Romney’s pants on fire

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kid_Kyoto**

THe center-right Washington Post just took Romney to task for his 'distortions of the truth' ie outright lies.

This is has become increasingly rare in DC where the media bends over backwards to preserve some illusion of 'balance' or risk losing access to sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-distortions-about-obama-do-us-a-disservice/2012/05/28/gJQA9JuTxU_story.html

Romney’s pants on fire
By Eugene Robinson, Published: May 28

There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Mitt Romney.

Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.

Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.

“Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” Romney claims on his campaign Web site. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.

An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news Web site owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

Quite the contrary: Spending has increased at a yearly rate of only 1.4 percent during Obama’s tenure, even if you include some stimulus spending (in the 2009 fiscal year) that technically should be attributed to President George W. Bush. This is by far the smallest — I repeat, smallest — increase in spending of any recent president. (The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded the spending increase figure should have been 3.3 percent.)

In Bush’s first term, by contrast, federal spending increased at an annual rate of 7.3 percent; in his second term, the annual rise averaged 8.1 percent. Reagan comes next, in terms of profligacy, followed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally Obama, the thriftiest of them all.

The MarketWatch analysis was re-analyzed by the nonpartisan watchdogs at Politifact who found it “Mostly True” — adding the qualifier because some of the restraint in spending under Obama “was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.” Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.

Another example: Obama “went around the Middle East and apologized for America,” Romney said in March. “You know, instead of apologizing for America he should have stood up and said that as the president of the United States we all take credit for the greatness of this country.” That’s two lies for the price of one. Obama did not, in fact, go around the Middle East, or anywhere else, apologizing for America. And he did, on many occasions, trumpet American greatness and exceptionalism.

Romney offers few specifics, but the conservative Heritage Foundation published a list of “Barack Obama’s Top 10 Apologies” — not one of which is an apology at all.

One alleged instance is a speech Obama gave to the Turkish parliament in 2009, in which he said the United States “is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history . . . [and] still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.” If the folks at Heritage and at the Romney campaign don’t know that this is a simple statement of fact, they really ought to get out more.

Romney does single out the following Obama statement from a 2009 interview: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Romney says this acknowledgment — that others might have as much national pride as we do — means Obama doesn’t really believe in American exceptionalism at all.

But in the same interview, Obama went on to say he was “enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world,” and to tout U.S. economic and military might as well as the nation’s “exceptional” democratic values. So he should be accused of chest-thumping, not groveling.

I could go on and on, from Romney’s laughable charge that Obama is guilty of “appeasement” (ask Osama bin Laden) to claims of his job-creating prowess at Bain Capital. He seems to believe voters are too dumb to discover what the facts really are — or too jaded to care.

On both counts, I disagree.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

© The Washington Post Company

**Joey**

Somewhere in America, a weiner dog is being kicked across the room.
Politicians in all countries bend the truth sometimes, but it does seem strange that in the USA they outright lie without being reprimanded for it.

**biccat**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:THe center-right Washington Post

I lolled.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:THe center-right Washington Post

I lolled.

Overall the Post is more or less centrist, which makes it rare in this day and age if we make it:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:THe center-right journalist and editor (assistant or some such) Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post

I would lol it's kind of like saying:
center-left journalist(ROFL) Sean Hannity slams President.

**Kilkrazy**

Leaving aside assessments of the place where the story was reported, what are people's views on its authenticity?

**AustonT**

Kilkrazy wrote:Leaving aside assessments of the place where the story was reported, what are people's views on its authenticity?

I thought we had already run round the horn on this one.Like last week to no actual conclusion beside finger pointing.

**Da Boss**

Exceptionalism is a detestable philosophy.

The point about the growth of expenditure is not something I've seen adequately answered by any counter argument.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:Leaving aside assessments of the place where the story was reported, what are people's views on its authenticity?

I have no doubt about it's authenticity.

I think Eugene Robinson really did write the op-ed.

As I pointed out in the other rah-rah-Obama thread that Kid Kyoto posted:

the Washington Post's fact checker gave the story [about Obama's deficit spending] "Three Pinocchios" representing "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."

Timeline is as follows:
Marketwatch posts article about how great Obama was on deficit spending.
WaPo fact checker gives Marketwatch story 3 Pinocchios.
Romney echos WaPo fact checker.
WaPo op. ed. criticizes Romney for echoing WaPo fact checker.

**Kid_Kyoto**

A lot of the Post's 'liberal' reputation comes from stories they broke 40 years ago, Watergate, and the Pentagon Papers.

As if exposing White House corruption or military massacres were somehow 'liberal' biases.

Today its a platform for George Will's increasingly senile rants and Jennifer Rubins cut-and-paste of Republican National Committee talking points.

I only call it center-right because they're not actively calling for war with Iran, Pakistan and Yeman at the moment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bicat - didja miss the bit about Politifact saying it was mostly true?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/

**biccat**

Kid_Kyogo wrote:@Biccat - didja miss the bit about Politifact saying it was mostly true?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/

Do you want to know why Politifact's analysis is flawed? If so, read through the other thread.

**juraigamer**

Everything is flawed, unless you live in your own perfect magical world and/or state of mind.

**Mr. Self Destruct**

I've never understood this fixation on the idea that it's somehow bad for the President to apologize for America.

Like seriously, instead of taking accountability for something bad that happened, you want to just look like an donkey-cave and ignore it? Or what? What purpose does that serve?

**LoneLictor**

With any luck people will pay attention to the fact that Romney's a big ol' liar and then they'll decide to vote for the guy who lies less (Obama, not Ron Paul).

**sebster**

Both sides are playing funny buggers with tracking the rate of growth of government spending under each President. I wish they'd stop, but somehow I suspect I'll hear 'spending under Obama is out of control' 'nuhuh it grew more under Bush 1.4%' 'nuhuh that's only because of the supposedly one-off stimulus in Bush's last year' and so on.

You don't have a deficit problem because of discretionary items that Presidents have championed. Even the pile of money thrown at Iraq did not of itself cause any kind of serious deficit issue. You have a deficit issue right now because the economy is struggling. Long term you have a deficit issue because healthcare costs are out of control, and because you refuse to raise overall taxes to a sensible, long term level.

The rising cost of healthcare is something everyone should all know about. But that second issue, that spending is pretty much equal with historic US averages, while tax revenue is at historically low levels... that's something that gets almost no coverage. But it's plain as day, as Ezra Klein points out (funnily enough also in the Washington Post);

"Debt began to rise in the 1980s, and not because we began to spend more on ourselves. Spending went from 21.7 percent of GDP in 1980 to 21.9 percent in 1990. Rather, the major change was on the tax side: Revenues fell from 19 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP."

"Then this generation did the same thing under George W. Bush, of course. Spending rose from 18.6 percent in 2000 to 19.6 percent in 2007, largely due to expenditures related to Sept. 11 and the wars. But the bigger change was, again, on the tax side: Revenues fell from 20.6 percent in 2000 to 18.5 percent in 2007."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/deficits-dont-reflect-a-crisis-of-american-character/2011/08/25/gIQARBFvuR_blog.html

**Ouze**

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I've never understood this fixation on the idea that it's somehow bad for the President to apologize for America

I'm with you on that one. George H.W. Bush once said "I'd never apologize for America"... this is in response to the United States accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner and killing 300 civilians. This is, to me, a horrible thing to say (not to say the least of it as being a response to such a tragedy!), and I rather liked H.W. I think America does a lot of truly great things and as a country we generally try hard to make the world a better place. That being said, no man or nation is infallible and I think it is a mark of strength and courage to stand up and say that "I made a mistake, and I'm sorry for it".

So far as the OP, in my experience facts aren't really important and haven't been for some time. in 2011, something like 15% of people polled still believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. Lying big and then doubling down on it for long enough has been proven to be an effective strategy.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:So far as the OP, in my experience facts aren't really important and haven't been for some time. in 2011, something like 15% of people polled still believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. Lying big and then doubling down on it for long enough has been proven to be an effective strategy.

Yeah, thing is that getting called on a lie in an opinion piece registers to most people as just more political nonsense*. What people actually respond to is when someone gets called on a lie straight to their face. The problem is nothing like that happens anymore, because journalists know interviews with high profile figures are hugely important to their business, and so they're terrified of losing access to the candidates so they won't dare challenge them on anything serious.

The result is that candidates have steadily moved from massaging the truth to telling absolute lies, and that even once those lies get called they will happily repeat them.

*Especially given that many of the lies politicians get caught on are just more political nonsense, as the misleading claim is countered with a claim from the 'debunker' that is at least as misleading.

EDIT - oh, and my signature of course. That's a FOX News commentator, talking about a piece of Republican political theatre. Gingrich and Romney had just finished a remarkably bitter and negative primary campaign, and when Gingrich finally admitted defeat, Romney just started gushing praise for the guy. It isn't just weird to give such a gushing speach about a bitter rival, but to give it knowing that we all know how bitter the relationship is.

It's at a point where not only do the politicians not care that what they're saying is lies, they don't even care that we know they're obviously lies as well. Weird, and creepy.

**Alexzandvar**

Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

**dæl**

Alexzandvar wrote:Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

Well, they'd be much better off with a copy of Plato's Republic, you know a book that tells you how to run a society. And yeah, America could probably do with a bit of self depreciation, but then that would be "Unamerican."

**MeanGreenStompa**

A good book on statesmanship...

**timetowaste85**

And here I thought somebody assaulted him with a Zippo and Axe spray-deodorant.

Drat.

**Ma55ter_fett**

One of these days after reading one to many of sebster's posts my will will break and I'll run out and buy/adopt/steal a King Charles spaniel.

**Melissia**

dæl wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

Well, they'd be much better off with a copy of Plato's Republic, you know a book that tells you how to run a society. And yeah, America could probably do with a bit of self depreciation, but then that would be "Unamerican."

Bah, we mock ourselves all the time.

**Ahtman**

dæl wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

Well, they'd be much better off with a copy of Plato's Republic, you know a book that tells you how to run a society.

Karl Popper would like to have a word with you.

**dæl**

Melissia wrote:
dæl wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

Well, they'd be much better off with a copy of Plato's Republic, you know a book that tells you how to run a society. And yeah, America could probably do with a bit of self depreciation, but then that would be "Unamerican."
Bah, we mock ourselves all the time.

Knowingly? I jest, but to an outsider it appears that your national pride is sometimes a bit too blanket. I realise that there seems a great swathe of America that doesn't really have much in the way of a world view, and that must be pandered to, but could you imagine a US president saying that Germany makes the best cars and the US should be more like them? (Which is pretty spot on) There would be an outrage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
dæl wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:Funny how people wave around the bible as there hand guide for how to run the country, but never talk about how pride is a sin.

Well, they'd be much better off with a copy of Plato's Republic, you know a book that tells you how to run a society.

Karl Popper would like to have a word with you.

Hmmm, hadn't heard his arguments so did a quick google. The fact that certain totalitarian states used misrepresentations of Plato does not invalidate Plato's work. It's like claiming Nietzsche's work invalid as it was misused by the nazis.

**Ahtman**

dæl wrote:Hmmm, hadn't heard his arguments so did a quick google. The fact that certain totalitarian states used misrepresentations of Plato does not invalidate Plato's work. It's like claiming Nietzsche's work invalid as it was misused by the nazis.

Thank god you googled it or I might think you were coming to a hasty conclusion not based on the material.

**dæl**

Ahtman wrote:
dæl wrote:Hmmm, hadn't heard his arguments so did a quick google. The fact that certain totalitarian states used misrepresentations of Plato does not invalidate Plato's work. It's like claiming Nietzsche's work invalid as it was misused by the nazis.

Thank god you googled it or I might think you were coming to a hasty conclusion not based on the material.

I read this overview. My main problem with it is the distinct difference between Plato's guardians and the people that took power in those totalitarian regimes, the guardians were taught very specifically and extensively to remove their selfishness and promote their morality, this had to happen from birth, you could not have intellectual conformity while self interest is involved, it is impossible. These regimes were not perfect and therefore were open to change, this goes against the whole point of Plato's Republic. As I said it bears a striking resemblance to the Ubermensch=Aryan misrepresentation.

**sebster**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:One of these days after reading one to many of sebster's posts my will will break and I'll run out and buy/adopt/steal a King Charles spaniel.

Fortunately there's no chance of you stealing mine. Be lucky if you could carry him to the door, he's such a butterball.

**Poppabear**

Now where is this wiener dog, I thought he enjoyed topics like this!

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

A good book on statesmanship...

I read that when I was ten. Excellent book. I've given it to my kids.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

A good book on statesmanship...

I read that when I was ten. Excellent book. I've given it to my kids.

So much makes sense now.