Steve Benen, formerly of Washington Monthly, now at Rachel Maddow’s blog, has noticed for a while that Romney is unusually untruthful, even for a Republican politician. Let’s take the past week, number 9 in a series. Steve Benen counts 10 examples:
#7 looks more like a “Highly dubious claim” than an untruth. Though it would be better to say something like, “The US lost its AAA credit rating on Obama’s watch”. On #8, Romney plans to raise taxes on the bottom 20% and cut them for everyone else. Naturally the top 1% receive a rate cut that is over four times that of the middle 20%. But I’d still downgrade his claim to “Highly misleading”. Number 10 is bull in terms of theme, and inaccurate in narrow fact- though the latter has a whiff of poetic license. Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 look like straight untruths. (Anybody want to investigate the remainder?)
Anyway, we will probably be hearing more about Romney’s mendacity later, so we should have a look at this now. It won’t hurt. Paul Waldman, inspecting clearer examples (Ref: Iran) wonders when the press will step up to the plate. Josh Marshall thinks that Romney treats policy as products to be rolled out and retooled with whatever matches the latest fashion:
I think the Republican base is past caring about facts. Those of sensitive disposition seek reassurance even if it leaves them less informed. So I doubt whether Santorum’s attacks will gain traction. Ironically, Gingrich the demagogue has a better chance of staining Romney’s brand, as the old bomb-thrower is a master of the withering sound bite.
Disclaimer: I’m an ultra-liberal by contemporary US standards and a centrist by European ones. I’d probably choose Ford over Carter (and definitely Carter over Reagan). Bill Clinton lied about blowjobs on TV, and I opposed his blowjob policy. See my distinction above about “Substantive Policy” vs. “Stupid shit”.
That’s not all though, he also instituted NAFTA, militarised the borders and the repeal of Glass-Steagall was under his administration (though initiated by Republican Congressmen). That said, I’m pretty left wing even by European standards, so I guess that’d make me the reincarnation of Stalin in the US.
Benan does his argument a diservice by padding a list of straight-up lies with more debatable points. #1-#6 are really just straight up lies. The other stuff is pretty squirrelly to, but they aren’t the same kind of thing. Putting them with the first six points make the first six points look less egregious then they would otherwise.
If Mitt Romney only lies ten times a week, then I’d say he’s unusually truthful for a Republican or Democratic politician. (Though in fairness, we don’t know those ten are the only lies Romney told in the past week.) Lying pretty much comes with the job description for big-league politicians. No one who gave fully honest presentations of their own positions and their opponent’s positions could possibly be elected.
I completely agree with you. The real test of a candidate is whether they can lie to our faces in such a way that we still like them afterward. Or they have to be able to talk about a subject, over and over, without conveying any useful information.
Romney’s campaign strategy of “it’s all Obama’s fault” is causing him to over reach to make points too.
I disagree. While politicians may often be disingenuous or subscribe to interpretations of events that no reasonable person would to make themselves look better, I think cases of politicians telling straight-up factual, provable lies is a lot less common then people think.
That’s why Benan is dumb to mix stuff stuff like #3 on his list, which is blatant lie and I think significantly worse then the “average politician” does, with stuff like #8, which is just standard issue weaselling of what it means to “raise taxes” that is indeed a staple of every political campaign.
I admit that this is a strategy that’s going to resonate with the GOP, but what ever happened to “My opponent is an honorable and decent guy, but I can do the job better.”?
If you’re going to demonize Obama, you pretty much have to stretch the truth a bit, because he’s been generally pretty centrist except for the “slightly increase taxes on the very rich” platform and that whole socialistic health care thing. It is true that making sure people can get insured for pre-existing conditions does mean the end of democratic society as we know it.
Yes, Mitt is a chronic liar. Truth is very much optional in Republican politics, anyway. I’m bothered more by his ads that stir outraged indignation about reasonable actions. Who hasn’t seen Romney’s anti-Santorum ads that said “Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling FIVE TIMES!” Oh my God, it’s true! But what they don’t say is that Santorum actually voted correctly, if a single one of those debt ceiling increases had failed, Depression would have surely followed. Sure, Romney lies. But even when he tells the truth, he does so dishonestly.
This position is why the country is in trouble. It is not true that all politicians lie the same amount. Some politicians stir up hatred, some do not. Some politicians run ads taking statements baldly out of context and then, when called on, it say tough.
While not a lie, Romney criticizing Santorum for voting to raise the debt ceiling does not help government to run smoothly, not if a politician is going to be afraid to make a perfectly reasonable housekeeping vote which should be uncontroversial because he’ll get raked over the coals for it if he runs again.
I think Romney might be the most dishonest of the four running.
Romney is no more or less truthful than any politician on the right. What he does have a problem with is authenticity. Whether he’s strapping his dog to the roof of his car, having his son tweet a photo of him doing laundry, claiming “the trees are the right height” in Michigan, or his “y’all” and “I ate cheesy grits” pandering in Alabama, the evidence is sure piling up: Romney is kind of a weird duck–and that has nothing to do with his religion.
Eh, thats just standard political pandering. Romney isn’t as good at it as some others, but I don’t think he’s any more guilty of it then other politicians.
I don’t even think its particularly harmful. I kind of like watching Obama try bowling, or Fred Thompson have his driver drop him off a block from political rallies so he can drive the last couple hundred feet in a pick-up truck or watch Hillary choke down whatever horrible greasy mystery meat is the “local delicacy” out in the backwoods of Missouri. Or for that matter, watch Romney pretend to do his own house chores.
I guess its dishonest, but its so transparent and such a long standing staple of US politics that I just sort of find it part of the fun of the campaign season.
Fun fact: In JFK’s famous speech “we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”, the “other thing” in the context of the speech was have the local sports team beat their traditional rivals. Even our best and most famous political speeches aren’t free of the awkward political pander.
With respect, you guys don’t pay close enough attention. Smoke blowing and hyperbole are far more frequent than straight-up untruths. The media used to call politicians on things like that: with the rise of right wing advocacy media, that habit has gone into decline.
Yes. All politicians are not identical clones.
Yeah, it’s demagoguery, not lying.
Yes. He’s the sane candidate who has to persuade the base that he’s crazy. One way he does that is to make up things that Obama never said, then attack that. This stuff matters. GWBush lied about his tax plan in 2000 while the media slept. Later he cooked intelligence in the runup to the Iraqi war: dishonesty has more than a corrosive effect on policy. It can be toxic.
As a side effect, his untruths paper over the fact or at least possibility that he’s an utter ignoramus on foreign policy. Romney is a bright guy, but I have no idea whether he’s set aside time to seriously study the subject. I believe that he has reasonably cool headed instincts, but that might not be good enough. Unlike Bill Clinton and Obama, I haven’t heard about him seeking out foreign policy mavens. Will he plonk for guys like Snowcroft or Paul Wolfowitz? Or doesn’t he really care?
[wisecrack]Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations. [/wisecrack]
Actually, I partly (mostly?) agree with you. That said, it really is misleading to say, “Obama wants to raise your taxes” without alluding to the fact that he wants to raise it only on 250K+. Far better would be to say, “Well Obama claims that he will only raise taxes on higher income households. We’ve heard that one before!!” Indeed, GHWBush I used the line, “Mr. and Mrs. America: hold on to your wallets!” My point is that even #8 represents a decline in truthfulness, relative to 20 years ago, and possibly relative to Ron Paul.
It seems that the media has stopped keeping score.
ETA: In my view cultural pandering is harmless and is unworthy of notice or debate.
All politicians pander to their audiences to some extent - Romney just does it very, very badly.
As for food, may I quote Dylan from his second album?
[QUOTE=Zimmerman]
Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote
He’s a-runnin’ for office on the ballot note
He’s out there preachin’ in front of the steeple
Tellin’ me he loves all kinds-a people
(He’s eatin’ bagels
He’s eatin’ pizza
He’s eatin’ chitlins).
[/QUOTE]
I believe he was referring to Nelson Rockefeller, a guy who could have bought Romney several times over, but who was a lot better at relating to people than Mitt is.