I’m surprised no one’s pointed out that while all politicians lie, Mittens comes off more sleazy about it…
People do call Romney on his lying, but it doesn’t matter. The Republicans have figured out that the truth simply does not matter. Tell the people that you’re going to cut their taxes, leave their benefits alone, and jack up military spending and that will magically balance the budget at the same time. It doesn’t matter that it’s impossible. It doesn’t matter that their plan on Tuesday in 180 degrees different than their story on Monday. It doesn’t matter if they voted for something that they currently detest. None of it matters. If you tell people what you think they want to hear, they’ll vote for you. They know that they can tell the biggest whoppers with impunity, because the press will bend over backwards to find something with a little cherry-picked spin from the other side, then they’ll proclaim pompously “both sides do it”. When the public gets sophisticated enough to hold lies against a candidate, they’ll stop lying. But don’t hold your breath, with the nation roughly equally split, what the Republicans do is lie shamelessy to the low-information voters that they need, knowing that this group is too lazy to figure out that they’re getting lied to.
You shouldn’t make it so obvious that you don’t read threads before posting.
That’s just adaher, jumping in to change the subject whenever his guy starts to look bad. Which is always…
Or that I read the thread, but decided that was an appropriate interpretation of adaher’s position on Romney.
Please be fair, he’s talking about dontbesojumpy’s multiposts.
There are a lot of reasons behind the media’s failure to call Romney on his bullshit, but the main one is that no one is really listening. Half the people don’t care what he says, and the other half think everything he says is a lie. It looks the same from the other side when considering Obama.
I dunno, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. In fact, we’d better don’t be so jumpy. Speaking of which, enquiring minds would like to know about the relative sleaziness of politicians’ lies. Why isn’t anybody mentioning this?
A lot of people who cover elections are more interested in strategy and electoral map hypotheticals and easy-to-digest narratives about the campaign and momentum and gaffes than in digging into more controversial subjects like serious evaluation of the candidates, their positions, and (particularly in Romney’s case) the fact that is very free in lying about his own statements and policies on most issues.
It’s a horse race, with favorites, longshots, quick starts, momentum shifts, comebacks, predictions, suspense, close finishes, winners, and losers.
Whether any given policy might actually work is of interest only to wonks.
What’s going on here is that many of you are living in a fantasy world where one candidate is an honest, upstanding guy and the other is a lying sleazebag. How come the media doesn’t see that? Because they’ve been around and they know that’s politics. If there’s a particularly blatant lie going on they’ll jump on it, but the usual political BS and flip-flopping barely gets noticed.
Which candidate is the more dishonest is a legitimate subject for debate. Where many of you go wrong is in assuming it’s just open and shut that Romney is worse and the media should agree with you.
It is open and shut. I won’t give gold stars to Obama for honesty, but it’s clear that Romney will say anything to get elected. It is impossible for anyone to honestly hold the number of mutually exclusive positions on issues that he has. Obama is just a run of the mill politician in this category.
Rolling Stone Magazine:
Obama calls Romney a “Bullshitter.”
So, on October 11th 2012 we have documented proof that Obama did in fact call Romney on his BS. I assume he hasn’t stopped.
When you have a choice between a single glowing charcoal and a halogen bulb for lighting up a dark room, are you going to waste time pondering exactly how much light the charcoal gives off?
This is true. Obama has his weak points and has made political calculations, but at least you believe he has some core convictions, i.e. his positions are at least somewhat predictable. Romney, on the other hand, has displayed no deeply-held beliefs; he is an utterly generic GOP candidate.
The best example of this IMO comes from the aftermath of Romney’s pick of running mate Paul Ryan. One might presume he did this because he agrees with what Ryan has been saying regarding the social safety net in general and Medicare in particular. But I’d argue that rather than leading to a more-clearly defined Romney, it’s led to a more generic Ryan.
Obama to face impeachment: news at 11
President uses barnyard epithet to malign Romney’s honesty.
Vulgar Pres demeans dignity of office
House to hold hearings on “BSgate”
Sorry–just practicing writing ledes for Fox News
I’d fully expect Adaher, OMG, Ditka et al to have a “GLOWING CHARCOAL 2012” sign in their front yard.
And, that’s why I think many of you are living in an alternate reality. It’s a common thing, minimizing the flaws of the guy you like while magnifying the flaws of the guy you don’t like.
no, u
Personal commentary doesn’t belong in this forum, adaher. Stop now. pseudotriton ruber ruber, that also goes for responding in kind.