfare reform in charge of implementing the changes. Obama didn’t go on an “apology tour”, but he did make a point of apologizing for past American actions. Obama does technically have a plan for job growth, but many very reasonable people wouldn’t consider a public sector jobs plan to be a real jobs plan. The President can claim he has a budget, but it’s hard to take it seriously. To me, it’s fair to say Obama has no budget. And no jobs plan.
So Obama is directly lying PERSONALLY about Mitt Romney, while Mitt Romney is making black and white distinctions on POLICY issues that have more shades of gray. Wow. Romney’s lies are so much more consequential. He’s attacking the President on policy, while the President is merely attacking Romney personally. I think we have inverted views of what kind of lies are more toxic.
As for the ad in question from Priorities USA:
False.
Joe Soptic said in the ad that when the plant closed, “my family lost their health care.” Yet Soptic’s wife had insurance for about a year or two after that through her own employer, according to CNN, a fact that Burton’s group acknowledges.
Soptic said, “A short time after that (the closing of the plant), my wife became ill.” But that’s collapsing the time frame. The illness took place in 2006, some five years after Soptic lost his job, according to POLITICO.
The connection between Soptic’s job, his wife’s lack of insurance and her illness is complicated. She had no insurance because a shoulder injury caused her to leave a job that provided coverage. That was the immediate reason for her being uninsured, not the plant closure.
Did you miss the four posts preceding yours? Did you miss the two pages of a previous thread where Ravenman pointed out to you exhaustively how wrong you were about Obama’s “non-existent” budget and jobs plan?
When his budget gets a single vote, it will exist. When his jobs plan has a way to get private sector companies hiring again, it will be a jobs plan.
In the meantime, it is entirely fair to say that he doesn’t have either.
Besides, citing SMDB standards doesn’t fly in this case. Didn’t we establish that with Harry Reid’s accusations?
Please get back to us when Obama adds his endorsement to the ad you are accusing him of lying in.
The lies we are pointing out concerning Romney he say’s I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.
If you want to use the old ‘both sides do it’ please bring some ads in which Obama actually does it.
In other words, you remember that stuff but you’re going to handwave away all the facts.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
All of the construction done on public infrastructure is done by private companies that bid on public contracts.
That’s easy:
Do you honestly not know that Obama’s campaign is lying frequently? If so, the problem in this thread comes down to some serious information assymmetry. You guys must be reading only liberal blogs or something.
As for the jobs plan, the Obama campaign response to Romney’s statement is instructive:
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt fired back at Romney over the line.
“Where is Romney’s jobs plan?” he told TPM. “Look through his economic plan - it’s more tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations, and letting Wall Street write its own rules again. Not a jobs plan.”
So we’ve established that it’s okay to call something “not a jobs plan” if you don’t actually believe it’s a jobs plan. Therefore, Romney did not lie.
You’ll also notice that Democrats constantly trot out the talking point that the Republican House has not passed any jobs bills. Except they did. So apparently, what is and is not a jobs plan is a legitimate subject for debate, and thus saying your opponent doesn’t have one does not qualify as a lie.
see, this is what bugs me about the liberal blogosphere and how it carries over into debate boards. They decide what the truth is, and any disagreement is not only wrong, but constitutes bad faith. It’s an echo chamber.