Our Common Good

alittlecoconuttart:

Press Wakes Up to Romney’s Lies, Says There’s ‘no excuse’ for ‘astonishingly misleading’ Jeep Ad

Well it’s about time.

The Romney campaign has jumped the lie shark with their new ad slyly building on the lie that Chrysler is moving Jeep jobs to China. Romney told this easily disproven falsehood to Ohioans at a rally last week. Chrysler pointed out that a “careful and unbiased” understanding “would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”

When asked to comment on Romney’s claims, the Romney campaign at first refused to comment and then defended the lie with an already debunked Bloomberg article that everyone knows is wrong. The press is not impressed. It seems they have finally met a lie they can’t excuse.

Here’s a roundup of the brutal reaction:

Detroit Free Press: “Not only was the story wrong, Romney took criticism for not knowing better and repeating it without questioning it.”

Toledo Blade: “‘The latest Romney ad, I will grant you, is a clever play on words to avoid saying things that are utterly false,’ Mr. Rattner said, referring to a new Romney ad out today. But he said the implication of the ad is ‘just not true. Chrysler is adding people. It’s made major investments in the Toledo Wrangler plant.’”

Huffington Post: “Where the ad goes from misleading to something more nefarious is in the text it shows. At one point, it displays a line from a Bloomberg story stating that Chrysler “plans to return Jeep output to China,” the implication being that the company is moving operations there as opposed to expanding operations that are already there.”

Wall Street Journal: “So far, the Romney campaign hasn’t issued a public statement on the flap.”

Read more criticism to the video here…The Romney campaign has jumped the lie shark with their new ad slyly building on the lie that Chrysler is moving Jeep jobs to China. Romney told this easily disproven falsehood to Ohioans at a rally last week. Chrysler pointed out that a “careful and unbiased” understanding “would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”

When asked to comment on Romney’s claims, the Romney campaign at first refused to comment and then defended the lie with an already debunked Bloomberg article that everyone knows is wrong. The press is not impressed. It seems they have finally met a lie they can’t excuse.

Read more criticism to the video here…

I have no idea what is in his heart. I am just a fat, old broad who speaks too much and probably should keep some of her opinions to herself. When Mitt says: I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose… Roe v. Wade has gone too far… I am pro-choice… I am pro-life… I never really called myself pro-choice…When I am asked if I am pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label… I assume he is a liar. But I actually don’t know for sure he is a liar. He could just be a dumb ass who is confused. Maybe I should just call him honesty-challenged. At least that way, one of his robotic sons won’t haul off and hit me… or shave my head like his father does to those who disagree with him.

I’ve read some of the comments here. I get it. I drank the Kool-Aid so why listen to me? I am just a dumb liberal who doesn’t watch Fox News and therefore hasn’t a clue. You shouldn’t listen to me.

Instead you should listen to someone who really does know what is in Mitt’s heart. Let me introduce you to the woman who has been washing his underwear for 43 years. Well I am assuming that of course. She could have outsourced the laundry duties. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ann Davies Romney:

“Mitt has always been a pro-life person, he governed, when he ran, uhmm, as pro-choice…”

That would be an exact quote. It gets a little complicated after that because Ann finds it hard to make that shit sound truthful, but basically she said that he was pro-life while he campaigned as pro-choice . Then he got elected. Once elected, Mitt realized that he couldn’t actually govern as a pro-choice because, in fact, he was pro-life. So then, and only then, he let everyone know via an editorial in the newspaper that, in fact, he was exactly the opposite of what he campaigned. He was Pro-No Choice. Of course, now he is back to needing women to vote for him so he is willing to be pro-choice-ish again. It’s confuing, I know. Ann has always had a problem separating her whites from her colors.

Let me see if I can wash Mitt’s underwear better than Ann. Mitt misled the voters. He campaigned one way, knowing he was exactly the other way. Unlike Tagg, Ann has no problem calling Mitt a liar… I’m sorry… She has no problem that her husband is a dumb ass… Sorry again… I meant to say that she has no issue with her husband being less than honest. Settle down there Tagg.

Ann may not have a problem with her say anything husband, but I do. I have a problem that the man running for the Republican candidate for President is willing to lie to 100% of the women in America. After all, it’s one thing for him to not care about 47% of the population, but we are now talking about 50.4%. He’s running out of people to be honest with.

I have a problem that he has no issue with misleading voters. I am proud to be one of the 47% (give or take 3.4%) who will never be on the Romney’s Christmas card list. Yes, I checked… just in case you are not familiar with the religion, Mormons do celebrate Christmas. Other than the whole getting your own planet when you die stuff, they actually aren’t as unusual as many want to make them out to be. For instance, Mormons believe in the Ten Commandments too… but clearly the Romney’s are a little lax on that Ninth one.

I am no longer afraid of Tagg Romney despite my lack of Secret Service protection. Your dad is a dumb ass liar. Bring it on, son. I mean it. Really.

During a panel discussion about fact-checking  at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Jim Drinkard, the Associated Press (AP) editor who oversees the wire service’s fact-checking work, said that the AP actually had to limit the number of lies they reported during the Republican debates:

We had to have a self-imposed Michele Bachmann quota in some of those debates.

After the session, Drinkard said that there wasn’t an actual numerical quota on Bachmann at the AP. It’s just that they literally could not keep pace with the number of lies she told and were worried that if the AP had gone back and vetted all of  her claims that seemed a bit dubious, the result would “overload” the debate story.

Drinkard, who is apparently fond of massive understatements, added, “Often she was just more prone to statements that just didn’t add up.”

Donate to Bachmann’s opponent, Jim Graves, now.

abaldwin360:

The National Review ran a magazine cover in which they Photoshopped signs at an Obama rally to read “ABORTION” instead of “FORWARD” as they originally did.

The top image shows the October 1, 2012 cover of “National Review” magazine. 

The image at the bottom shows another photo taken at the same rally.

source

additional source

simonstern:

After catching Mitt Romney repeating another obvious falsehood,Greg Sargent noted this afternoon, “I know this risks getting boring and predictable, but we really should document them all.”

And here they are…

CNN’s Don Lemon examines the difference between bad timing and an outright lie in the latest “No Talking Points.”

(via The political battle over Libya)

The House approved legislation on Thursday that would make it a crime to lie about one’s military service if those lies result in a financial benefit.

The Stolen Valor Act, H.R. 1775, was approved in a 410-3 vote. It was only opposed by just two Republicans and one Democrat.

motherjones:

Have you seen this anti-Obama ad? The Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity is spending millions to run it nationwide. It relates the story of Shona Holmes, a Canadian who says she had to travel to the US to seek free-market treatment for a life-threatening brain tumor.

Thing is, it’s BS — and it has been since her case was first used by anti-Obamacare conservatives in a 2009 ad. It even has its own Wikipedia entry. Turns out Holmes never had a life-threatening brain cancer, but a benign growth, and she skipped out on her scheduled care to get an earlier appointment in the States. Nevertheless, AFP decided to use it for a new, deceptive ad this year.

Meantime, HuffPo relates the story of another Canadian, Ian, who does have a malignant brain cancer - and whose Canadian health benefits paid for his very sensitive care in America, even as he watched his friends to the south suffer and waste away:

Ian goes on to tell a story of a U.S. system where fellow brain tumor patients spent their time pleading with U.S. insurance companies for just one more week of treatment. The friends Ian made at the hospital had to leave treatment early because they had run out of money and the insurance companies would no longer cover the procedure.

Ian is still alive. But his friends are dead.

Republicans are out with a new web video today highlighting their messaging push during the Democratic convention that President Barack Obama is a disappointment, but maybe they could have found a more effective messenger.

The video features a woman breaking up with a cardboard cut-out of Obama, with lines line “You think I didn’t see you with Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney?” and “It’s not me, it’s you.”

But the woman in the video expressing frustration with the president is none other than RNC Director of Hispanic Outreach Bettina Inclan. If Inclan voted for Obama in 2008 she did so privately while publicly supporting Republicans, as Rep. Thad McCotter’s communications director and then a regional Victory director for John McCain’s campaign.

Inclan made waves in May when she declared on an RNC conference call regarding Romney that “As a candidate, to my understanding, he’s still deciding what his position on immigration is.” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski quickly walked the comments back, saying “We never said the governor is still deciding on immigration — I want to make sure we are exponentially clear.”

One Democratic staffer piled on:

“It’s a sad state of affairs over at the RNC,” the staffer said. “They couldn’t find anyone to say anything nice about Mitt Romney at their convention and now they can’t find anyone but an RNC staffer to star in their anti-President Obama web video during the Democratic convention. It might be time for them to have “the talk” with Mitt Romney.”

Representative Paul D. Ryan used his convention speech on Wednesday to fault President Obama for failing to act on a deficit-reduction plan that he himself had helped kill. He chided Democrats for seeking $716 billion in Medicare cuts that he too had sought. And he lamented the nation’s credit rating — which was downgraded after a debt-ceiling standoff that he and other House Republicans helped instigate.

And Mitt Romney, in his acceptance speech on Thursday night, asserted that President Obama’s policies had “not helped create jobs” and that Mr. Obama had gone on an “apology tour” for America. He also warned that the president’s Medicare cuts would “hurt today’s seniors,” claims that have already been labeled false or misleading.

The two speeches — peppered with statements that were incorrect or incomplete — seemed to signal the arrival of a new kind of presidential campaign, one in which concerns about fact-checking have been largely set aside.

The Republican vice presidential candidate recently misstated his marathon time (claiming that he ran the 26.2 mile race in “two hour[s] and fifty-something”), and Runner’s World called his bluff on Friday.

He actually crossed the line at “4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds,” according to the magazine.

That’s just slightly slower than Palin ran in 2005, finishing a marathon in 3:59.

Ryan did, however, beat Oprah Winfrey’s time (a common benchmark for first time marathoners) of 4:29.

Is there anything he won’t lie about? Paul Krugman calls him the Rosie Ruiz of American politics.

In a statement issued by a spokesman, Mr. Ryan tried to laugh the whole thing off as a simple error. But serious runners find that implausible: the difference between sub-three and over-four is the difference between extraordinary and perfectly ordinary, and it’s not something a runner could get wrong, unless he’s a fabulist who imagines his own reality. And does suggesting that Mr. Ryan is delusional rather than dishonest actually make the situation any better?

Which brings us back to the real issues of this presidential campaign.

Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona, which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t accomplished.

shortformblog:

soupsoup:

There has been a surprising trend of outright calling a lie a lie when told by politicians in this leg of the campaign. Hopefully this trend continues as the DNC begins this week, as we’re sure to hear as many distortions, half-truths and outright lies coming from the other side of the…

This is an intriguing debate between two smart journalistic minds: Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith wrote a piece today broadly criticizing the nature of calling policy differences “lies,” as many did with Paul Ryan’s speech; and Anthony De Rosa’s piece, linked here, responds directly to Smith, with a tough kicker line: “What we don’t need is more journalists wasting our time explaining to us why they’re lying.” 

A useful third voice in this debate is the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, who had this to say regarding his blog’s coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech: “I’d personally feel better if our coverage didn’t look so lopsided. But first the campaigns have to be relatively equal. So far in this campaign, you can look fair, or you can be fair, but you can’t be both.” In other words, he’s finding it a struggle to show even-handed balance in the face of what seems to be clear dishonesty.

There’s been this long debate in journalism circles about the nature of political reporting in this era of cloudy phrases, conflated bickering and political oneupsmanship that seems to speed up by the hour. Mix in efforts to balance one side with the other, and you get a lot of questions as to whether this is doing more harm than good to modern discourse. (Hint: It probably isn’t helping things.)

NYU professor Jay Rosen has been one of the strongest advocates for the idea of no-bull truth-rooted reporting over the idea of false balance. He has this crazy idea: Call stuff out when you see it! We’re with him: What’s the point of objectivity (and balance for the sake of balance) if it forces us into debates over the definition of a lie? We shouldn’t be fighting over the definition of a lie. We should be looking for the truth. It’s sad that we even need to debate this.


Just like Snow Snooki, Paul Ryan loves to run, and apparently, he loves to lie too.
Ryan told Hugh Hewitt that he ran a sub 3:00 marathon — ”under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something,” he said.
Funny thing is that Runner’s World can’t find any record of Ryan’s super-fast marathon running.

"Ryan’s name does not show up in the 1991 race results provided by Grandma’s. Runner’s World checked 11 years of results for Grandma’s Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis.
Ryan’s middle name is Davis, and he was 20 in 1990. The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave…
UPDATE: The Ryan camp has issued a statement (also noted by karen marie in the comments) from Lyin’ Ryan:

"The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight."


(via Dependable Renegade: Chairiots of Liar (updated))

Just like Snow Snooki, Paul Ryan loves to run, and apparently, he loves to lie too.

Ryan told Hugh Hewitt that he ran a sub 3:00 marathon — ”under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something,” he said.

Funny thing is that Runner’s World can’t find any record of Ryan’s super-fast marathon running.

"Ryan’s name does not show up in the 1991 race results provided by Grandma’s. Runner’s World checked 11 years of results for Grandma’s Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis.

Ryan’s middle name is Davis, and he was 20 in 1990. The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

UPDATE: The Ryan camp has issued a statement (also noted by karen marie in the comments) from Lyin’ Ryan:

"The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight."

(via Dependable Renegade: Chairiots of Liar (updated))

It was a truly breathtaking display of brazen dishonesty. Paul Ryan looked America in the eye and without a hint a shame, lied to our face.

[…]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said he counted “seven or eight” claims that “fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute,” but concluded the lies didn’t matter because it was “a powerful speech” that gave Republicans what they “were hoping for.”

CNN’s Erin Burnett added, “There will be issues with some of the facts, but it motivated people.”

Let that sentence roll around in your brain for a moment, and ponder what it means for our country.